Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/04/2000 RMay 4, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 4, 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 Pedone Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Gary Wrage NOT PRESENT: Michael J. Bruet Russell A. Priddy 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, MAY 4, 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 ALLOTFED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERLALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITFEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITFED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 6, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-09, Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., representing Charles Plaskon, requesting a 16-foot boat dock extension from the permitted 5 feet to 21 feet for a dock and boathouse for property located at 211 Dolphin Cove Court further described as Lot 3, Dolphin Cove, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Fo BD-2000-03, Miles L. Scofield, Scofield Marine Construction, representing Michael Zaccheo, requesting a 31-foot extension beyond the permitted 20 feet for a dock protruding a total of 51 feet into the waterway for property located at 63 Southport Cove, further described as Lot 58, Unit 1, Southport on the Bay in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Companion to V-2000-07) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-2000-07, Miles Scofield, Scofield Marine Construction, representing Michael Zaccheo, requesting a 12- foot variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback for docking facilities on property located at 63 Southport Cove, further described as Lot 58, Unit 1, Southport on the Bay, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Companion to BD-2000-03) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-2000-08, Joseph Sahatino, requesting a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the east side yard of Lot 37 and; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the west side yard of Lots 13 and 14; a variance of 1-foot from the required 6-foot maximum to a 7-foot maximum for height of the courtyard walls; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the side lot lines and within the courtyard walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the required 10 feet to 0 feet for accessory sUuctures along the rear lot lines and within the courtyard walls for properties described as Lots 13, 14, 15, 36, 37 and 38, Block 17, Naples Park, Unit 2, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUD-2000-01, Karen Bishop of Project Management, representing Kenneth W. Richman, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as "Northside Medical Plaza" for medical office and medical related uses for 3.79 acres of property located south of Immokalee Road, south of the Veteran's Park PUD in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PUD-2000-02, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Mark L. Lindner, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hibiscus Village PUD for a maximum of 200 affordable residential housing units for property located on the west side of S.R. 951, approximately 3/~ miles north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.764- acres. (Continued from 4/20) (Coordinator: ChahramBadamtchian) PUD-91-05(1), Dwight Nadeau of MeAnly Engineering and Design Inc., representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Habitat Place PUD (formerly East Trail RV Park PUD) having the effect of changing the PUD name and project ownership, deleting recreational vehicle units as a permitted use, and replacing with a maximum of 100 single-family affordable housing units, for property located on the south side of U.S. 41, approximately 3 miles east of S.R. 951, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20.20-2: acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-99-05(1), Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Long Bay Partners, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" and "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Mediterra PUD having the effect of increasing acreage from 9434- acres to 9544- acres, for property located west of 1-75 along the Livingston Road East/West corridor in Sections 11 and 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) PUD-86-06(1), Kevin McVickcr of Phoenix Planning and Engineering, representing Jon Laidig, requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Loch Ridge PUD having the effect of amending the PUD document by adding Group Care Facilities to allow an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) as a permitted use for property located on the south side of Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), east of Crown Point Boulevard West, in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East' consisting of 13.444- acres. (Companion to CU-99-03) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) CU-99-03, Kevin McVicker of Phoenix Planning and Engineering, representing the Jori and Sonya Laidig Foundation, requesting Conditional Use "16" of the "A" zoning district per Section 2.2.2.3 for an Adult Congregate Living Facility for property located at the southeast comer of Davis Boulevard and Crown Point Boulevard West in Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, ColHer County, Florida, consisting of 8.044- acres. (Companion to PUD-86-06(1) (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) 2 Lo CU-2000-04, Tim Hancock, AICP, of Planning Solutions, Inc., representing Dr. Scott Gregory, requesting Conditional Use "15" of the "A" zoning district for a veterinary clinic per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located at 470 Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 4.78± acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2000-05, R. Brace Anderson, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., and Stephen G. Sposato, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., representing Royal Palm International Academy, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "10" of the "A" zoning district for a private school per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately 1.5 miles north of Immokalee Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.5± acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) DOA=2000=01, William R. Vines of Vines and Associates, representing Richard K. Bennett, Trustee, for an amendment to the Citygate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order 88-2, as amended for thc purpose of extending dates for initiation of construction activities, amending phasing schedule and the time the development order is to remain in effect. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) DOA-2000-02, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., representing the Olde Cypress Development Corporation, for an Amendment to the Olde Cypress Development of Regional Impact (RI) Development Order for the purpose of adding 9.3± acres of land and making adjustments to the Master Plan to account for the effect of the added land for property located on the north side of Immokalee Road, 1.3 miles east of 1-75, in Sections 21 & 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 538.1 ± acres. (Companion to PUD-99-18(1)) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) PUD-99-18(I), Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., representing the Olde Cypress Development Corporation, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "PUD" Planned Unit Development to "PUD" known as Olde Cypress PUD for the purpose of adding 9.3± acres of land for a golf course driving range, and to revise the PUD to reflect changes brought on by the use of the added !and and other changes to the PUD document relative to setback requirements, for property located on the north side of lmmokalee Road, 1.3 miles east of 1-75, in Section 21 & 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 538.1 ± acres. (Companion to DOA-2000-02) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) Po CP-2000-01, A Resolution approving the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to establish the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) CP-99-08, An Ordinance amending the Future Land Use Element of Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida; by amending the text for Activity Center ~9; amending map entitled Activity Center ~); providing for severability; and providing an effective date. (Coordinator: Amy Taylor) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 5/4/00 AGENDA/RN/im 3 May 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to bring this Planning Commission meeting to order. We will start with the roll call. Mr. Priddy is absent. Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Urbanik has resigned. Mr. Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Budd is here. Mr. Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet is absent. Mr. Saadeh is absent. Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Present. Okay, any addenda to the agenda? There are none. Approval of the minutes from our April 6th meeting. Do we have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, I missed the motion. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'll make that motion. by Mr. Wrage, second by Ms. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Planning Commission absences. I would like to point out in addition to our regular first and third Thursday meetings, two weeks from yesterday, 5:05 p.m., we have a Land Development Code hearing, so we need to know if there's any absences for our regular hearings, as well as the LDC. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll be absent from the next LDC meeting and the next regular meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Everyone else is going to be here? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I will be at the LDC meeting but will not at the planning meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm going to have to leave this meeting between 9:30 and 10:00. I hope somebody else shows Page 2 May 4, 2000 up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So do we. MS. STUDENT: Yes, there will be a quorum. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just to clarify that, we barely have a quorum now with five. If Mr. Abernathy leaves, we lose our quorum and we're done for the day.So we will proceed as expeditiously as possible. Any other absences? Moving on to the Board of County Commissioners' report. Ron? MR. NINO: Nothing to report. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Nothing to report. No chairman's report. We'll move right into our advertised public hearings. I would like to announce for the members of the audience, just a reminder, we have speaker slips out in the hall. It helps our court reporter and the proceedings immeasurably if you intend to speak, to fill out a speaker slip, turn it into Mr. Nino, and it helps us keep track of everything and flow more smoothly. With that, we will hear BD-2000-09. Mr. Gochenaur. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. any For the (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me,Ross, are there disclosures on this? We have no -- go ahead. Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting approval of a boathouse to be built in con]unction with a 16-foot dock extension, creating a facility that would protrude a total of 21 feet into the 80-foot wide waterway. Although the dock itself would protrude 21 feet, the boathouse would not exceed the 20-foot limit for boathouses. The property is located at 211 Dolphin Cove in Little Hickory Shores, and contains about 90 feet of water frontage. The facility would meet all code criteria for a boathouse, and the roof would match that of a principal structure. Eight similar dock extensions ranging from 17 to 22 feet, including two with boathouses, have been approved on this canal. No objections to this project have been received, and staff Page 3 May 4, 2000 recommends approval. Questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? The petitioner wish to make any comments? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we approve BD-2000-09. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: I neglected to advise that Petition F, there's been a request for a continuance. That is the Hibiscus Village PUD. There may be people here that knowing that would -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that continued to a time certain or indefinite? MR. NINO: Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's the next -- MR. NINO: May 23rd. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, do we have a motion to continue -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: --to May 23rd, Item F? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moved by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Rautio. All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is continued. We will move on to our second item today, BD-2000-03. This is a companion to V-2000-07. We will hear them together and take separate action. Do we have any disclosures on this? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to disclose that I spoke to Mr. Scofield. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I also spoke to Mr. Scofield. Page 4 May 4, 2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I spoke to Mr. Scofield. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I spoke to Mr. Scofield. But I want to go back to the last item. The 23rd of May is a Tuesday. Is that when we're continuing it to? MR. NINO: Chahram, when is that? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't know. I don't have a calen -- yes, I do have a calendar. You're right. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To June 1st. MR. NINO: June 1st, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, just to keep the record clean, let's back up a little bit. Do we have a motion to continue Item F? That's PUD-2000-02 to June 1st. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So moved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and second. All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's clean. We're back in gear on Item B and C. We made our disclosures. All those -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: No, you didn't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, another disclosure? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, I talked to Mr. Scofield, but we mostly talked about airplanes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Having no further disclosures, all those wishing to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 31-foot extension, as well as a 12-foot variance from the required 15-foot west side setback for docks to modify and legitimize an existing docking facility. Both of these petitions are after the fact. The resulting facility would consist of a dock with two boat lifts protruding a total of 51 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 63 Southport Cove, in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 73 feet of water frontage. The existing dock was permitted and built in 1993, at a time Page 5 May 4, 2000 when spot surveys for docks were not required prior to issuance of a certificate of completion. The dock actually encroaches about nine feet into the west side setback and extends about 27 feet into the waterway. 20 feet is the maximum without going for an extension. In order to construct the facility as requested, both the extension and the variance would have to be approved. However, a functioning dock with only one lift could be built with the approval of the extension alone. The property has a relatively small amount of water frontage, and is located at the end of a dead-end waterway. The project would have no adverse impact on the neighboring properties or use of the waterway. However, a viable dock with one lift could be constructed without recourse to a variance. The Southport Property Owners Association has provided a letter of no objection, and we have had no other objections to this project. Staff recommends approval of the extension. However, since there's no hardship involved, we are recommending denial of the variance. A viable dock could be built with a single boat lift without recourse to a variance. So we're recommending the extension, but we are recommending denial of the variance. Any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Ross, was the multiple boat dock built to code, or was there a variance for that, the multi-slip that we see on the map? MR. GOCHENAUR: The original dock was built only with a building permit. And it was shown -- I don't know how well you can see that, but that's taken from the permit application as a It's a T-dock without any provision completely different facility. for lifts at all. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: dock, the multi-dock. I'm talking about the neighboring MR. GOCHENAUR:Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you meant the multiple facility there. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: No, no, no, the multiple dock -- MR. GOCHENAUR: That was built with -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: -- to the west. MR. GOCHENAUR: -- an extension, yes, sir. Page 6 May 4, 2000 I'm sorry, I misunderstood. That was built with an extension. It was approved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: With a variance? MR. GOCHENAUR: Not a variance, just an extension. Typically boat docks don't require variances. This is a relatively rare occurrence that somebody needs to encroach into the side setback, which is why we're treating this a little bit more restrictively, in our analysis, to try to avoid setting a precedent that would lead people to believe that a variance is the same thing as an extension. The code allows boat dock extensions under certain circumstances because we feel it's often appropriate. But a variance is a different -- a variance is a different circumstance and generally requires some hardship. So it would be a little bit tougher on this one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Does the petitioner wish to make any comments? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. Good morning. It's Miles Scofield, representing the petitioner. I have a -- let me put this up. This is just a little bit different than the one Ross had up there. Since I submitted that drawing, we went and got the neighbor's dock on the other side of Mr. Zaccheo, who is the applicant here today. The multi-slip docking facility you see there to the west of the one we're trying to permit, I permitted some time ago. This whole area is in a preserve, and I'll show you on the aerial real quick where it is. It's this -- this is the whole preserve right here. And this is the bay that comes in here. And can you see on the aerial, here's the docking facility. This is -- back in the back end of this bay, it's very shallow. And this little white dot down here right in the corner is the applicant's dock, the existing dock. Now, as Ross told you, this dock -- when my client bought the house, the dock was already in. It was not built accordingly. And that's -- we're doing -- the dock right now sits six feet off of the riparian line, towards the multi-slip docking facility, where we're well aware -- well away from the neighbor to the other side and does not interfere. We also, Ross told you, we had permission from the Southport Association'. We also have permission -- or excuse me, we have letters of no objection. And that they approve of-- all the Page 7 May 4, 2000 owners of the multi-slip docking facility there. Also, the neighbor. The neighbor to the -- right over to the east side of him. We provided all of them with these drawings, and nobody has any problem. We feel this is a little bit special condition. I understand what Ross is saying about the variance and setting precedent. We don't feel this is precedent setting, number one, because the special conditions involved in this. As you can see from the lot here on this, they get back -- anyway, the shape of the lot that my applicant has is a narrow converging line right there. The converging lines on this dock come out here. The space between here and this dock is roughly, right here, is 100 feet. We have plenty of room. And there's no interfere with navigation or anything else. And we believe these special conditions allow for this. We're encroaching only three more feet into the setback side. However, this is not a private residence to this site. Again, it's a preserve. Nothing else can be built in this area. It's not interfering with anyone in this area. So the owner right now, the reason he wants to -- he'd like the two slips, he has two boats. We have very shallow draft. Right now the owner could, without this extension or the addition of lifts, could bring two boats into this dock and moor them, just like we've -- without the extension in being here. But he'd like to put them on lifts and they don't sit on the bottom at low tide. We permitted this to the state. The state doesn't have any objection. They like the idea of lifts to keep the boats off the bottom especially in shallow estuarine bays. And that's why we're here today. So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to clarify that the riparian lines, the way they come out this particular site, that's a preserve, so nothing's going to go into the area that you need the variance on? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, it's just close to the riparian line. MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The dock is just close to the Page 8 May 4~ 2000 riparian line. It's sort of an imaginary line that gives some sort of access to the docks? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. We do not encroach across -- the riparian lines, as you know, is an extension. It's kind of an imaginary property line where we take the distances from for our setbacks. We do not encroach over the riparian lines, so we're still within -- the existing dock is only six feet off the riparian line. We're only coming over three more feet. You could actually park a boat there and be even over more and we wouldn't even be here, but the owner's coming in for an extension to put lifts in here for his boat. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I guess I'm having difficulty understanding why the staff is concerned about the variance. I guess it's just precedent setting? MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, from what I understand with Ross and what he just said here recently, it is precedent setting. The reason we don't believe this is precedent setting, number one, is because of the exact -- the special conditions being the preserve here. We're 100 feet away -- I had to locate this multi-slip docking facility out where it is in order to get these boats in deep enough water. These belong to people upland who don't live on the water. So nothing else can go in between there. We're 100 feet away with the extension over to that docking facility. The reason I don't believe it's precedent setting is because of that condition, and the fact if there was a homeowner on this other side, I may not be here today asking for this, because it may be encroaching. That I believe could be precedent setting. The configuration of this man's lot, the angle of the riparian lines, the fact that we have a preserve on the other side, nothing can be built there, I don't believe it's precedent setting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a question, I guess, for staff then. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Ms. Rautio, you have a question for staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Isn't this similar? If it's a preserve area, we're just talking about water, isn't this similar to some of the variances we've given for, like, say, Tall Pines, because you Page 9 May 4, 2000 backed up to a lake or you backed up to a full wooded area on a lake that it's the same principle, only this happens to be water?. Because nothing can interfere with the variance and nobody's there to object. Same concept, isn't it? MR. GOCHENAUR: Excuse me. If I understand your question correctly, that's right. We've tried to point out that as Mr. Scofield has established pretty well, there is no impact on the community here. There's no damage to the community. There's no impact on navigation. Our recommendation for' denial is simply based on the fact that a second boat lift is nice to have, but not need to have. A viable facility could be created for a single boat and boat lift without recourse to a variance. The precedent is not that there's any damage to the community, but simply because a need for something here hasn't been established. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The public hearing is closed. We'll take a motion. We need to consider these separately. Let's start with Item B. That's BD-2000-03. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to recommend we forward to the Collier County -- forward to the BCC BD-2000-03 for recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage~ second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Second part, the variance for side yard setback, V-2000-07. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'd likewise make the same motion, that we forward V-2000-07 to the -- I believe the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Page 10 May 4, 2000 Discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to comment that it's pretty well known that I'm not a fan of variances. In this particular case, I think it fits pretty much like some of the other variances we've given that's shown that there's no real problem whatsoever, and that it's reasonable to me, so I want to support the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: I'm sorry, but we have another emergency. The long-range planning issues under P and Q have a time frame that needs to be accomplished. They're going to the board next week, as a matter of fact, and your advice and direction is a necessary component of that in order for it to proceed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that, do we have a motion to amend the agenda and move Items P and Q up to the next item to be heard by this Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So moved. (Mr. Saadeh enters the board room.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- so move, because if I leave, that would nix the opportunity. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, actually Mr. Saadeh is going to rescue yOU, COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here comes my relief-- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But I'm leaving at noontime. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- but I'll still make the motion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a motion to amend the agenda, moving Items P and Q up to the next items heard. Motion by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) Page 11 May 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: The agenda is amended. We will move to the back of the list to CP-2000-01. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, just to comment, let the record reflect that I'm here. I apologize for my tardiness. I got hit from behind on the way to the meeting this morning, so that's why I'm late. Let the record reflect that I'm here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, we're glad to have you here in one piece. MS. PRESTON: Good morning. For the record, Debrah Preston with your comprehensive planning section. The item before you today is the Growth Management Plan amendment that is staff initiated and board directed. The intent of this amendment is to encourage redevelopment and development within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. This amendment proposes to create a new land use overlay to the Future Land Use Element entitled the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Overlay. The request is for a map and text amendment. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle overlay would be depicted on the Future Land Use Map and be consistent with the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on March 14th, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of Bayshore/Gateway Triangle by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in the urban area. This overlay will allow for additional neighborhood commercial uses and higher residential densities when part of a mixed use development. The proposed area consists of two communities: Bayshore and Gateway Triangle. The Bayshore area contains approximately 1,400 acres and is currently designated on the Future Land Use Map as urban mixed use district under the urban coastal fringe district -- subdistrict. This subdistrict allows for a maximum of four dwelling units per acre. The area bordered by U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard and Airport Road is defined as the Gateway Triangle community. The area contains approximately 291 acres and is currently designated on the Future Land Use Map as urban mixed use district under the urban residential subdistrict. This subdistrict would allow for Page 12 May 4, 2000 higher densities with the maximum eligible residential density to be determined through the application of the density rating system, but cannot exceed 16 dwelling units per acre. A portion of the commercial property located along U.S. 41 is designated as a mixed used activity center. The amendment proposes several stipulations and guidelines as outlined in your staff report on Pages 2 and 3. However, since the staff report was written, staff has received some public comments and would like to add some language that would clarify the intent of the overlay. Minor changes are added to Provision No. I to clarify that residential uses are permitted on the second story and above. No. 4, to clarify that the increase in density to 12 units is allowed only if the property contains a mix of commercial and residential uses, and provides access to existing neighborhoods if possible. And to No. 13, that the building footprint is limited to 20,000 square feet, to only commercial buildings. And then adding a new provision that would allow residential only buildings to go to four stories if the building is in close proximity to U.S. 41. Staff concludes that the overlay provides an opportunity for higher densities on properties that have access to U.S. 41. And the expansion of this roadway will be completed in 2000 and should provide additional capacity for hurricane evacuation. Higher densities recommended will help to focus -- help to establish a focus for the area by creating a sense of urban -- an urban neighborhood where people can live, work and shop. The amendment provides some development standards, such as the size limitations of the building footprint and the height to assure that the projects maintain a neighborhood character. The adoption of zoning overlays with additional standards are also being anticipated. In conclusion, the amendment is consistent with the goals of redevelopment and compatible with the projects outlined in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment study. Staff is recommending that the Collier County Planning Commission forward this petition with the proposed changes to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit this amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. If you have any questions at this time, I would be happy to Page 13 May 4, 2000 answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions of staff? Marjorie, could you tell me if I was correct, that this is a quasi-legislative and we would not be swearing in speakers? MS. STUDENT: That's correct, it is legislative. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Legislative, okay. MS. STUDENT: Yes, and you wouldn't be swearing in anybody, that's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Is there anyone from the public to address this item? There being none, we will close the hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP-2001 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of forwarding it to the Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Pedone, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next agenda Item Q, Petition CP-99-08. Again, Marjorie, this is legislative -- MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- no swearing in? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay. MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. My name is Amy Taylor. I'm with your comprehensive planning staff. This is a property -- or an amendment initiated by petitioner Bonita Bay Properties with its agent Bruce Anderson. The subject property is 146 acres and is located at the northwest corner of 951 and 1-75. The petitioner has requested that that language and map changes be made so that the property is included within activity center No. 9. These requests are consistent with the 1997 EAR-based amendments that you heard about last week. The amendment seeks to ensure that the addition of these Page 14 May 4, 2000 146 acres in activity center No. 9, by submitting this application, becomes a part of the Future Land Use Element. It -- the staff recommends that we approve this. It is consistent with what we are adopting on May 9th. And we ask that -- for your approval to transmit this to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions of staff? There being none, is there anyone from the public to address this item? If there are none, we will close the hearing. Do we have a motion? Please, do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we send CP-99-08 to the Boardof CountyCommissioners witha recommendation to adopt. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Pedone, second by Ms. Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries. We will get back to the top of the agenda to Item D. That is V-2000-08. All those wishing to present testimony on this item please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have any disclosures on this item? We have none. Yes, sir. MR. REISCHL.' Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for several variances that you saw in a slightly different forum last January. The location, if you recall, is Naples Park. Here's 111th, here's 110th. It's six lots that when combined go between those two streets. The Planning Commission, at the previous hearing, voted 6 to 2 to recommend approval. Mr. Sabatino got in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The board was listening to Mr. Sabatino's presentation. And with the questions he got the sense that the board was not going to approve it in its present form, so he Page 15 May 4, 2000 withdrew it. It's now in front of you in a different form. What Mr. Sabatino has done is basically what the Board of Zoning Appeals was asking for at the last meeting. These, if you recall again, are the zero lot line single-family homes in Naples Park. And in the previous submittal there were several instances where the proposed homes were not a total of 15 feet from the existing homes in Naples Park. He has changed that so that each of the exterior of these six will now be a total of 15 feet from the building, the new building to the existing building, which maintains the seven and a half foot setback on each lot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: lot line. MR. REISCHL: internal. As you see -- and E-mail. Unfortunately actually this morning. Correct. All So he's internalized the zero the zero lot lines are now I apologize for this, I gave you a pile of in the electronic age, I got two of them So staff is working on some way to get more lead time in notification of people so that we can get these to you more ahead of time. The one -- or actually there were two that -- property owner concerns that you should pay special attention to. One was the -- or both were the Dover/Kohl study, the community character study. And staff feels strongly that this will have a big affect on Naples Park. And the concern we have is that if the board decides not to approve this contingent upon their community character study, we feel that would be holding a property owner hostage until a study is completed that may or may not be adopted in its form, the current form, by the Board of County Commissioners. It's -- the point is well made by the adjacent property owner that there is this study ongoing. However, staff feels that this has been submitted in the interim, and we don't feel that it's right to hold this property up, pending a study that hasn't been completed or may not even be approved. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MS. STUDENT: If I may, in order to do that, what would need to be done would be a moratorium. Otherwise, it amounts to a de facto moratorium. And you have -- there's certain procedures that a local government must follow in order to enact a moratorium. Page 16 May 4, 2000 And de facto moratoria don't meet those requirements. MR. NINO: But it also -- Ron Nino for the record. But it also assumes that the Dover/Kohl study is going to have that level of detail in terms of neighborhood planning. And quite frankly, I'm not sure that you're going to see that level of detail. The planning studies tend to address the broader picture; typically don't deal with side yard requirement space between building requirements, so it presumes an awful lot. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Uh-huh. MR. REISCHL: If-- again, to refresh your memory, that's Mr. Sabatino's rendering of the -- one of the proposed units. There's a wall around the backyard, subject to one of the other variances. Mr. Sabatino has brought the height of the wall down from seven feet, which you approved, but the board was leaning against, apparently from the tone of the discussion. And so he's brought that down to 6.7 feet, which is, he states, the height of a typical door. So it would be a door height wall around the backyard, as you can see. The front will be garage and driveway, just like a typical single-family house. And again, the zoning on this is RMF-6, which would allow construction of a multi-family building. Without any kind of variance, Mr. Sabatino could come in and construct a multi-family or six single-family, as long as they complied with side yard and wall requirements. Staff recommends approval, based on the fact that Mr. Sabatino was following the tone of the conversation of the board during the last time it was presented to them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? Does the petitioner have any comments? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I just got a chance to review some of the objections to the wall in the form of a disclosure. I live in a zero lot line house with a wall. And like I stated when they previously brought this forward, the idea is the privacy part, and once you get it below six foot, why have a wall? If he wants to lower it to the height indicated here, I would certainly go along with that. So with that, I'm going to recommend we forward to the Page t7 May 4, 2000 Collier County Planning Commission Petition V-2000-8 with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a forwarding to the Board of Zoning Appeals? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: To the BZA. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Wrage. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Saadeh. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I think there are millions and millions of people in this country that live with six-foot walls. And if Mr. Wrage happens to have women basketball players living next door who want to watch him sunbathe, I'm not sure that should set the precedent, but -- so I'm against variances for walls. It's just, you know, a six-foot wall protects you -- assuming you have people who want to peep over the wall, they have to be six-foot-four, because their eyes are not perched on the top of their heads. And they're just -- it's an incidence that's so rare, people who are that skittish about privacy ought to live somewhere other than a zero lot line neighborhood, I would say. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Any other comments? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm not sure what your vote was, Mr. Saadeh? Was that for or against? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I seconded the motion, Mr. Chairman, so I'm for it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, so we have a 4-2 approval. Next item, E, that's PUD-2000-01. Are there any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those wishing to testify, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 18 May 4, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioner, I don't see the applicant, Karen Bishop. She's not in here and she's not in the hallway either. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, it's quite appropriate and procedural to proceed without their testimony. they can't answer it, they risk denial. (All speakers were duly sworn.} MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good If something comes up and So let's keep on going. morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Karen Bishop, representing Kenneth W. Richman, Trustee, is requesting a rezone from agricultural to a PUD zoning district to be known as Northside Plaza -- Northside Medical Plaza PUD. The site consists of 3.79 acres. It's a small site. And the Growth Management Plan allows properties within a quarter mile of the hospital to be rezoned for medical uses. This property falls within a quarter mile of the North Collier Hospital. The access will be from Veterans Park Drive. And the site complies with the Growth Management requirements. They are proposing to build around 38,000 square feet of medical buildings, which will generate almost 1,400 trips a day. Staff reviewed this petition and recommends approval. On Page 5 of my staff report, I am talking about Collier Boulevard. That should read Immokalee Road. I apologize for that. It's a typo. Staff recommends that the CCPC forwards this today to the BCC with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Any objections? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I haven't received any letters of objections. Only phone calls. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? There was no one that stood to be sworn in, so I assume there's no public comment. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion we forward to the Board of County Commissioners for approval -- recommendation for approval PUD-2000-01. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? Page 19 May 4, 2000 All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion is approved. Item F was continued. We move on to G.That is PUD-91-05(1). Do we have any disclosures? There are none. All those wishing to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. KANT: The planner is not here. DR. DURSO: No, he's here. MR. NINO: Is he in the hall? DR. DURSO: Yeah, he just stepped out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All right, now we will resume swearing in. All those presenting testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Don Murray, principal planner with planning services department. This PUD, PUD-91-05(1) is an amendment to the existing PUD, the East Trail RV Park, which was approved in 1991 for 111 recreational vehicle units. It's located approximately three miles to the east of County Road 951. It's surrounded by agricultural properties to the south, including a camp, day care, and also a church to the east side of it, an existing RV park to the west, and then agricultural properties to the north-northeast, and an RV -- excuse me, a mobile home park to the north-northwest. This PUD proposes to have 100 single-family affordable homes for very low income families at a density of 4.95 units per acre on 20.20 acres. This is a reduction of density from the original RV park, a density of 5.7 units per acre. And it's also -- this proposed PUD would qualify under the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Would qualify for up to eight units per acre. They're just asking for 4.95 total. The access for this PUD of course is off U.S. 41. And to date, we've received no objections to this proposed PUD. And at this point, if there are any questions for staff or for Mr. Page 20 May 4, 2000 Greg Mihalic, who's here from Housing Urban Improvement. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? There are none. Anyone from the public to -- or excuse me, the petitioner to address this item? MR. NADEAU: Chairman Budd, commissioners, good morning. Pleasure to be before you again. I'm proud to stand in front of you representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. And we're going to -- we're proposing to amend the East Trail RV Park to provide for 100 single-family homes for very low income families. Planner Murray's already gone through the technicalities of our zoning request where we're actually reducing the density. I just want to identify some of the other positive attributes of the request. The former East Trail RV Park did not have alignment with Joseph Lane. You may reference that in my application book. That entrance was further to the east. The existing PUD has significant open space and landscaping around the outside, as well -- on the perimeter lots, as well as a staff recommended special setback requirement for those perimeter lots to be improved compatibility with adjacent land uses. I contacted the surrounding property owners and let them know what we were doing ahead of time. And beyond that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. I also have Dr. Sam Durso, president of Habitat for Humanity, who'd just like to have a couple of words. Can I answer any of your questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The drainage problems that we talked about last time, they've been addressed? MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. This is significantly more simple of a drainage system than what you saw four miles further to the west. The drainage will be going out into the U.S. 41 roadside swale. It would be continued to the west to connect with the U.S. 41 number one canal with ultimate outfall in the Mcllvene Bay. It's part of a regional county drainage system. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to comment that it would appear that you've done an extremely good job this time of putting this package together. Page 21 May 4, 2000 MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It was very well presented here. And the fact that you have no opposition in the audience is a credit to your ability to negotiate and put together a good project. So I appreciate that. MR. NADEAU-' I appreciate the accolade. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Any other questions or comments? Yes, sir. DR. DURSO: I'd like to say a few words. My name is Dr. Sam Durso. It's my honor to serve as president of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. As you know, Habitat for Humanity started 20 years ago, and has now completed 100,000 houses worldwide. In Collier County, we were the first chapter outside of Georgia. We've completed 300 houses. We have 200 houses in Immokalee and 100 in Naples Manor. The need for affordable housing in this county is tremendous. And we are the main provider of housing for the very low income people in this county. We may be the only provider of housing for the very low income people in this county. We are committed to eliminate substandard housing in this county. By our studies, we need to provide 3 or 4,000 units. And if we're the only one doing it, we have to increase our construction pace. So we plan to be before you many, many times in the succeeding years to try to get land rezoned for very low income housing. We plan to build 50 houses next year. But we must increase our pace up to almost 100 houses a year if we're going to ever eliminate substandard housing in this county. So we'd like your support. This seems to be a pretty good project, and I'm happy to see that there's nobody here objecting to us. It makes me feel a little bit better than I did the last time around. But I represent 8,000 volunteers and donors who are committed to provide everybody in this county with a simple, decent place to live. And we'd like your support for this project. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Any other comments? We will close the public hearing. Page 22 May ~ 2000 Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. I'd like to recommend approval of Petition PUD-91-05(1}, the Habitat Place PUD document and master plan to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Ms. Rautio, second by Mr. Pedone. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, moving on to our next agenda Item H. That is PUD-99-05(1}. Any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.} MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. This should be a pretty easy one, pretty straightforward. Expansion of the Mediterra PUD. You might recall, not too long ago you approved the Mediterra PUD, which is on the extension of Livingston Road, north of Immokalee Road. As a matter of fact, this developer is constructing Livingston Road and will construct that road all the way to Bonita Beach Road, establishing one of our essential arterial road systems in Collier County. The Mediterra PUD is a -- as you can see, it's located -- it's 900 and some acres in size. However, it wraps around. You can see over here it wraps around a small 10-acre parcel. And I guess at the time they weren't able to acquire that parcel, and they now have acquired it. There's no additional dwelling units proposed as a result of this acquisition. That 10 acres will be annexed to a residential tract that stopped at the west limit of the 10 acres. And that residential tract will now extend all the way to Immokalee Road, with an appropriate buffer. Similarly, the provisions in -- the existing provisions in the PUD provide for the expansion of Livingston Road across this Page 23 May 4, 2000 property. So there is a dedication on this property to the widening of Livingston Road. It certainly meets all of the elements of the Growth Management Plan, particularly inasmuch as it does nothing to increase the density or intensity of planned use. Staff recommends approval. We've received no objections. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Refresh my memory, does this go into Lee County? MR. NINO: Mediterra extends into Lee County, yes. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: But not this part. MR. NINO: Not this part. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Any comments by the petitioner? MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins with Wilson-Miller, for the petitioner. I'd just like to reiterate that it's only a 10-acre addition. We're not adding any units to the project. And I won't take up any more of your time on this one. CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Okay. Any other questions? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we forward with a recommendation of approval Petition PUD-99-05(1). COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Wrage, second by Mr. Saadeh. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Moving on to the next item, I. That is PUD-86-06(1). Any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think, first of all, everybody -- most of the people in the hall are here on that one, so if we could MR. BELLOWS: It's also a companion item with the next. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: -- let them know. Page 24 May 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Okay, we will hear this with companion to CU-99-03. We will hear them both together and take separate action. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I want to -- for the record, I am president of the Crown Pointe Community Association, which is affected by this. But having discussed it with the county attorney, there is no conflict. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other disclosures? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. And I would remind anyone that wishes to present testimony, please fill out a speaker slip, just to help us move along. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Would someone go out in the hall and tell everyone? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We will hold the swearing in and take a two-minute break for the court reporter. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we will call the Planning Commission back to order. And we were attempting to swear in anyone that wishes to present testimony. All those wishing to present, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name's Ray Bellows. I'm principal planner with planning services staff. The subject site is eight acres in size. And as you can see on the location map, it's located on the south side of Davis Boulevard, and on the east side of West Crown Pointe Boulevard. It's opposite the Osprey PUD, and adjacent to the Crown Pointe East PUD, and north of the Loch Ridge PUD. A portion of the site is agriculture, approximately 4.6 acres. And the remaining is within Tract A of the Loch Ridge PUD. The conditional use is for the agricultural portion of the project to allow for an assisted living facility. And the PUD amendment, the companion item, is to allow an ALF as a permitted use within Tract A. Tract A currently is part of the Green Thumb Nursery, and the agricultural portion of the site also contains nursery and landscaping supplies. It's currently a garden store facility Page 25 May 4, 2000 operating on the subject eight-acre site. This conditional use and PUD amendment will allow for an assisted living facility that will comprise approximately 54,000 square feet. The units will include 10 independent living units. As you can see on the site plan, or the conceptual plan, there are two access points to the site, one off Davis Boulevard and one from West Crown Pointe Boulevard. There's a cul-de-sac arrangement with the independent living units, a type of duplex type of unit. The central building will be a three-story structure that will house the dependent and skilled nursing type of units. In the back there's a lake. The subject site is completely surrounded by a landscape buffer, as required by code. The conditional use criteria contained in your staff report indicates that the project will have a -- is more compatible than the existing retail garden store facility. The site generation or traffic impact statement indicates that the project will generate 70 trips per day less than the current retail facility. Staff has received complaints from residents living in West Crown Pointe and Loch Ridge that the existing garden store has been a nuisance with heavy equipment pulling in and out, garden supplies, pesticides, smells, spills, things of that nature. The proposed ALF will do away with all those uses, and will be a nice, quiet residential type of community. Staff has received two calls in support, no calls in opposition. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Bellows? There are none? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If you're going to send this forward, you might want to fix the site map that's in our packet. It appears -- doesn't look like what you showed us earlier. MR. BELLOWS: There's two site maps. There's two petitions. One's for the conditional use, that only shows the conditional use site, and the other one is for the Loch Ridge petition that shows only the Loch Ridge amendment site. And I have combined them both onto mine to show you the entire site. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a question before we go on. Page 26 May 4~ 2000 Am I the only one that does not have a conditional use sheet? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No, you're not the only one, Commissioner. The cover sheet -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: When we get to that petition, Ron, we are going to need a conditional use sheet. I do not have one. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The finding of fact, Mr. Nino. MR. BELLOWS: In your conditional use application, you don't have it? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No, for that particular conditional use, we don't have the findings of fact. But we can continue on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, we'll continue with the proceedings and just get it to us before we leave here today. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have a question. You show a driveway in and out on West Crown. If -- I'm not sure where the location is on West Crown, but there is a median -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: -- a landscaped median. Is it after it? And that if it's not, then it would be a right turn only coming out of the new project. MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's -- precedes the median. But Kevin McVicker is here, the agent. If there is going to be a median cut, maybe he can shed some light on that. CHAIRMAN BUDD:If we could hear from the please. MR. McVICKER: Good morning. Kevin representing the Jon and Sonya Laidig Foundation. That will be a right out only from that -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: So we don't the landscaping being removed? MR. McVICKER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay. MR. McVICKER: To further expound on it, petitioner, McVicker, have to worry about the -- in our site plan we tried to buffer the taller building, the bigger structure, by putting the lake in the south corner and putting the low density duplexes also on the south to buffer between the projects. And as I said, that is a right turn out only on Crown Pointe. If you have any other questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner?. Is there anyone from the public to address this item? Do you Page 27 May 4, 2000 have any registered speakers, Ron? MR. NINO: Yes. Jack Hansen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Hansen? MR. HANSEN: Jack Hansen. I live in Kingwood Gardens, which is immediately behind this proposed development here. I'm unable to relate this at all to what I have here on this diagram, Ray. Can you help me with that? I know that you've got this coming over here now, okay? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, let me show you. I'll put it up -- MR. HANSEN: Is this upside down or backwards or twisted or what? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All of the above. MR. BELLOWS: There's the north arrow. MR. HANSEN: Okay, okay. Now I can tell where you're coming in. Okay. You've got to give me back my notes, though. MR. BELLOWS: This is the agricultural zone portion. Tract A is right in there. MR. HANSEN: Okay. Well, see, you had this upside down, see, and I couldn't see how it worked out that you're getting in off of -- so what you're proposing here, you said it was going to generate how many trips, 70? MR. BELLOWS: 70 trips less than the estimated trips for the retail facility. MR. HANSEN: But you're putting it-- MR. BELLOWS: It's about 540 a day. MR. HANSEN: You're putting it all onto West Crown Pointe. MR. BELLOWS: That's their main -- no, their main access point is off Davis Boulevard. Right here. MR. HANSEN: I see. MR. BELLOWS: This is a right out only. MR. HANSEN: Okay. Well, I'm concerned about this, because it -- from the short amount of time that I've had to look at this, it seems to me that we've got an awful lot of assisted living facilities in Collier County, and none of them have full occupancy. They're all like motels, they just -- they don't fill them up. Marriott just got through selling most of their assisted living facilities, except for Brighton Gardens here in town and a few other ones around the country. This unit is within half to three-quarters of a mile of an assisted living facility that's being built at Glen Eagles. A big one. Page 28 May 4, 2000 That's at the corner of Davis and County Barn Road. And in addition to that facility, you have permitted the -- the county has permitted an assisted living facility on County Barn Road. I don't know where it is, but it's between Davis and down County Barn Road there. What's going to happen here, I think, is that if you allow this change in the zoning, the Green Thumb Nursery is going to disappear, of course. And because of this overbuilt situation with assisted living facilities, I think this piece of land's going just to sit there and really become an eyesore unless it gets converted into something else. But that could take three, four, five years of an empty piece of property. Plus that it's smack in the middle of residential stuff, no building around it, is more than two stories tall. And I understand this is four stories, you said? MR. BELLOWS: Three. MR. HANSEN: Three stories? It will over look everything. And so that's what I -- that's about the only thing I have to say about it. There's 25 assisted living facilities listed in the Yellow Pages. And now there's three other ones; one being built and one approved to be built, and this one approved for zoning. So it's going to be like a hamburger stand on every corner. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Hansen. I would like to comment that we've been advised in the past that the Planning Commission is constrained to review land use issues relative to the Land Development Code. And while you may or may not be correct as to the economic viability of this facility, that's beyond our concern and our review. And if they never have a soul occupy it, that's a different issue. So that portion of your testimony really can't direct our proceedings. However, we will consider your comments about the three stories compared to two stories, because that is something that is very relevant to what we're considering. MR. HANSEN: Okay. The other -- the only other thing I would like to say is that whatever comes out of that facility onto West Crown Pointe Boulevard is really going to create a problem for us. We have trouble getting out on Davis. We don't have a stoplight. We have a lot of trouble getting out on Davis now to -- certainly to go east. No problem going west. But that's the only other thing. Thank you. Page 29 May 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah, I had a question for Mr. Hansen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Hansen, you're a popular man. We've got another question for you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Just, sir, your comment about the ACLF's in town that are mostly vacant. Is that based on any studies, or -- you said there's a whole lot of them in town and they're mostly under-occupied. Is that based on any studies? MR. HANSEN: No, just the things that people have told me. I have not been able to, you know, inquire into any of that stuff. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. HANSEN: I know that, like I said, I did read where Marriott very recently sold their units because they were not profitable. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. HANSEN: Of course that doesn't count here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anyone else from the public to address this item? Yes, sir. Were you sworn in, sir?. MR. FLETCHER: No, I was not. I just came in late. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay.Well, when you get here, we'll swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. FLETCHER: My name is Joe Fletcher. I live on West Crown Pointe Boulevard, No. 2020. I'm the president of the Crown Pointe Villas Homeowners' Association. To my knowledge, our association owns the joining property there where you're proposing an entrance out onto West Crown Pointe. That property is also in a long-term easement to the homeowners' association of the whole Crown Pointe community. So I guess my question is, how do you propose to put an entrance there through property that we own? MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner would have to get an approval from the homeowners' association. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And if I understand, Mr. Bellows, that process would be separate from this proceeding today and would -- it is an issue for a future time for them to make that request? Page 30 May 4, 2000 Time out for a brief caucus. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Kant informs me that that is a public road, West Crown Pointe. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes, but the property abutting that public road between the subject property and the public road belongs to the Crown Pointe Villas Association, which has been given over an easement to the Crown Pointe Community Association for the erection of a monument type gateway sign. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: For the sake of the board, it would be helpful if they show you us on the maps what property are we talking about, because-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, I'd like to see a map. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If we have it, Mr. Bellows. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: It's behind the cover sheet over here. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: If they point out to us on that map, that would be helpful. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Here's that -- the road swerves in and touches the subject site. So if there is in fact a common border between the road right-of-way or easement with the property, they probably could do without the permission of the homeowners' associa -- the property owners' association. If they come in through another person's property, they have to get permission. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Assuming for the sake of discussion, Mr. Bellows, that they do have to get access through the homeowners' association property, is that relevant to us today, or is that an item that they have to request permission at a future time? MR. BELLOWS: We can stipulate that the condition -- that they present evidence that they have right of access, legal access, at the time of site development plan approval. MR. NINO: Excuse me. Ron Nino, for the record. We're not dealing with site planning details here. If they present a site plan to us that indicates that they are using anybody's property but their own, they're going to have to provide legal proof that they have the right to cross that property. Otherwise, administratively, we're not going to approve such a site development plan. Page 31 May 4, 2000 I don't believe the master plan includes the level of detail that we're now addressing, so that that matter will be administratively dealt with in terms of whether there are any trespass issues. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, that's the answer more in line that I was fishing for. Which my understanding is that we are not approving a site plan today; therefore, the access which may or may not be at this location will be handled at the time of site plan approval. So the land use is relevant to us today, this site access is not. MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's my understanding. Yes, Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I was still trying to figure out what piece of property they were talking about. But that's okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. If we can agree that it's not relevant to our proceedings today -- MR. NINO: Talking about this property here, which is accessed--for all practical purposes, accessed right-of-way that's not common lands to the association. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And I just wanted to make sure then that we talk about access and we talk about moving things here and there, and I'm supposed to be very clear that this is not relevant? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That is what we've been advised by our professional and competent staff. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, just from a planning standpoint, the access to West Crown Pointe Boulevard is a secondary access. The primary access is to Davis Boulevard. MR. NINO: Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anyone else from the public to address this item? MR. FLETCHER: May I further comment -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. FLETCHER: -- before I sit down? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. FLETCHER: Overall, we certainly have no objection to the proposal, with that main exception of the entrance or exit onto West Crown Pointe. This is strictly a residential Page 32 May 4, 2000 neighborhood through south of that, and any more entrances or exits on West Crown Pointe is only going to add to the traffic there. And it's a very narrow road as it is there. It narrows down to one lane each way. So we are, as a homeowners' association, mightily concerned that the project is fine except crossing our property at the moment we don't feel is acceptable. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. NINO: Can you clarify for the record, would the objection apply if they weren't crossing your property but if in fact -- West point it's a Crown Pointe Road is contiguous to this property at the where the entrance is finally placed, given the fact that public road. MR. FLETCHER: It is a public road, no question. The diagrams that we had and the blueprints when the builder deeded over the property to the homeowners' association very clearly points out that there is a section there along the east side of West Crown Pointe that is in our deed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that answer your question, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Well, he's not on the summary agenda yet. MR. BELLOWS: No, he's going-- MR. NINO: Mr. Vickers (sic) is concerned about being on the summary agenda, and I don't blame him. But at this point in time, I think we have to construe Mr. Hansen as a person opposing this petition. And if that's the case -- MR. McVICKER: I already have the -- Mr. Laidig's permission to eliminate that entrance. So we can eliminate that altogether, if that's that big of an issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you, Mr. McVicker. MR. NINO: Fine. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Anyone else from the public to address this item? There being none, we close the public hearing. MR. NINO: Could we clarify, is Mr. Hansen objecting? Because it means whether or not this petition goes on the -- it may mean whether or not this petition goes on the summary agenda or not. I'm not sure that Mr. Hansen's position is in objection or not. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Hansen, can you clarify that for us? Because if you are in objection to this, it cannot go on the Board of County Commissioners' consent agenda. Page 33 May 4, 2000 MS. STUDENT: MR. HANSEN: CHAIRMAN BUDD: Couldyou microphone. MR. HANSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. HANSEN: My main objection Summary. My main objection, I guess, at this point -- please come to the at this point, if you eliminate the access to West Crown Pointe Boulevard would be the three-story high building, which is going to overlook our tennis court and our swimming pool. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And that's exactly what we needed to know. So with that objection, presuming we approve it, it still will not go on their consent agenda. And that's the clarification we needed. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I have a comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I particularly resent the assumption that we're going to all vote in favor of this and that it's his objection only that would keep it from the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't think that was -- MR. NINO:That wasn't intended. It wasn't intended, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, is there -- we have closed the public hearing. We're looking for a motion. There are two companion items. Let's start first with Item I, Petition PUD-86-6(1}. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'll make the motion then we forward to -- Petition PUD-86-6(1} with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Wrage, second by Mr. Saadeh. Discussion, please? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm going to vote against it in principle. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments? All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Page 34 May 4, 2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- opposed? Motion carries. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: On to the companion Petition CU-99-3. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Without make a recommendation we forward recommendation for approval. item, J. That's my-- notice I will still Petition CU-99-3 for a CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Wrage, second by Mr. Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Russell, I've got to go. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Abernathy is leaving. Okay, moving on to Item K in our agenda. That is CU-2000-04. While the room is clearing, do we have any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Once again, I don't see the applicant. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I assume the petitioner may want to present testimony? Page 35 May 4, 2000 Dr. Gregory, if you intend to present testimony, we need to swear you in. DR. GREGORY: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. It will be a minute or so. You can have a seat and we'll hear the staff's testimony first. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian, from planning services staff. One thing I want to say is it was advertised as Tim Ferguson as the agent for the applicant, and he is not. It is -- Dr. Gregory is representing himself. Dr. Scott Gregory is requesting this conditional use to have a veterinary clinic on a piece of land zoned agricultural. There is a wholesale nursery there today, and he's proposing to add another building onto an existing building. Existing building is 2,800 square feet, and he's proposing to add the 2,100 square feet to that and -- to be used for a veterinary clinic. The existing use generates between one to 200 trips a day. The new use will generate between 50 to 100 trips a day, which is half of what the existing use generated. It is consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Plan, and staff's recommendation is for approval. Staff has received one letter from Vanderbilt Country Club, which is adjacent -- which is the adjacent property. And it's not a letter of objection, per se, but they want some clarification. The application says that all animals will be kept indoors, and no dog runs, no animals roaming around in the yard outside. And they want to make sure that there will be no dog runs or any animal holding areas outside. Everything will be inside. And they want Dr. Gregory to state that as part of his presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a quick question. Is this also going to be a right in, right out, I assume? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's a right in, right out, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? If we could hear from the petitioner, please. DR. GREGORY: Hello. I'm Dr. Gregory. I'm here to talk about the petition we're bringing in today. Page 36 May 4, 2000 MR. KANT: Excuse me, Dr. Gregory. DR. GREGORY: Yeah. MR. KANT: Edward Kant~ transportation services director. I need to clarify something in answer to Mr. Wrage's original question. The road in front of that 951 is presently -- I'm sorry-- is a two-lane section. And under that present condition, they would have relatively unconstrained access. When that road is four-laned, there may be a constraint to right in, right out. But presently it's a two-lane road. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Then are they going to be required to put a turn lane in there, being it's a two-lane road? MR. KANT: One of the conditions -- as I was reading through this, one of the conditions for approval was for the adequate turn lanes, yes. I just wanted to make that clarification. Sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Kant. Dr. Gregory? DR. GREGORY: Yeah. We were initially doing this plan to -- we came down here, and we were looking to find what area was needed for a service here. And we came down here with our animals. We found out that there was very lack of boarding in the area. So we researched the area and we found a tract of land that was an existing nursery. And we looked at both sides of the neighbors, and we were aware that there's always going to be a problem with noise with our neighbors. And so we're trying to minimize the impact of the hospital itself. So what we've done is we've picked a locale where on either side we were bounded by undeveloped tracts of land. And then past that, we have a couple of nurseries, which is for an agricultural use. The only concern we had was the back of the property, which the property is 1,320 feet deep. The existing business on it is right in the dead center, 600 feet back from the front and from the back. So we walk back 600 feet, and the only thing behind us is the Vanderbilt Country Club. That was our concern. But when we looked in the back of the Vanderbilt Country Club, we do not border any houses or the golf course facility at all. All we have is a maintenance shed on one side, and then it looks like we have a construction housing unit which is used to house landscaping Page 37 May 4, 2000 clearance machinery. And we actually took some pictures -- I don't know if we can show these pictures -- but what the actual back is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Give them to Chahram. He'll put them on the overhead. Just be aware, once you present them into evidence, they're our pictures. DR. GREGORY: You got 'em. But this is actually what we look out to. When I first thought that Vanderbilt was our next door -- I was a little afraid that we'd have houses back there and landscaped lawns and everything. But what you will see is just a maintenance area. It's very crude. It's construction block. It's fenced in with crude wire fencing. And then on the other side we have a building just with commercial equipment, dirt moving equipment, and that is what we see. Now, this is our tract that we can see -- actually, I'll show you right on here. This is our tract that we have -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Dr. Gregory, if you would use the microphone right behind you on the wall, the hand mike. DR. GREGORY: This is the existing tract. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Click the switch. DR. GREGORY: How's that? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now you're cooking. DR. GREGORY: Okay. This is the existing tract as it exists now. We have an existing building which is about a 4,000 square foot building that used to be the homeowner's house. And we are converting that into a hospital. It's about 3,000 square feet for the hospital. And then it has a garage downstairs that's about 1,200 square feet. We're extending the garage out away from the county club, which is located over here. We're extending that out away from the country club towards 951. It's going to be about 70 feet. The enclosure itself is solid concrete block construction. The windows are not windows all. The windows are actually glass block. That will allow the light in for the animals to see. Within the area itself, to help out with noise even more is every once in a while you'll have a barking dog in a boarding facility. They start everyone else barking. So we've actually set up a room made of construction concrete block that is going to hold 10 kennels within it to house the barking dogs. So within a Page 38 May 4, 2000 concrete block construction, you're going to have another concrete block construction, which is for soundproofing only. The acoustics of the hospital, we're going to have baffles up in the front with banners and everything to break up the sound. We want to make this place literally as much as possible soundproof. I wish I could say it was altruistic, that I'm more concerned about my fellow man than I am myself, but I have to work above this kennel every day. I put in 16-hour days, and I can't concentrate if there's barking dogs. It's just impossible. You can't hear yourself think. And I will be right above the kennel working. So I've made this acoustically as quiet as I possibly can. I am confident that if you walk 10 feet away from this hospital, you're not going to hear barking dogs. The pictures that we showed up in the front, if you look at the tract itself, what we look out on is the maintenance area, which is right here. MRS. GREGORY: That is the first picture. DR. GREGORY: And the shed/garage which is over here. And this is what we look out on. There really isn't houses or anything. And as far as I can tell, I cannot see any houses with my eye, looking from the back of our property. And I've looked. I've walked back there, I've taken pictures. I can't see any houses at all. So if there is anyone who is going to be bothered by this, it's an invisible person out there. I'm sure that there are houses out there. I've seen Vanderbilt and I've driven through it and I've had lunch there. I just do not see houses from where we are. So I don't think there's going to be any noise problem. I've addressed the homeowners. I guess we've had I guess a little pow-wow out in the hallway. And every homeowner, once they've seen what we're doing and where we're building, they felt they were being kind of misled by the letter that they received. They thought we were going to be 300 feet of the houses, and once they saw where we are, they don't even think there's an issue. The other thing, in the letter they mentioned a turnout area where dogs can be let run loose. And actually that's a bit of a false claim. We have a fenced in area that we're putting in in Page 39 May 4~ 2000 back of the hospital -- MRS. GREGORY: That's right here. DR. GREGORY: -- which is strictly to have the dogs walked. Dogs need some exercise. So they're taken one or two at a time by the employees, walked in this little area. And the only reason it's fenced is so that if they do slip a collar, they won't get lost or hit by a car. That's our biggest fear is losing a dog. But they're only walked on a leash. There are no dogs that are going to be sitting outside barking or bothering anyone. And it's in the stipulation of the permit itself that everything is going to be indoors. So everyone we've talked to so far from Vanderbilt Country Club has seemed to be appeased with that, once I've talked to them. Most of them all left since I've talked to them. But I know that there's a lot of concerns about this. If I was living in Vanderbilt and I heard that the boarding kennel was going to be, I would have visions of outdoor runs, barking dogs ruining my evening. And we are definitely building everything to avoid that. Strictly indoors. There shouldn't be any barking dogs. And I really cannot imagine -- if you do not hear our dogs -- we're living there now with five dogs. If you do not hear our dogs barking now, and they're not in the kennel, they're running loose, we're playing tag with them, they're chasing, they're barking, if you're not bothered by that now, then this is the loudest it ever will be. Because after this, I'll actually have a place to put the areas to run and If you don't hear us dogs where they're going to be -- have everything. So right now we're at the loudest. now, then you're not going to hear us later. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, ma'am. need to be addressing us, not the audience. testimony to us. Hold on. First, you You're presenting If you've concluded your testimony, if other members of the audience have questions, again, they should present testimony to us. If you have items for discussion that you can discuss out in the hall, feel free, but we don't care. So is your testimony concluded? DR. GREGORY: Yes -- no. The only thing I need to say is also, it's a small animal practice. There is no large animals. We do not do horses. We don't do large animals. So it's strictly dogs and cats, an occasional iguana and a small bird. So everything will be Page 40 May 4, 2000 indoors. And hopefully that will put to rest any fears that the residents do have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone from the -- excuse me, first are there any questions of the petitioner? There are none. Is there anyone from the public to address this item? There being none -- MR. PRETE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir, do you have testimony? MR. PRETE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Please come to the microphone. Were you sworn in? MR. PRETE: I will be sworn in. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You will be in a second. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PRETE: I'm John Prete. P-R-E-T-E. My testimony will be very, very brief. I'm glad -- I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that. I'm a resident of the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club and also, therefore, represent myself, myself only. I'd like to indicate that there is concern, perhaps not opposition, but there is concern, deep concern, as you can well imagine. The problem, of course, is a potential for noise pollution. We have not had the opportunity to fully review and hear the applicant's arguments, and so to that extent, it's very helpful. He's been very helpful also in the hallway, so many of our fears have already been allayed. However, we do have an attorney, and the attorney will be representing us in future negotiations with the applicant off the board, and those will take place soon. Stipulations will be reached, we hope, and so everybody will live happily ever after and the dog kennel will go. I'd like to just make one point, if you don't mind, and that is, planning so far has been for essentially residential uses. Consecutively -- you know, or rather in sequence, Vanderbilt Country Club, 900 units of housing, there's an additional 166 units of housing in line along 951. Next, a church was approved that we hope will be approved. I've spoken to Father Glachin. He asked me to not represent the church but at least indicate the Page 41 May 4, 2000 church's concern to you that this be compatible with what St. Agnes Church is planning. Given the precedent of residential units entirely in that corner and nearby, and given the precedent of the church right on the corner, then the question that I have to ask the board to ask itself is, is this really compatible? Does a kennel belong in the midst of all the housing that you have either approved or are going to consider in your future planning? And that's my question to you, I have no objections, certainly not to our -- the applicant or his intentions. And as I remember when I was his age, I wanted to do the best I could in my field as well. But we have to look at our own interest in Vanderbilt Country Club. And we hope that you will protect our interest. You're the board and you make the recommendations to the final decision. And so we hope you have our interest in your hands and that you'll consider those things. There is a potential for noise pollution, unless the stipulations we reach are adequate to protect us from that. I have personal experience with some other kennels in other areas. If it's not done properly, then there's certainly the potential for an erosion in property values, to say nothing of our own peace and comfort in that area. So with that, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. And if you have a question -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the speaker?. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, I have a question. Are you saying there's something in addition for stipulations than what Dr. Gregory explained to us about how they're going to muffle the sound of the dogs? Is there something further?. MR. PRETE: I don't know that at this time. I am not our attorney. I am just speaking as a private citizen and not even as a spokesman for the church, only one who was asked to speak here to indicate the church's concern. There is a meeting that we have set up for the early part of next week, at which time we will consider various stipulations, including the ones that the applicant has already offered, and perhaps offer some of our own, which we hope will be acceptable to the applicant. As long as everything is in writing and enforceable, just in the event that the applicant decides at some future date to sell to somebody else, we want to know whoever it Page 42 May 4, 2000 is that is the successor owner to this is going to be bound by the same promises that the applicant has made. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It would appear to me that he's gone to great lengths to muffle the noise. MR. PRETE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I just wanted to make sure that there was nothing additional that you knew right now. Thank you, MR. PRETE: Nothing additional I know right now. Our attorney and the applicant and we will meet, and perhaps everything will be all worked out neatly before we ever come up again before you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion on this item? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me since Dr. Scott has -- Dr. Gregory, I mean, has gone on record as attesting to some special acoustical considerations, that they should be in the conditions of approval. And if you would consider your motion, that would allow us to, between now and the board meeting, to draft some language that addresses -- that is consistent with his superior to commitment to do something that is acoustically standard construction, I think that would be helpful. CHAIRMAN BUDD'- That would be appropriate. Do we have a motion that might include suggestion? Mr. Nino's COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll go ahead and make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I think the speaker that we've had, he had ample time to -- and his attorney, to talk to the petitioner and staff, and draft these prior to coming to the meeting. He has no objection, but yet he spoke on this petition. But I really don't know if he had any objections. In lieu of that, I'm going to make a motion to forward Petition CU-2000-04 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for approval, considering Mr. Nino's comments that they will draft additional language in the regard of the additional buffering of noise. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, and that would be to the Board of County Commissioners, not Board of Zoning Appeals? Page 43 May 4, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'm sorry, to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Saadeh. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Seconded by Ms. Rautio. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Please pass your findings of fact to Mr. Wrage. Okay. Moving on to Item L, that is CU-2000-05. Do we have any disclosures on this item? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Again, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Bruce Anderson, representing Royal Palm Academy, requests a conditional use on a piece of land zoned agricultural, and consisting of 9.5 acres for a private school. The property is part of the 172 acres parcel that Royal Palm Academy has control of. And they will come shortly for a PUD for a church and a school. However, they are in a hurry to get this school started this next coming year; therefore, they are asking for a conditional use now so they can bring some trailers, some portables, and start the school while they are preparing the PUD and getting through the approvals. This is an interim conditional use, Basically they are taking 9.5 acres of 172 acres that they have control of and they are proposing to build a school. And this will generate 200 and -- 800 trips per day on the future Livingston Road, which is under construction. And we assume that when this road is built, it will operate at Level of Service A. Therefore, it will be consistent with the requirements of traffic circulation elements of the Growth Management Plan. Basically this is consistent with all the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval. Staff has received the one letter of objection from a person Page 44 May 4, 2000 who lives within 300 feet of the proposed school. As you can see, it is agricultural on three sides. However, this is the Strand PUD, and there are single-family homes proposed here. Pelican Strand, I'm sorry. And -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The Strand? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The Strand PUD. And someone who lives in here within 300 feet objected to that, saying that he doesn't want to live 300 feet from a school. However, as you can see from this map, they are proposing a large buffer area. And this gentleman's house is not going to be adjacent to the school itself, but adjacent to the buffer area of the school. Staff recommends that you forward this conditional use to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Chahram, I have a quick question. What's an interim conditional use? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I call it interim conditional use. A conditional use which will go away when they apply for the PUD. Because the PUD is for a school on 172 acres. Now they are taking only nine acres of that 172 acres for a conditional use, because PUD takes a long time to get it approved, and they want this conditional use to start their school. MS. STUDENT: The conditional use -- Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney for the record. Conditional use goes with a zoning district. So the zoning district is gone as it would be because of the rezone to the PUD district. That should extinguish any conditional uses that are on there. And just so staff may make a note of it, perhaps when the rezone is accomplished, it could state what -- the rezone from the district with any existing conditional uses to PUD. And then that way it's really clear. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So this is truly a conditional use, just a smaller acreage. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's a truly conditional use. No smaller -- Mr. Badamtchian was just using a language that it's an interim, but it's a conditional use. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Because if they never come back from a PUD, the conditional use is going to stay there. Page 45 May 4, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Correct. MS. STUDENT: It's extinguished by operational law, really, when that PUD rezone happens. Because the conditional use goes with the zoning district for the zoning that's now on there. And so the PUD, the rezone to the PUD, extinguishes that zoning district, together with the conditional uses that would go with it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And as Commissioner Wrage said, if they never come back for the PUD, the conditional use stays there. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? Can we hear from the petitioner, please? MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, representing Royal Palm Academy International, Incorporated. I have present with me today Patrick Smith, who's chairman of the board and CEO of Royal Palm Academy, and David Corcoran, the school's general counsel. Also present are the members of the consulting team, Stephen Sposato, planner, and Jim Carr, engineer, both from Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. I have about a half-hour presentation ready, but I'll be happy to skip that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That was followed by denial, right? MR. ANDERSON: Just answer any questions. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: For every 10 minutes, you lose a commissioner, okay? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Are there any questions that any of you have? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's clear to me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, this is the much more favorable presentation. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: There's no road issues here at all? I'm not familiar with where the roads even are. I'm not -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Kant, the road expert, can clarify that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The road will be here. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Obviously they will have to have access onto a county road. Page 46 May 4, 2000 That road will be Livingston Road, north of Immokalee Road. There are presently a two-lane section of that under construction. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: But that's my question, it's under construction? Because I'm not familiar with that area. MR. KANT: Well, they obviously can't get a certificate of occupancy. They probably can't even get a site development plan approval till that road is done. But I happened to be up there yesterday. They got the curbs in, they got most of the lime rock. I would imagine it's going to be travelable (sic} within the next three or four months. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Really?. MR. KANT: But that doesn't necessarily mean it will be open to traffic. But it will be travelable. And if they are going to get started, they're going to have -- I haven't seen their site, but based on what I know of the area, they're going to have some significant site work to do. But I don't think they're going to be able to just move stuff on site. So if you're planning to open in August, September, it's going to be a push. MR. ANDERSON: We have the Lord on our side. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Anyone else from the public to present testimony? There being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, with that divine intervention, I make a recommendation we forward Petition CU-2000-5 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to forward it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Wrage, second by Ms. Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Remember to give Mr. Wrage your findings of fact on this item. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Speaking of divine intervention, look what we have coming next. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, Item M, that's DOA-2000-01. Any Page 47 May 4, 2000 disclosures on this item? There are none. Anyone wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.} MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. The petition that's before you seeks your recommendation to allow the extension of time periods by which certain actions were to occur regarding the Citygate PUD, which is -- and DRI, which is located on Collier Boulevard, north of the 1-75 interchange. There's a water treatment plant there. I think you can see that fairly well on your monitor, immediately north of the White Lake Industrial Park. Citygate is a mixed use commercial and industrial project, primarily industrial, to the east of the water treatment plant, and commercial along the frontage. This petition, however, really doesn't change any land use development strategy. Although there is a condition in the development order that limits the amount of development that can occur between now and the subsequent amendment to the Citygate development of regional impact. So this application asks you basically to extend the time frame by which substantial development was to have begun by one year and 364 days, or two years, less one day. It has been reviewed by the Regional Planning Council, and they have supported the amendment and have determined it to be of an insubstantial nature. And after my staff report had been completed, I also received notice from the Department of Community Affairs that they approved the amendment to the development order as well. So we have a development order that basically extends the time frames by two years, less one day. But also has the stipulation in it that development is limited to some degree to the area west of the power lines. I need to bring to your attention, however, and I talked to Mr. ¥arnadoe about this, our utility staff has sent us a concern that they require some easements in this area, and that they -- their wish list was that the stipulations be included in the development order. And I advised them that that is not traditionally the role of DRI development orders, because as Mr. Varnadoe will tell you Page 48 May 4, 2000 much more eloquently than I, that it's a local issue and you have no business having it in the development order. But the position of staff was that if verbally it could be placed on the record, that that matter will be equitably dealt with at a subsequent PUD amendment stage, that that would be fine. We recommend approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just out of curiosity, why is this two years less one day? Is there some reason? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: It was my question, but -- MR. NINO: I'll let Mr. Varnadoe answer that. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: -- I wasn't going to sound silly asking it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, I'll be glad to sound silly for my edification. MR. VARNADOE: It's not silly at all. It's one of those technical requirements of the DRI law. If you go over a certain time frame, then it becomes a substantial deviation. If you stay under the seven years, it becomes less. So it is a rebuttal presumption, which we rebutted. That's the reason, so as not to run afoul the technical law. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: I have talked with Mrs. Student and she agrees with me, that since we have to come back in for a PUD amendment, the better time to address any easements the utility department might need is that at that point during the PUD amendment, not during a DRI development order extension which is doing nothing else but extending the development order for less than two years. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to address them. But what we have out there is some wetlands and some red-cockaded woodpeckers that have been moving around so that the -- it's very hard to come up with a -- we had a preserve on-site in the original development order. Now they have moved. We're going to come back in and amend the development order during the -- as we do permitting, and amend the PUD to change the preservation site. And I'd rather do all those site planning things at one time and not be piecemealing it at this time. This just gives us a year, 11 months and 29 or 30 days to be able to accomplish those matters. Page 49 May 4, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Seems reasonable to me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public to address this item? We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of Petition DOA-2000-01, Citygate Commerce Park. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Pedone, second by Mr. Wrage. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next item on the agenda, Item N, DOA-2000-02. Mr. Duane needs to come in from the hall so we can let him present something to us. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: This is also a companion, the way it looks. Right, everything we got left? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a good point. We are going to hear the final two items on the agenda today together.They are companion items and we will take separate action. Do we have any disclosures? There are none. All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. NINO: Bob, could you put up a map, please. MR. DUANE: Yes, I will. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. I'm going to deal with the two petitions concurrently, if that meets with your approval. We have both here a development order amendment to the Olde Cypress PUD and an amendment to the PUD. Essentially what the amendment is all about is to add 10 acres of land to the Olde Cypress PUD in this area here, Page 50 May 4, 2000 immediately east of the current entryway statement into Olde Cypress. Top of the bridge, and you have that beautiful golf tee, or whatever it is, the entry statement, the property immediately to the east of that. And the purpose for which that land will be used is to shift the driving range from an interior location to this property. There will be no increase in the number of dwelling units resulting from this addition of 10 acres. There are a couple of other things that are proposed to be changed in this scheme. The master plan for the PUD originally had a road that went through the commercial tract and into the project, crossing the Slough here. That is going to be changed. And the road is proposed to simply penetrate the commercial tract and then have an east-west leg to it, going over to these properties that lie between the east and the west legs. You're going to hear a lot about that today. Mr. Custer is one of the owners of one of these properties here. And as a matter of fact, I've been on the phone to another owner who lives in Colorado who owns the parcel immediately to the east of the east leg of Olde Cypress. The issue about the 10 acres and the minor change to the master plan is really not of any significance. We need to talk about the properties that lie between the east and west leg and how we're going to get access to those properties. We had first suggested an access that would come from the signature entry road going east, parallel to the canal, so that those other properties would not be -- would have access other than by creating another bridge across the canal. Mr. Hardy, of course, is opposed to that, and one can't blame him. I mean, after all, this is his signature entryway into what is essentially a private community. The petitioners did agree, however, as a result of this discussion, to provide a road through the commercial tract, which would provide the ability to come from the east going -- from the east going west across the canal and parallel to the canal. Here's the problem. And Mr. Duane will have to speak to it, because I have not concluded any discussion with the -- with Chip Merriam and the corps. But I'm told that there's a big problem -- they have a problem with crossing this flowway. And this area in here is all a flowway. And it adjoins up with a massive preserve Page 51 May 4, 2000 area in Olde Cypress. They're telling -- Merriam in his -- my last discussion was that they're going to have a problem allowing a structure across that flowway. And if that's the case, then the only alternative would be to create another bridge across the canal. Now, that decision, as I understand from Ed, rests with the Water Management District. Once they do that, then we have a problem, of course, permitting the right turn lanes and the various turn lane configurations. Quite frankly, Ed and I have talked about this. We would rather not have another bridge across the road. We would rather not have another interface with Immokalee Road. We have enough problems with Immokalee Road. I guess one could take the position that hey, if Olde Cypress gets a road to the -- through the commercial tract, but the problem then of access rests with those individual lot owners, and that would not be an unreasonable proposition for us to take. It might not be the kind of resolve that Mr. Custer, who is going to talk to you about, would rather have. But nonetheless, that may be the only position we're in. The long and the short of it is, this addition to the Olde Cypress DRI is of a rather insignificant nature in terms of it -- it has -- it virtually has no impact, since it has no dwelling units associated with it. And the region and the Department of Community Affairs -- again, the Region has reviewed this, they've recommended approval, which is basically saying this is an insubstantial change. And similarly, with the Department of Community Affairs. Those are all the issues that are on the table here. Really, the big issue is the concern for access to this property that is surrounded by the east and west legs. Perhaps Mr. Duane, in the last couple of days has gotten more information from the Corps of Engineers. I don't know. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: A simple question. Is this a driving range for the country club, or is this a public driving range? MR. NINO: No, it's the driving range for the country club. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: For the county club. So they really are going to access it -- this really doesn't have any -- the issue is access to the other properties -- MR. NINO: Correct. Page 52 May 4, 2000 COMMISSIONER WRAGE: -- possibly through this. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. I unfortunately have to leave. I've another engagement. But I just want the record to reflect that we don't want to -- I wasn't sure if what Mr. Nino said made it sound like we were opposed to having access off of Immokalee Road. The issue is an operational issue. Obviously the more driveways, the more turn lanes, the more access points. You get into safety, capacity and operational issues. In an ideal world, I would agree with Mr. Nino, and I don't even think that Mr. Duane or any of the property owners would disagree, that a frontage road serving those properties would be the best solution, given the fact that there's a bridge at this location already, and another bridge at this location already. And given what could be the configuration of this Slough, there might have to be one or possibly even more, although I doubt seriously -- I know the District has made it quite clear, they really don't want to see very many more structures put across that canal. So our concern is that we would like to see the frontage road, but obviously we're not in a position to turn around and say that we're going to take the property either because we can't give them access. That's not going to happen. But I just think it's important to recognize that any additional bridges, any additional access points on Immokalee Road, could in the future become operational issues.And I just want the record to reflect that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: Yes, for the record, Robert Duane, representing Olde Cypress, LTD. I'm not sure I have much anything to add to Mr. Nino's presentation other than I too spoke with Mr. Merriam from the South Florida Water Management District yesterday. He does not have any objection, per se, to crossing that particular Slough. But frankly, the design of that structure is going to essentially have to be a bridge so water can pass underneath that. We feel by providing access to the adjacent properties to the west that we've been more than reasonable. There will be cross Page 53 May 4, 2000 easements provided between the two properties at the time of platting. And Ron is correct, we don't want to direct all that traffic through our signature entrance and/or impact the nine acres of golf driving range that we're adding to the PUD and the DRI. So I would submit to you that we've been reasonable in trying to provide alternate access. And while that access may cost more to construct those kinds of improvements over the Slough, frankly, we don't believe that that's, you know, our problem. We've tried to accommodate access. And I'll rest my case on that, unless you have any questions that you want to ask me. And perhaps you can then listen to Mr. Custer after I'm finished. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner?. Anyone from the public to address this item? MR. CUSTER: I'm Roy Custer. I own the 18 and a half acres in the middle of this particular development. I shouldn't say development, but the middle of the 68-acre out. There's four property owners, and I'm right in the middle. And my property adjoins the weir that's across the Cocohatchee Canal, which is directly across from Jersey Joe's, if you remember. Gives an idea where this property is located. I too have talked to the South Florida Water Management people in Fort Myers, Mr. Chip Merriam, and he does not want anything across this Slough. Now, this Slough, ladies and gentlemen, is 1,000 feet wide, my estimate. Maybe 900 to 1,000 feet. So if he doesn't want anything across the Slough, we have to build a bridge 1,000 feet long. It will be elevated a foot, two-foot or three-foot to get across there, whatever the South Florida Water Management District would require. And that would be prohibitive to do. It would be easier for us to put a bridge onto Immokalee Road than to do one across this Slough. Now that Slough is very, very important for the drainage all the way up to the Corkscrew Sanctuary. About over 10 miles of water is going to have to come down through there and empty into this Cocohatchee Canal. We know when we have this property that we are part of that Slough. We have about three acres on the corner of this 18 and a half acres that is part of that Slough. Page 54 May 4, 2000 So Mr. Hardy, with Olde Cypress, has said well, we can let you in through the commercial area. Well, that would be fine, if we could get across the Slough in an economical way. But it's being impossible. A 1,000-foot bridge against one that's 100-foot. So we requested to the -- your department, the Planning Department, that we have access to the west side of this property, which was the Logan Road -- Logan Boulevard Extension. It will eventually go, it will be a north-south artery public road. And that is where we would like to have access to. Now, this particular 9.3 acres that they have purchased and are adding to their Olde Cypress development is 1,200 feet long. It's my understanding that a golf driving range requires 900 feet. He's got 300 feet there. Somewhere in that 300 feet, next to the canal, next to the southern border, that he could give these four property owners a 60-foot access, easement or right-of-way over that nine acres right into these four property owners. There are several advantages that we have if we are allowed to connect to this Logan Boulevard. It's going to eliminate the necessary proposition of this bridge across the Cocohatchee Canal. And also, this large bridge, 1,000-foot bridge across the Slough. This road, from Logan Boulevard, would then be able to give access to Olde Cypress people that are going to those schools. They could actually come down Logan Boulevard. And if we could get across the Slough, they would be able to come in that way to the -- to those schools. By giving us this access on the west side of our properties, we will no longer be landlocked and we would be able to get to our acreage. And that's about all have I to say. It's just a matter of how can we, the four property owners, get access to our property at a reasonable amount of money. Right now one neighbor, a man by the name of Fontana, he's been visiting that property every weekend for 10 years, 15 years, and he is unable to visit his property now because of the Cocohatchee Canal enlargement and taking over the entire 100-foot right-of-way. He cannot even get on the property. Right now we have no way of getting on these four properties. So I would like for you to consider giving us access to the Logan Boulevard -- on the south side of this 9.3 acres that they're Page 55 May 4, 2000 adding to their development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Thank you, sir. Any questions for this gentleman? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: question, but I think-- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm not sure how to ask the Surely you can try. I think he's trying to ask the petitioner to give a portion so that you reach there, and you're willing to give -- all you four property owners are willing to have a MR. NINO: Cross easements. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- cross easements, a road all the way down Frontage Road? Mr. Duane, could you clarify what it is he's really asking you to give up? MR. DUANE: He's asking us to give up private property. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And how many feet? MR. DUANE: Well, a typical right-of-way might be 50 feet with drainage and pavement within it, that is correct. And plus we would then take all of the traffic from those four properties -- how many acres are the combined properties in the output? MR. CUSTER: 68. MR. DUANE: 68 times four units per acre. That's 250 dwelling units times -- they're multi-family, times six trips per unit. We'd be putting 1,000 more cars in our entrance. We would have to redesign our golf course area. We planned to put a structure -- in fact, we have a -- we planned to put a large tower structure right on the edge of the road between the golf driving range and the right-of-way. And our plans are fairly far along for how we're going to use the nine acres of property that we're adding. But to accommodate additional right-of-way is something that we really don't feel is our responsibility. We are giving them an access point free and for gratis to get into the property. And they've been landlocked for some time. We can't do more than provide them an access point, which is what we're doing. MR. NINO: I think it's inappropriate to say that they're landlocked, Mr. Duane. They have the same opportunity that every other property owner on the north side of the Immokalee Canal had, and that is to build a bridge. Page 56 May 4, 2000 MR. DUANE: That's correct. MR. NINO: They're really not landlocked. And whether or not there are difficulties attendant to acquiring a permit from the Water Management District to build a bridge is really not the concern or the responsibility of any adjacent property. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Ron -- and Ed left. Two questions: One, Logan, as they've built, is private and I assume going to stay that way? MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Logan is a public -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Or excuse me, Logan. And whatever happened -- and we've talked about it many times, going south to Vanderbilt? MR. NINO: It will be. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Some day. MR. NINO: Oh, yeah. Logan Boulevard will be a north-south road, all the way from -- Santa Barbara becomes Logan, and it will go at least a mile north of Immokalee Road. It will not -- unlikely that it will go through to Bonita Beach Road; although that possibility even also exists today, from what I understand in talking to the Ronto people who are the developers of the Parkland. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So Duane, I'm a little confused. You are going to have a bunch of traffic going through that entrance some day. MR. DUANE: Right. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And I hear your issue about giving up private property. So I'm torn both ways here. And you do have a beautiful entrance. But that's going to be public all the way through. There's going to be a lot of traffic through there some day. MR. DUANE: But it's the traffic that we would have to take through the nine acres. We are losing usable land area for our golf course driving range and for the structure that we plan to put right at the entrance there, which is designed to be a signature entranceway. It's going to be a beautiful structure. And it puts us in an awkward position of having to provide access for other properties, when we are giving them another access point to our commercial tract for free and gratis. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And I agree with you on that part. Page 57 May 4, 2000 It's -- MS. STUDENT: I just want to state for the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, that when you exact something from the developer in the nature of property or some type of property right, there has to be rational nexus between that exaction and the impacts of that development. Not neighbors' development, but that development. And if you go beyond that, there are legal risks involved. And that's the law of -- not only in Florida, but the United States Supreme Court. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I'm having trouble with, Marjorie, is to make sure that we're not asking something unusual of Mr. Duane to give up access and an easement here. I don't feel comfortable with this, but I'm not sure I understand the law well enough to make a decision. MR. CUSTER: Could I say something? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. CUSTER: We're talking a 60-foot wide -- or 50-foot -- say 60 for 300 feet is 18,000 square feet. It's not even a half acre. This development of Olde Cypress is the entire section of 640 acres. He gave right-of-way for Logan Boulevard. He's given a right-of-way to -- the 40-acre out is right dab in the middle of his section. You have to give people an access to the property. And we've owned property in other counties, and I don't know, we've given close to 40 or 50 miles of roads in the three sections of land we had. And it's just the thing to do for a big property owner when he comes in with a big development is to take care of everything that surrounds that development. And that's what we're asking is a reasonable access to our property. Now, as far as my 18 and a half acres, I give a cross easement to my neighbors, or I would give whatever the county would like. I give the land to the county for the right-of-way. And we've done that before. And that's the proper thing to do, is to have a reasonable access to this property. Now, it's unreasonable for us to build a bridge that's 1,000 feet long to a commercial area for this flowway of all this water from the Corkscrew Sanctuary. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Just to address that, many times a developer will voluntarily give a lot more than is or are the impacts of their development. They do it voluntarily. If they do it voluntarily, Page 58 May 4, 2000 that's not a problem for us. But when it comes to -- and any time any PUD applicant or applicant for amendment comes in here and wants to do something voluntarily, that is not a problem for us. The problem arises when we exact it or force it out of a developer. Then when we do it, as the government, there are constitutional guarantees on property rights that go with what we do, because we're the government, that's unattached necessarily to what a private entity does. And that's the rub. MR. NINO: Mr. Custer's position would have much more substance to it, quite frankly, if it weren't for the fact that he does have the ability to build a bridge across the canal. He does have access. We're not talking about a bridge across the Slough, we're talking a bridge across the canal, penetrating into his property. So that really, what this amounts to is it's obviously cheaper for Mr. Custer to develop his property from a road that is gratis coming from the east as opposed to the cost of building a bridge, which he would have to do. Let's assume that Olde Cypress wasn't there and somebody bought Mr. Custer's property and wanted to develop it. They'd have to build a bridge across the canal. MR. CUSTER:Are you going to require four bridges, four property owners? MR. NINO: That is between the owners of those properties and the Water Management District. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But is it not my understanding that all four property owners have an easement or an agreement that you'll run an easement for all of you? So you only need one bridge, not four bridges. MR. NINO: That's right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're -- if we could just bring things toward a focus and a motion. Is there anyone else to present testimony? MR. DUANE: If I may briefly conclude, and without trying to elaborate on the obvious, the issue before you is the nine acres we're adding is at an appropriate use of the land to add additional open space lands, and the answer to that is yes. Does this amendment to the DRI constitute a substantial deviation? It does not. Do we have any objections from any state or regional agencies? We do not. And we're fully consistent with the comprehensive plan and all of your other requirements. And I Page 59 May 4, 2000 would submit to you that it's a burden for us to try to provide alternate access to adjacent lands as part of this particular petition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Duane. We'll close the public hearing. Ms. Rautio, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That answered it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that, we have two companion items. We need to handle them individually. Do we have a motion on the first item? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, having been through all that, I would make a motion that we forward Petition DOA-2000-02, as described, with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Wrage, second by Mr. Pedone. Discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Item O, second item. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Likewise, I would recommend that we forward with a recommendation of approval PUD-99-18(1) as described. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Is there any old business? Any new business? MR. NINO: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Yes. MR. NINO: The -- your counterparts in the city would like to have a joint meeting with you. Page 60 May 4, 2000 COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Who's buying breakfast this time? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Not Lee County, I assume. MR. NINO: No, no. Preferably in June. And the issue -- you recall your last joint meeting, you indicated that there will be some cooperative effort to deal with land use restrictions along U.S. 41, Tamiami Trail North. Our people have been together, you know, Ray Bellows of our staff, and Nino Spagna of the city staff, have come up with a plan, and we need to talk about those issues with some discussion of height control along Tamiami Trail. And the preferred date would be your second meeting in June, if you're so inclined. Although, I have to tell you that all of your agendas in June are going to be as difficult as this one. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Well, this one went pretty well, actually. MR. NINO: Yeah, it did, actually. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Considering the volume. So what you're saying is that would stack on right at the end of our regular business agenda, so we would have to plan for a longer session. MR. NINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you have an estimation of the time of the dialogue with the city as to -- MR. NINO: Should not take any more than 45 minutes. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: But they're willing to come and wait until we're done? Is that -- MR. NINO: No, I would -- all respect, I would suggest you put it at the beginning of your meeting. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And what was the date, Mr. Nino, on that? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The second meeting would be June 15th. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. NINO: It's either that, or we wait until September. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm okay with June 15th. What's the pleasure of the Planning Commission? the first meeting we development services, COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm okay with June 15th. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'm okay with June 15th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: June 15th it is. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But the -- if I remember correctly, had jointly that I attended, we had at and we supplied donuts. The second Page 61 May 4, 2000 meeting was held at the city and they outdid us really, really badly. I mean, they were good. So if we're going to do something, we would want to know that we can outdo them a little bit. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Are we talking gravy and grits here? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: We're talking something. I don't know what. Maybe catered, you know. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I didn't attend that meeting, Mr. Pedone, but I agree with you, some of us don't even eat donuts. It's not healthy. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Some of us like donuts. Also, I'd like to bring up one other thing. Nothing to do with that meeting. But according to this Planning Commission members list you put out, I'm homeless and Ken Abernathy has two homes. So if you could do the tab next time you print it out, maybe it would -- MR. NINO: Could you give me your corrections back? Give me your corrections back. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I also, and I gave one to Commissioner Abernathy already, since he was leaving early, but last month there was a 23rd annual local governmental seminar put on by the Florida Bar and there was a very good primmer included with it on quasi-judicial hearings. So I made a copy and have it for each one of you. So I'll pass that out now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other new business? Any public comment? We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Page 62 May 4, 2000 TRANSCRIPT REPORTING PUBLIC PREPARED ON SERVICE, INC., BEHALF OF GREGORY BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, COURT NOTARY Page 63 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION May19,2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Ben Nelson Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., 10900 East Terry Street Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2000-09, Dolphin Cove Court Dear Mr. Nelson On Thursday, May 4, 2000, the Collier County Petition No. BD-2000-09. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-05 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very t,~zv yours, Planner II g/admin/B D-2000-09/G PJim Enclosure cc: Mr. Charles Plaskon 2635 White Cedar Lane Naples, Florida 34109 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File Planning Commission heard and approved Phone (941)403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 05 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-09 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED 1N COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 16-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 21-foot boat dock and boathouse in an RSF-3 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 oppommity 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 Corn_mission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition number BD-2000-09 filed by Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., representing Charles Plaskon, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 3, Dolphin Cove, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 16-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 21-foot boat and boathouse in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-09 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 /4rh day of l~lay ,2000. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Mami M. Scuderi Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/B D-2000-09/RG/ts 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION June 20, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-03, Michael Zaccheo (Companion to V-2000-07) Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, May 4, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000o03. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-06 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-03/2.23.00/RG/im Enclosure cc: Mr. Michael Zaccheo 63 Southport Cove Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 06 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-03 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 31-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 51-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition BD-2000-03 filed by Miles L. Scofield, from Scofield Marine Construction, representing Michael Zaccheo, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 58, Unit 1, Southport on the Bay, as described in Plat Book 15, Pages 51-53, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 31-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 51-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-03 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 4th day of l~ay ,2000. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Marr~fM. Scuderi - Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-03/2.23.00/RG/ts 2