Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/20/2000 RJuly 20, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 20, 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: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Michael Pedone Michael J. Bruet Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Gary Wrage NOT PRESENT: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS W1SHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 1, 2000 & June 15, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-11, Jerry C. Neal, representing Jean M. Wickett, requesting a 57-foot boat dock extension to construct a boat dock and boat lift facility protruding 77 feet into the waterway, for property located on Dolphin Avenue, further described as Lot 97, Isles of Capri No. l, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. BD-2000-13, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Andreu and June Valls, requesting a 15-foot extension from the required 5 feet to construct a boat dock and boathouse facility protruding a total of 20 feet into the waterway, for property located at 207 Dolphin Cove Court, further described as Lot 2, Dolphin Cove, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Co BD-2000-14, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Andrew P. Devito, requesting a 28-foot extension from the permitted 20 feet for a boat dock facility protruding 48 feet into the waterway for property located at 208 San Mateo Drive, further described as Lot 27, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-2000-16, Suncoast Custom Pools, representing Taylor Woodrow Communities, requesting a 2.2-foot after- the-fact variance from the required 10-foot rear yard setback to 7.8 feet for property located at 1772 Winding Oaks Way, further described as Lot 202, Stonebridge Unit 4, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUD-2000-03, Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, requesting Barton & Wendy Mcintyre, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Nicaea Academy for a private school/educational facility, adult living facility, community facilities that include a church, child care and fire station, and single-family residential, for property located at C.R. 951 on the northeast comer of Tree Farm Road and C.R. 951, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119_+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-2000-09, Brad Hedrich, P.E., of Hedrich Engineering, Inc., representing Meridian Land Company, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and "RSF-3" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Madiera PUD for a maximum of 438 residential dwelling units for property located on the west side of Livingston Road, approximately 3/4 miles north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), in Sections 13 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 145.93_+ acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) PUD-2000-12, Dwight Nadeau of McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing S.J. Benson & Associates, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Arlington Lakes PUD for a maximum of 610 residential dwelling units and recreational amenities for property located on the west side of Whippoorwill Lane, approximately 1,850 feet south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 98.36_+ acres. (Continued to 9/21) (Coordinator: Don Murray) CU-2000-09, Jonathan Burt of J.D. Burt Company, Inc., representing Crossroads Community Church, requesting Conditional Use "7" of the "A" zoning district for a church per Section 2.2.2.3 for property located at 3285 Pine Ridge Road, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.1_+ acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 7/20/00 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im 2 July 20, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I'd like to open the meeting of the July 20th, Collier County Planning Commission. I'll start with the roll call. Russell Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Ken Abernathy is absent. Mike Pedone, here. Russell Budd is excused. Gary Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mike Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Sam Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And "JA" Rautio, she's not here, okay. Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, you have one item that's been requested to be deleted, continued to your next meeting. That's Item G, PUD-2000-12. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So moved. MR. NINO: There's also the issue of-- I don't know if you want to handle it now, but cancellation of your August the 3rd meeting. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Right now, though, we have a motion to continue Item G, PUD-2000-12. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we cancel our first meeting in August due to lack of an agenda. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. I'll need an approval of the minutes for June 1st and June 15th. Any discussion on these minutes? Any changes? There being none, I'll entertain for a motion. Page 2 July 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I'll move we recommend those minutes of June 1st only; that's the only one I was here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, I have a motion for June 1st. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any further discussion? Being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Do I have a motion for June 15th? There being none, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes of June 15th. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll second that motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any discussion? There being none, call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Any planned Planning Commission absences? Good. Mr. Nino, do we have a BCC report? MR. NINO: We do not have a report. The board's on vacation. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Chairman -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Can I just ask a question, that obviously I didn't watch all the County Commission meetings. What happened to the rear yard setback in Pelican Strand? Remember the -- or The Strand, I guess. MR. NINO: It was approved. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: The board approved it? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And what about the Outland (sic) Resorts of America, they approved that also? Or is it still coming? MR. NINO: Outdoor Resorts of America. MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure if it was heard. MR. NINO: We're not sure. We'll let you know at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have one other question, Ron. It relates to our cancellation or postponement of Item G today. We've had several of these postponed. Are we getting closer to Page 3 July 20, 2000 all that getting worked out in that area, or is it different things that are causing these to be delayed? MR. NINO: No, the postponement is not the result of staff, it's a result of the petitioners either not being ready or having date conflicts or whatever. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, I realize it wasn't staff's part, but we've had four or five of these scheduled and then, you know, put off, and-- MR. NINO: Well, they're getting fewer all the time. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, chairman's report. The chairman being absent, there is no report, so we go on to advertised public hearings. We'll start with BD-2000-11. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners, Ross Gochenaur -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: We have the swearing in? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Does anyone wish to give testimony in this? Please stand and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The visualizer seems to be tango uniform, so we'll just continue without that. Oh, there we go. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: There it comes. MR. GOCHENAUR: The petitioner is requesting a 67-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 87 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 42 Dolphin Cove, in Isles of Capri and contains about 80 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a four foot wide L-shaped dock with a boat lift at the terminus. The bottom at the site is very shallow, the waterway is very broad, and there are a number of similar extended docks in the immediate area. No objections to this project have been received, it meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Neal? MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal, representing the petitioner. The waterway is approximately 800 feet wide. And in your packet there should be an aerial showing the location of the Page 4 July 20, 2000 subject site and the waterway. There is, in this particular waterway, two channels, one on the petitioner's side and one on the opposite side next to the mangroves. The shoreline next to the properties on this street have a beach, and because of this beach, the extension going on out to get to adequate water depth is the reason for the petition. The water depth, about 60 feet out from the property line, is only one foot deep, measured at mean low water, which is the criteria of the measurement. And at mean low water, it's about 30 feet out from the seawall to the edge of the water. The design of the project was to extend out until we obtain the minimum depth required by the county and the state. And in the package that you received, there is a plan view that shows that on the petition side, or the lot side of the proposed dock that's going to be -- the terminal dock parallel to shore, that it's only one foot deep on the side next to the lot. It is at the break point in the slope of the bottom where the bottom runs flat from the property out, and then it has a steep slope down into the channel. So on the water-ward (sic) side of the four-foot dock is approximately four feet deep, and that is where we terminate the dock. And then we're proposing to put the boat lift itself in the waterway, which is adequate depth to sustain the cradle, the boat and having some room underneath the facility, which is supposed to be a minimum of one foot from the bottom. This criteria meets the guidelines of both the local and the state, and this docking facility meets the permitting exemption of the State of Florida DEP, due to the size of it and the location of it. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions from the -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. Mr. Neal, this dock, if built in relation to the neighbors dock, is -- what's the relationship there as far as distance out into the water? MR. NEAL: On the site plan, the existing dock to the west, the outside edge of their boathouse and this dock is on the outside edge of the proposed four-foot terminal dock. And then on the outside of that, because the water depth is where we're going to have our proposed boat lift. Page 5 July 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So the boat itself would not be sticking out any further than the boat on the neighbors dock that's shown in the picture in our packet to the southwest? MR. NEAL: Right now the one to the southwest has a boathouse, put a boat in, and then he has the outside to put his boat in, but he only has the lift in the boathouse. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. But if the boat were moored outside of the boat dock-- MR. NEAL: They'd be similar. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- th'ey'd be -- MR. NEAL: Almost the same. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- almost the same. MR. NEAL: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's what it appeared, but I wanted to get that straight. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? Anyone else wish to speak on this petition? There being none -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'- There is one. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Were you sworn in, sir?. MR. COHEN: No. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was. I'd be happy to be sworn in. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Yes, if you wouldn't mind being sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: State your name for the record. MR. COHEN: My name is Steven Cohen, and I live at 50 Dolphin Circle, adjacent to this property. We did not receive any written notification by mail, which normally you receive something like this. And I became aware of this petition when notice was posted on the property just this past week, stating that this hearing would be here. So I just have some questions and concerns about it for starters. It's my understanding that the small house under construction where this dock will be put in place is being joined to the larger house next door, which has the existing boat dock south -- I guess you guys are calling it southwest of it. MR. NEAL: Yes. MR. COHEN: So they're joining the two lots together. Why is Page 6 July 20, 2000 there a need for two boat lifts, or two docks for one large -- for one property? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Which property is yours, sir? MR. COHEN: Mine is directly adjacent to the proposed site, 50 Dolphin Circle, which is I believe Lot 95. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Is it the south or north of it? MR. COHEN: I would be north of it. And that's not mine, that is the -- what I have now for my dock. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You're on the cul-de-sac, sir? MR. COHEN: I'm on the -- well, I'm on the -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Oh, you're on the curved piece. MR. COHEN: I'm the curve piece. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We need you to be at the microphone, please. MR. COHEN: Mine is the curved piece, if you were to put it that way. So I'm trying to figure out a few things. First of all, how far out that will extend between -- well, the waterway is some 800 feet across. There's a rather large bar in the middle. So I'd like to know how far -- what the distance is from the -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Excuse me, you have to address this board. MR. COHEN: All right. Well -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: She can't hear you when you turn around. MR. COHEN: I appreciate that. I'm just trying not to be rude to the gentleman behind me who has -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Don't worry about him. MR. COHEN: Okay. Pay the man behind the curtain no mind? I'd like to know what the distance is between the proposed outside edge of the boat lift and the bar that exists in the middle that eats up I guess about 30 percent of the -- of that waterway. And I'd like to know why, since the two lots are joined, they already have one large dock there, they're going to have a second dock, you know, for what is going to be one large property. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. We can ask Mr. Neal to answer those questions. Page 7 July 20, 2000 MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal. The outside edge of the proposed facility and to the start of the shoal that's in the middle scales off to be on the aerial, approximately 150, 160 feet remaining navigable channel there. The other item brought up about the connecting of the two houses, I have no information on this. When I did my survey, when I did the field measurements, there were two separate houses. And to my knowledge, there's still two separate houses. I don't know. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm sorry, I missed the question. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: The question was that there seems to be an existing home right there, and a new home is being attached to the existing home, and the existing home already has a dock. MR. COHEN: That's correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And why the second dock. MR. GOCHENAUR: I was not aware that they're attaching the two homes. I'm not sure exactly how they're going to go about that. That's an entirely separate issue, and we normally wouldn't have looked at it. We treat a single piece of property -- should they be combined, say it was one large house, they would have the ability to put in a dock or two docks, as long as they are within the building envelope, and each dock got an extension, either combined or separately from the board -- or from this commission. MR. NEAL: The house that this sets on is one of those real small flat roofed houses, probably built back in the Sixties. And the house that's to the southwest, it's a relatively new house that probably was built three or four years ago. But like I said, when -- they may even be remodeling the small house, I don't know. But-- MR. COHEN: They've been renovating -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yeah, but you have to understand, sir, that the house is not before us. Right now we're just looking at the dock extension. MR. COHEN: I understand that. You know, I've been watching the construction, assuming that the governing body's been keeping an eye on what's happening. They have -- I mean, I know the history, since I've lived there for so long. What I'm talking about here is that I see a -- what was a Page 8 July 20, 2000 smaller home that was cut down in half, the new home was erected -- that's the house and dock adjacent directly to it -- both lots are owned directly by the same person. They have been remodeling extensively to stay within -- you know, we have certain codes here in Collier County that say that you cannot do such and such without meeting mean sea level. That's not the purpose of this hearing. But they built a small guest house or are in the process of building a very small guest house that is being conjoined to the larger home by a breezeway, as the walkway and the pillars for a roofing structure there already exist to go all the way across the front of that other home. So we had a question, you know, since my wife and I live directly next door, why there was, you know, this need for another dock there when the larger home that services the property, you know, has, you know, a fairly large dock that maybe they need, you know, to move their boat lift to the outside of that dock, if they feel they don't have enough water underneath where the current lift is. And we wondered why they were putting a 57-extension out into the water and then proposing to put a boat lift outside that. And one of the questions I guess I would also have would be how large is the boat lift they're planning on putting in? Is this for an eight-foot wide beam, is this for a 15-foot wide beam, you know. I have no idea what type of boat they're planning on mooring there. And we have concerns. I mean, I spend a lot of time on my docks. Right now I have a nice view, I can see the existing dock and I can see out into the Gulf. If it gets too large and too close in, my view will be, you know, where I spend my evenings when I come home looking at someone else's dock and not seeing, you know, the waterway that I've learned to appreciate over the past 12 years. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Ross, you're saying should the property only connect the properties, the resident structures together, he still has the right to build two docks? MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? Page 9 July 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'd like to have the gentleman's question answered about the beam of the boat, what's proposed, or the -- for the lift. MR. NEAL: The actual beam of the boat that's going to physically sit on the lift, I do not know what particular boat he is going to put there. Though we're building a standard lift width, which is a 12-foot cradle, which is a standard lift. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So it would not exceed probably 12-- MR. NEAL: We're not doing an excessive boat. We're doing a typical Marco/Capri type of boat. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other discussion? Then I'll close the public meeting. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this commission approve BD-2000-11. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion by Mr. Bruet, a second by Mr. Wrage. Any other discussion? There being none, I'll call for the boat. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Chairman, I want the record to reflect that Commissioner Rautio has now arrived. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' So done. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sorry for being so late. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. The second petition is BD-2000-13. And anyone wishing to speak on this petition, please stand and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. Petitioner is requesting a 15-foot extension to construct a dock and boathouse, protruding a total of 20 feet into the 90-foot wide waterway. The property is located at 207 Dolphin Cove in Vanderbilt Beach, 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 the principal structure. The roof area is not excessive, and the height of the roof is about Page 10 July 20, 2000 four feet less than the maximum allowed by the code. No objections to this project have been received, and staff recommends approval. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Scofield, anything? MR. SCOFIELD: Not unless you have questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning Commission approve BD-2000-t 3, as stipulated by the staff. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion by Mr. Bruet, second by Mr. Saadeh. Any further discuss? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in fair, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Petition No. BD-2000-14. Mr. Gochenaur -- oh, anyone wishing to discuss this petition, please stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 28-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 48 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 208 San Mateo Drive, in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 88 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock and boat lift. The waterway at the site is wide but shallow along the shoreline, and a number of similar extensions have been approved in the immediate area. No objections to this project have been received, and staff recommends approval. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Scofield, nothing? Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Nothing. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: That being the case, we'll close the public hearing. Any discussion? There being none, I'll call for a motion. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll go for three, Mr. Chairman, here. BD -- I recommend the Planning Commission approve Page11 July 20, 2000 BD-2000-14, as stipulated by staff. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion by Mr. Bruet, second by Mr. Wrage. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. That's the end of the pool -- the docks. Now we'll go to the pool. Petition No. V-2000-16. Will anyone wishing to speak on this subject please stand up and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.} MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for an after-the-fact variance in the Stonebridge PUD, which, as you know, is in the -- excuse me, it's in the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport Road and Immokalee Road. And the green is the location of the subject property. And this is the survey for the home and pool. The encroachment of 2.2 feet into the 10-foot rear regard accessory setback is a result of a construction error. Now, there is no land-related hardship, but there are extenuating circumstances. The three surrounding homes to the west, east and north were all constructed prior to this home. The only way for equipment to get in to to dig the pool was prior to the construction of the house. Therefore, the pool was dug first. The pool contractor did not have the normal references from the foundation of the home. Again, this is not a land-related hardship, and staff did not find any ameliorating factors. We did recommend denial. We did -- as you got in your packet, we received a letter from the property owner to the north who would be one of the affected neighbors. She -- I spoke to her on the phone and she was satisfied with her second question about the environmental issues for drainage. This is not an encroachment into the drainage easement, so it will not affect that. However, she is concerned about the aesthetic issues. And it will make the home, instead of 15 feet Page 12 July 20, 2000 from her home, it will be 12.8 feet from her home. It's a draw back of these neighborhoods with small setbacks. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I have a question. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Did you ever discuss any mitigation of any kind for this in landscaping or -- MR. REISCHL: There is landscaping there. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I see she commented on some, but is it adequate? MR. REISCHL: It's a two-foot -- basically two feet. I mean, it's not -- two feet out of 15. That should have separated the home. I don't know if there's a lot of landscaping that would be able to grow in that area that would mitigate that. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Fred, and a comment of a couple of letters, said -- it talks about a denied permit. Any comment on that at all? MR. REISCHL: I didn't discuss that with her. I don't know what that reference is to. I don't know of anything -- she may have mixed my conversation up with a conversation I had with Taylor Woodrow. COMMISSIONER BRUET: But all necessary permits were -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- obtained? MR. REISCHL: Yes. In fact, this was a result of the spot survey -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. MR. REISCHL: -- so it worked in this case. COMMISSIONER BRUET: All right. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: All right, the petitioner? MR. SHAW: Good morning. For the record, I'm Jay Shaw, salesman for Suncoast Custom Pools, and responsible for this development and all pools that we have installed in this particular location. In this case, as Fred was mentioning, we were given survey points to reference the house. Our pool, in dimensioning it, was located off of the lanai area, which was, I think, about a 2.4-foot difference from the points on the very back of the house, which is a bay window/kitchen area. So as the survey stakes were laid out there, we measured from a point which was truly the rear of the house. It was not the Page 13 July 20, 2000 lanai portion of the house, which would have brought us back in the distance that we needed. We did check the dimensions physically to the pool, and I honestly did not go back to check it to the lanai. I did not think about it. The house sat for a period of time when it -- while it was being built, and at the time that we had the deck formed was at the time that we found that there was a problem, and we asked for a spot survey. At that point, the deck had been literally poured, because that's the point where the Wilson-Miller people needed to come back out and look at what we actually had. The project is complete. The homeowner is aware of the problem. The homeowner does not have a problem of course with what has occurred. And right now I have sent 13 letters to residents up north, trying to get a response. I have called by phone, I have had four people up north that said they didn't care, but they wouldn't sign anything or give any opinion one way or the other, for one reason or another. It really didn't affect them unless they were coming into their property. 13 letters I have gotten no response back on. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: How long has Suncoast Custom Pools been in business? MR. SHAW: 18 years. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And I direct the question to Ron or Fred. Have we ever had a problem with Suncoast Pools before, that you can recall? MR. NINO: Don't recall. MR. REISCHL: Not to my recollection. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Fred, to fix this, what has to be done? I mean, if this is denied, what takes place? They go saw off 2.4 feet of the -- MR. NINO: Pool cage. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- pool cage, is that -- MR. REISCHL: I believe Mr. Shaw can explain this a little more. It's not just a cage, but the foundation of the pool itself. MR. SHAW: The physical pool, the water edge of the pool, is one and five-eighths inches into this rear property setback. In the best calculations that we can do, it would be about $23,753 and some pennies to remove and start. So physically the pool Page 14 July 20, 2000 itself is just beyond the setback point. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. I want to make sure I'm clear. You said there were survey stakes up, you did your preliminary work and then had a spot survey done afterwards. You had Wilson-Miller come back? MR. SHAW: When we went into the lot. Because our only access at the time was through the lot before the house pad was even poured. Because lots 201 and 203 were already in and had residents living in them. We -- and the surveyor came out and set the survey stakes for the foundation of the house so that we would know where the very back of the house was, in order to establish our dimensions. The staking that was given to us was directly across the furthest point on the right-hand side of the house. And that gave us an offset that we weren't aware of until after the shell was actually in the ground and at the point when we were ready to poor the deck. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So unlike a couple of other variance requests we've had before us where they were using fences or trees to draw their location from, you actually used survey stakes. MR. SHAW: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So this is probably a real honest construction error. MR. SHAW: In the most sincerest sense. The jog on that, I'm sure that that's a kitchen area on the right-hand side of the house. That's what most people have used it for. That is, in real terms, if I'm not mistaken, I think it's 2.4 feet of an offset going into the backyard from the lanai, the covered lanai. Our pool again, in order to situate it on that deck, have some offset steps that come back in toward the lanai. So when we work off of a survey stake, that was given to us very correctly by the surveyor, it came 2.4 feet further back into the backyard. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah, I have a question. The bullnose on the pool deck itself, from the water line, just the bullnose, how much does that stick out? MR. SHAW: This is a capped tile pool beam, so we have no bullnose that wraps over the edge of the pool. The wall of the Page 15 July 20, 2000 pool comes straight down from the deck. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So there's no perimeters to the pool other than just the water, and then it continues with the decking. MR. SHAW: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And the water, you said, the water itself sticks out how much into -- MR. SHAW: One and five-eighths inch. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Each? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- in you guy's regulations, you have a minor or in-house administrative variance. MR. REISCHL: Administrative variance. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Would that qualify for that? MR. REISCHL: Yes. Up to five inches, I believe it is, for after the fact. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So if the petitioner was to bring the screen enclosure right into the edge of the pool with a minor variance in-house, that would correct the problem? MR. REISCHL: Without seeing measurements, it sounds like it would, yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other discussion? MR. NINO: May I suggest, though, that really dense landscaping theme will certainly eliminate the perceived proximity. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other -- anyone else wish to speak on the matter? MR. KLAUSER: Yes. For the record, my name is Bill Klauser. Good morning, everyone. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please? MR. KLAUSER: K-L-A-U-S-E-R. I'd just like to say that I hold the licenses for Suncoast Custom Pools. I would just like to add that Suncoast has proudly served Collier County for 18 years. And yes, this is the first time this type of error has occurred. We had and always will be respectful of all code enforcements set forth by the Planning Commission. We respectfully ask for an after-the-fact variance. Thank you. Page 16 July 20, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anything else? Anyone else wish to speak? There being none, I close the public hearing. I'd entertain any discussion or motion from the board. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, my discussion is, as you know, I in the past haven't supported very many of these variances. But in light, I guess, of their record, more than anything, and hope we don't see them here again, I'm sure next time they'd be a little extra careful. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I could only support the motion if some landscaping mitigation was proposed here. Some type -- at least make an effort to take the curse, so to speak, off of the northern neighbor there. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That would maybe be in the form of not necessarily depth of landscaping, but maybe height. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That's correct. MR. NINO: How about a resolution that approves it subject to an 80 percent or 100 percent opacity rating on vegetation within one year? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To what height? Or -- MR. NINO: Take your pick. 10 feet? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Is the petitioner agreeing with -- or does he have any problems with our requirement on additional landscaping? MR. SHAW: Not at all. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve Petition V-2000-16, with the additional landscaping at 100 percent opacity, six-foot height, within one year. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to state again for the record, I'm not a fan of variances. I'm definitely not a fan of construction variances. However, I think this is one of the first times since I've been on the board that both the license holder and the superintendent in charge of the pool, who are the ones who made the mistake, have actually came before us to present the information. So where I would normally vote against a variance, I think from the discussion here today that I can Page 17 July 20, 2000 support this approval. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. Mr. Saadeh, you mentioned a six-foot height on the vegetation, or do you want to go a little higher than that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: For a matter of discussion, I think probably six foot might be the better height, because I think if we get too high with it, it becomes an eyesore to the rest of the -- you know, on either side. I mean, it brings it on up another two feet and may give some visual difference there, but, you know, if you get up 10, 12 feet, the neighbors on either side are then going to, you know, be looking at something that's way out of line, too. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's going to stick out. It's not the normal -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- height of vegetation. And the average person cannot see over that anyway. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I can certainly support the six foot. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: All right, then we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Okay, next, PUD-2000-03. Anyone wishing to speak on this petition, please stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, before I -- I notice a lot of people got up. There are -- I have no sign-in indications. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. We have sign-in sheets out -- where were they, on the table outside? MR. NINO: There's on the table in the lobby. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: -- to speak so that we know who's speaking and who isn't. If you wouldn't mind doing that, it would be greatly appreciated. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name's Ray Bellows. I'm principal planner with current planning staff. The petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject 119-acre site from agriculture to PUD. As you can see, the PUD is located on the east side of County Road 951 and just south of the Crystal Lake RV Resort. Page 18 July 20, 2000 The master plan indicates that approximately 72 acres will be a preserve area in green, along the northern side of the subject site. The yellow area is intended for a private school, a church, a possibly fire station and also possibly an assisted living facility. The purple area, approximately three acres, tract two, is a residential tract for single-family, residential, approximately 3.3 units per acre. Access to the site is from Tree Farm Road, existing dirt road, with an existing sand bag type culvert bridge crossing the canal. Now, this is a copy of the Future Land Use Map. The subject site is in the yellow area, which is urban residential. It permits community facilities such as churches, schools and residential units at four units per acre. Therefore, this proposed project is consistent with the Future Land Use Element and Growth Management Plan. The traffic circulation element. The project is expected to generate approximately I 900 trips per day. The traffic on 951 is operating at Level of Service C. Immokalee Road is at Level of Service F, but is projected be improved construction starting this end of this year. To the west, that will also be improved, starting sometime 2001. So therefore, this project is consistent with the traffic circulation element. I went out to the site and took a look at the road, the dirt road. County's transportation and public works staff has recommended that the road be brought up to county standards and that the culvert bridge type be installed instead of the sand bag bridge. That's their recommendations. The Environmental Advisory Board approved this, subject to South Florida Water Management permit. No one has called or written any opposition to this proposal so, therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward this petition with a recommendation of approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I have one. Maybe it's for the petitioner. Out of all the petitions we've seen over the years, we Page 19 July 20, 2000 haven't seen one with such an odd use of mixes. Your residential, church, school and a fire station? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I believe the fire station contacted me first, wanting to know about a location. They had done something similar with Naples Gulf Estates, which became -- I forget the name that it was rezoned to, but they have a fire station there next to their commercial area. Since this is community facility, it seemed like a good mix. And they contacted Ms. Bishop and the property owner. I guess they worked out an agreement. COMMISSIONER BRUET: This is a piece of land the county may buy some day? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure. She may be able to -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Oh, okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: No further questions? MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. The fire stations and EMS have a hard time finding locations, because of the zoning issues, right off the bat. And whenever I have the opportunity on any of my projects -- I also did Forest Glen, and they were having trouble finding sites then, so we had some discussions, we agreed that that would be good location and put them there. The same happened on this site. One of those issues is where do we put the future facilities. And so since this was already going to be an accessory to residential right on the 51, it seemed like a good idea to go ahead and add the fire station and the EMS to the school. The residential element is for the owner who's going to live there on campus, and maybe a couple other teachers who may also live on campus. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Just seems like an odd mix. If you're selling residential lots and you've got a fire station right -- MS. BISHOP: We're not selling residential lots. This will be -- the owner of the school will be living there. And people who will work the school will be living there. So there will be no sales of residential lots. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I think I read it here, but that you've agreed to the stipulations on the bridge and the road? MS. BISHOP: If Tree Farm Road is the access that we have Page 20 July 20, 2000 to use, then we in fact will have to upgrade it, absolutely. Right now there's an issue whether or not we have access on the south 30 half off -- the easement is 30 feet on our side and it's supposed to be 30 feet on the south side, and so far there's an issue with the easement on the south side. So we my have to relocate that entrance onto our property totally. So at that time, obviously we'd have to put in new facilities to make it up to county standards. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Is this a public road? MS. BISHOP: No, sir. MR. BELLOWS: It's a private road. They'd have -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: It's a private road? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: -- to furnish proof that they have right to access. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? If not, we'll listen to testimony from the public. But would anyone who has signed the sign-in sheet who has not brought it up, please bring it up to Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, I have a request to address the board by Richard Zielske, Theresa Amaro and Amy Zielske and Fred Kremonti, and Gary Thornton. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Well, when Mr. Nino calls your name, we'd ask you to come on up to the podium and give your testimony. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Who's up first, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Amy and Richard -- Amy and Richard Zielske. MS. ZIELSKE: Is it the right -- MR. BELLOWS: This is for Willoughby Acres. MR. NINO: Oh, Willoughby. MR. KREMONTI: My name is Fred Kremonti. I reside at 6830 Wellington Drive, Naples. I'm the agent representing the buyer and seller in this transaction. And I've been marketing this property over seven years. And before me, about five years before someone else was marketing that. And we had so many prospect buyers. All of them, with no exception, were planning to do high density residential, and since this property has impacted by a lot of wetland, none of them were able to put out this project together. Page 21 July 20, 2000 Except this applicant. His innovative idea I think has managed to put this project together, and I think it"s going to be an asset for the community. I talked with the neighbor, Mr. Civello. We have been discussing about this easement on the Tree Farm Road. We are still in process of discussion. We haven't finalized that yet. MR. NINO-- Dick Green, William Brady. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We ask that the person speaking, then the next one that's going to speak, just stand behind so we don't waste a lot of time getting up there. MR. BRADY: I just want to -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Can you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. BRADY: My name's William Brady. I'm a property owner off of Tree Farm Road at the corner of Duvalet and Tree Farm, as well as my father here. I just wanted to know what the average traffic was planning on going to be for Tree Farm Road. Was it going to become school bus routes or, you know, I mean what's the traffic going to be for that area? How is it going to affect that side road? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: If that"s your questions, when you're all finished, I'm sure the petitioner will answer that. MR. NINO: William Brady. MR. GREEN: I'm Dick Green, owner of Green Heron Landscapes, whose nursery is on Tree Farm Road. And my question is somewhat along the same line as -- since Tree Farm Road is as private road, there"s been no contact to us about doing anything other than remaining a private road. Our interest is if they will bring it up to county standard, that we will not have any problem, as long as the road is brought the whole length of Tree Farm Road. Because right now, our equipment leaves in the morning and comes back in the evening, and additional cost to us for the building of that road won"t help us any at that time. So my concern is the road, who's going to pay for it and of course our company would be happy to deed over the property for our share of the road that's affected. MR. NINO: I don't have any others. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Just the two, okay. Would the petitioner like to answer the question? MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, for petitioner. Page 22 July 20, 2000 It is our intention to improve the road to our entrance and for our use in the property. Theoretically it could be phased down all the way to the end. It's not our intention to pave it all the way to the end of the road past our property. But one of the issues that we have right now is legal access over it. We have legal access for 30 feet of it, but not the other 30 foot. So that alignment may move, or we may be forced to put an entrance not on Tree Farm Road inside our property further. So at that point -- which we don't really know that now, but if in fact we get to use Tree Farm Road, we will improve it, the entry of it. And it will stay a private road, it will not be a public road, unless all the homeowners that have property along it wish it to be a public road and the county wishes to accept it. But I doubt that would happen. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else wish to speak on this issue? That being the case, I will close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we forward recommend of approval PUD-00-3. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I've got just one. It just seems kind of vague, this commitment on the roadway. Is that satisfactory to you? MR. BELLOWS: Well, transportation services staff basically said that if they're going to use that access road -- they haven't acquired that -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: I understand there's a question. MR. BELLOWS: -- right to use that, but if they use that, it's going to be brought up to county standards up to the entrance -- MR. NINO: May I suggest -- MR. BELLOWS: -- which is typical. MR. NINO: -- that the PUD wording be amended under the transportation requirements to read that in the event Tree Line Road is the access, that the bridge and the road will be brought up to county standards? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: The petitioner is already on record Page 23 July 20, 2000 as saying that's what they would do. MR. NINO: But it needs to be in the PUD document. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay, so amended. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: No further discussion, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Next, PUD-2000-09. Meridian Land Company. Anyone wishing to speak on this issue, please stand and be sworn in. And if you have not filled out a slip, please do so. (All speakers were duly sworn.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We would ask that all the people who would like to speak, that you would not be redundant. If somebody speaks on a certain subject, they're against it or for it, that we don't need to hear six other people saying the same thing, so -- we get the idea. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Chairman, I need to disclose. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I've had a long conversation with a resident of Turnberry, a Gerry Wheeler -- Gerry with a G -- and he faxed a copy of an unsigned, unidentified "attention residents of Willoughby Acres" request for opposition to this particular project. Was faxed to my home last night. And I do have some questions about it when we get to the points that are covered here. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I need to disclose I had a very brief conversation with the agent for the petitioner, Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: As did I. And we talked about fishing. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: With that being the case, if you would proceed. MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, chief planner with the Planning Services Department. The petitioner is requesting a rezoning from RSF-3, rural agriculture and ST overlay to planned unit development, or PUD, in order to construct single-family dwelling units, attached single-family dwelling units and zero lot line development at a density of three dwelling units per acre for a total of 438 dwelling units. Page 24 July 20, 2000 The subject site is approximately 145 acres in size. The southern 100 acres of the site is currently zoned RSF-3. The northern 45 acres are presently zoned rural agricultural. Surrounding properties to the north are zoned rural agricultural and are currently undeveloped. However, it is rumored that the Royal Palm Academy development will some day be going adjacent to this property to the north. We do not have a rezoning petition in-house, nor do we have any type of site plan, so currently the property stands as zoned and is undeveloped. To the south we have the Willoughby Acres subdivision and a number of unrecorded subdivisions which are presently developed with single-family dwelling units at a density of three dwelling units per acre. To the west, Imperial Golf Course Estates, developed with single-family residents and zoned RSF-3. And to the east there, abutting the site to the east, there's a 125-foot FP&L easement and the future Livingston Road, which is presently under construction. I want to call your attention to the map up on the wall. You'll notice I've colored in three properties in pink that are not part of this project. They are currently developed with single-family residential dwelling units. Those properties currently take their access, I believe, from private access easements. The properties on the west side intersect Euclid. Their easements run down the subject property and intersect Euclid Avenue, which is part of Willoughby Acres. And the property on the eastern side takes their access through an unrecorded subdivision, eventually leading into Lakeland. Those are not part of this project. The PUD master plan indicates -- you'll see the road in purple -- indicates that these projects will all be afforded access from the proposed development. The access point shown on the PUD master plan currently leads out to the future Livingston Road, and that is the only planned access point at this point. In terms of Growth Management Plan consistency, the requested density of three dwelling units per acre is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, which allows a base density Page 25 July 20, 2000 of four dwelling units per acre. The traffic circulation element of the Growth Management Plan also encourages interconnection between projects. And you'll notice that as presented, this petition does not indicate any interconnection, only one point of ingress and egress to Livingston Road. Therefore, this -- staff considers this inconsistent with the traffic circulation element, and you'll notice in our recommendations that we're recommending that interconnection occur to the south, north and possibly to the west. Staff's analysis of the submitted TIS indicates that the subject site's generated traffic exceeds the significance test, which is five percent of the Level of Service C design volume on Livingston Road. However, the project trips will not lower the overall road capacity below any adopted LOS-D standard. Therefore, the project is considered consistent with the traffic circulation element. I want to call your attention to some natural features on the property, and I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over these, because I've invited two of our staff members, Stan Chrzanowski and Steve Lenberger, that could answer anything with regard to water management and listed species environmental concerns. I'm sure the petitioner will also go over that in detail. These were a majority of the concerns that when I spoke to members of the public who live surrounding this development, they had a lot of concerns over stormwater and some concerns over the listed species. Though I'll let them discuss that. But you'll notice that there's a natural flowway that runs through this property from the northwest to the southwest. The petitioner is planning on preserving that flowway. It's a vital part of the North Naples drainage network. And it is closely monitored by the DEP and the Corps of Engineers. The county stormwater management director also reviewed this petition and recommended very site specific stipulations relative to drainage prior to the issuance of any construction permits. And that language has been incorporated in the PUD document. Approximately 50.99 acres, or 62 percent of the total of 81.77 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, will be impacted by this Page 26 July 20, 2000 project. And the wetlands selected for preservation had the highest potential for restoration, and include the majority of this central slough. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands proposed by the petitioner include exotic vegetation removal and hydro period enhancement within the slough. And also off-site mitigation is proposed. I also want to call to your attention that staff's analysis did indicate that the property is located within an area of historic and archeological probability. As such, an historical and archeological survey and assessment is required. The petitioner has agreed to provide the assessment and to abide by the recommendations and stipulations from the required survey prior the issuance of the first development order for the project, and again, that language has been incorporated in the PUD document. A meeting before the EAC was held last week, and at that meeting the EAC members -- a motion was made for denial of the petition. The motion failed due to lack of five affirmative votes. The vote was 4-1 to deny the petition. Therefore, no official recommendation can be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. But I did want to make you aware of that fact. The EAC member that made the recommendation for denial did so because he felt that the project did not attempt to avoid sufficient wetland areas. I've also received three letters in opposition, and one telephone call in support of the project. Two of the letters in opposite cited concerns over stormwater management. The third letter had concerns over the property's potential interconnection with Euclid. I believe that property owner owned property adjacent to the stub out there of Euclid and did not wish to see additional traffic from this project on that road. Staff is recommending approval of the project with stipulations. I've handed out a version of staff's stipulations. The stips that are asterisked are additions to ones you have received previously, and those are primarily the recommendations that were forwarded to the EAC by staff. With that, if you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? Page 27 July 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes, I do. Susan, would you tell us a little more detail on the off-site mitigation that's proposed, what that involves, entails, the penalty, if you will, for -- MS. MURRAY: Probably better answered by the petitioner or one of our members of staff, if you don't mind waiting. They could probably present that to you. Anything else? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Not to put you on the spot, but the EAC member that voted against that was in light of he doesn't believe in off-site mitigation, as I understand, or didn't like the idea of off-site -- MS. MURRAY: Did not like the idea is probably a better way to phrase it. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUET: One quick question. Could you give me the densities of the surrounding neighborhoods just once again, please? MS. MURRAY: Sure. Willoughby Acres is zoned RSF-3, so that's three dwelling units per acre. Imperial Golf Course Estates is also RSF-3, and to the north again is ag., so it's one per five at this point. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you have any idea how many units are actually in Willoughby Acres? MS. MURRAY: I don't offhand. MR. NINO: Where? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In Willoughby Acres. MS. MURRAY: Willoughby Acres. I could probably count lots on the map, if you want me to, while you're listening to the petitioner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I could find at my notes. MS. MURRAY: I probably couldn't even guess on that, off the top of my head. MR. GREEN: There are over 600 houses in Willoughby Acres. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions of staff? Do you have other staff members that wish to make any presentations? MS. MURRAY: Not at this point. But if you have specific Page 28 July 20, 2000 questions that they could help you with, they can answer them. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE'. Okay, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. SALVATORI: Good morning. For the record, my name is Leo Salvatori. I'm a partner with the law firm of Quarles and Brady, located at 4501 North U.S. 41, Suite 300, here in Naples. I represent the petitioner, Meridian Land Company. Meridian Land Company, although an Illinois corporation, their principals are John Winfield and Clay Winfield, builders here in town that have built many homes and several subdivisions, including Lely Barefoot Beach, and have been in touch here for about 15, 17 years. The project, as Susan introduced, is a relatively low-density project. It is coming in at three units per acre. It's located in the urban residential area immediately west of Livingston Road. The concept behind this project is to make it as consistent and as compatible as possible with surrounding developments, as it is for all practical purposes in RSF-3 developments. We -- the only variance being that we have several lots a little bit smaller, setbacks a little big tighter, to accommodate the slough that runs through the middle of the property. There have been a number of staff recommendations, virtually all of which are acceptable to our client without any comment at all. If you wish to mark them on your records, the ones that we have no comments on at all and would readily agree to are staff recommendations found at paragraphs three, four, six, seven, eight, nine and 10. Later I would like to talk to you a little bit with regard to the sidewalks, which is number one. The one I'd like to highlight here, particularly at this time, though, is paragraph two. And I think this is the reason why there's so many people here today that are concerned about this, and that is with regard to the staff recommendation that the project interconnect with other sites. This project, as designed by our client, was designed to have its primary access off of Livingston Road extension, which is now being constructed by Bonita Bay. And the staff had recommended that we have interconnect with neighborhoods to the south, consistent with the county's plans. That's not our idea, that is the staff's idea. And we'll let you deal with the Page 29 July 20, 2000 residents on that. But for what it's worth, the petitioner has no official position on this, but we did design this project with only one access. And frankly, our strong preference would be just the one primary access on Livingston Road. Conceptually, I have no problem with the project interconnecting, so long as the projects have been designed about the same time, the communities to the south are established. And I don't believe that Euclid nor Lakeland were designed with projects such as these in mind accessing those sites. So with due consideration to our friends to the south and with our client's plan and concerns, we would strongly prefer that we not interconnect with Lakeland nor with Euclid and keep our primary access and our sole access off of Livingston Road. But we will defer to the county on that issue. There have been some issues also raised with regard to drainage. And I'm going to introduce Brad Hedrich, with Hedrich Engineering, who's with me. He's the gentleman who designed the drainage issue -- the drainage plan for the project, and is also the primary architect for most of this, along with Tim Hancock, our planner. I think once you hear their presentation, maybe you'll have some sort of ease with regard to drainage. As Susan said, we were a little surprised by the presentation -- not the presentation, the vote at the Environmental Advisory Committee. The gentleman who made the motion opposing the project did have conceptual problems with regard to mitigation banking. To answer your question, I believe our client is prepared to buy 28 mitigation credits from the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. In fact, she already executed the contract to purchase those mitigation credits. The cost of the credits I believe was $980,000. So unless you have any other further questions from me at this time, I'd like to introduce Brad Hedrich to discuss the drainage issues with you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Could you break that down to acres? MR. SALVATORI: I believe it was 28 credits, which was 28 acres, which compensates for some of the wetlands. Page 30 July 20, 2000 I would say as a further aside, in one of the issues that came up in the Environmental Advisory Committee is that you look at wetlands as they're defined. But there's no gradients of wetlands. And what our client has tried to do and what Brad is going to tell you is to the extent that we have high quality wetlands, we're not touching those, for obvious reasons. They provide drainage, but also it's a nice amenity for the project. People like that. The impacts that we're trying to make are primarily in the low grade wetland areas. We have almost up to 100 percent melaleuca infestation, which if it was cleared and preserved you would have a field and nothing else there. It would not be the most accommodating site. I would also note that I believe their county has 10 acres of wetlands strip of land in the most northern piece, the Judge Baker parcel, as we call it, because it's owned by Judge Baker. That 10 acres, however, was something I understand was cleared and filled about 10 years ago, pursuant to a permit that Lloyd Sheen (phonetic) had got at the time. And the filled in land is actually the old Livingston Road conceptual path. If you look at the map, that's exactly where the road was supposed to go. Nevertheless, it counts as the wetland analysis, but it's about as wet as this will go. So with that, I'd like to introduce Brad Hedrich. MR. HEDRICH.' My name is Brad Hedrich. I'm the professional engineer on the project, licensed engineer in the State of Florida. I did prepare a written statement that I'd like to read. There have been some questions concerning the drainage and environmental issues for the Villages of Madeira PUD. One of the reasons I'm here today is to help alleviate any questions and concerns that anyone might have about drainage and environmental issues by explaining in more detail the way the project has been designed. Like I said before, I'm a Florida licensed civil engineer, proficient in drainage, transportation and planned development design and permitting. We are using the most current state-of-the-art techniques and computer programs to design the Villages of Madeira master service water management system. Page 31 July 20, 2000 We have been working on Madeira water management design for the last several months. We'll be working on refining our design and permitting the project with Collier County and South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers for at least the next nine months, with the entire process lasting well over a year. I can assure you that Collier County South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers and I are extremely thorough when it comes to making sure that a project is not going to adversely affect surrounding properties, and that the project meets the local, state and federal permitting regulations and requirements relating to drainage and environmental issues. I'm going to step over here and show you some of the maps that we brought. We have provided the Collier County drainage atlas for the area to help show where surface water currently drains. Our project lies within the drainage boundaries shown on the map. And it's basically this boundary here, and our project is in this location here. It can be clearly seen that Willoughby Acres, which is down in this area here, and Imperial Golf Estates, which is up in this area here, are not within our drainage boundary. Because both of these projects drain to different locations than Madeira does. Willoughby Acres and Imperial Golf Estates drainage will not be affected by our project. As can also be seen from our map, Candlewood and Falcon Ridge drain to the Palm River Slough downstream of our project. Candlewood is located over here to the west of our project. Falcon Ridge is a little to the southwest of our project. Because both these projects also drain to other areas, they will also not be affected by our project. South Florida Water Management District and Collier County have mandated that the proposed rates at which water is allowed to leave our property be less than the existing rate. So we will not be adversely affecting our downstream neighbors. We have also prepared an exhibit that shows the major aspects of the Madeira Master Surface Water Management System, and that's in this map here. Once again, the green areas are the preserves and the blue areas are the lakes. Page 32 July 20, 2000 The proposed Villages of Madeira Master Surface Water Management System consists of accommodation of almost 20 areas of lakes, dry detention areas, inlets and culverts designed to detain water prior to draining on the on-site wetland Slough. I'm going to go back over to the other podium. The large storm events which are considered the 25 and 100-year storms, their designed water elevations within Madeira's approximately 115 acres of residential areas and lakes are designed to stage over one foot higher than the designed water elevations in the slough. This greatly benefits the surrounding properties that currently drain into the slough. As a result, the proportioned water elevations in the wetland slough during large storm events will be lower than they currently are, thus improving the existing drainage conditions. It is also proposed that the existing roadways crossing the slough, which constitute Euclid Avenue extension that currently impede water flows be removed, also improving the existing drainage conditions. Finally, the design water elevations for the slough are below the related water elevations for the existing developed areas that currently drain to the slough, and those elevations are also shown on the drainage map there. This assures that there will not be adverse impacts to surrounding properties. In summary, the project is designed to reduce the flooding potential for the area and in fact greatly improves the existing drainage conditions. In my professional opinion, the grouping of these 24 individual parcels into one large PUD allows for a Master Surface Water Management plan for the area that is virtually impossible to accomplish as individual parcels. I believe that the pro]ect's water management system is good for the area and is good for the general public. There have also been some issues raised concerning wetland impacts. The project consists of both higher quality wetlands in the main slough and lower quality exotic infested wetlands elsewhere in the project. Exotics such as Brazilian pepper and melaleuca typically invade a wetland system that is currently not functioning as it should. They further changed the dynamics of the wetland by choking out native vegetation, and because they grow in such dense cjusters, they also impede the flow of water, often causing Page 33 July 20, 2000 additional drainage problems. So if this was left to itself, the problems concerning drainage and exotics is going to get worse. Our goal in this project was to enhance and preserve the higher quality wetlands in the main slough through a combination of an extensive exotic removal and maintenance plan, replanting of native wetland species, and hydrologic improvements by extending the amount of time water remains in the slough. This allows the wetland slough to function as it should. Many of the lower quality wetlands were replaced with approximately 20 acres of lakes that were essential to the Master Surface Water Management System as instrumental in improving the drainage conditions in the area. So some of the wetlands that have been removed are for drainage purposes to help surrounding properties. The existing uplands, along with some of the remainder of the lower quality wetlands, are designated as residential areas. The size of the low density residential areas is limited by minimum lot dimensions and reduced road right-of-way widths. That's one of the reasons that we're going to a private roadway system, is because it allows a 50-foot wide right-of-way instead of a 60-foot wide, thereby helping to reduce some of our impacts. One of the additional reasons for this PUD rezone is to allow for these cjuster residential areas, allowing for maximum amount of lakes and wetland preserves. Once again, in our professional opinion, we feel that the ensured preservation of the higher quality wetlands within Madeira greatly benefits the environment, and the public can best be -- and the public, and can best be accomplished with a unified plan of development. We feel that this preserving the main wetland slough will be very difficult to do with 24 individual parcels. In conclusion, with respect to drainage and environmental issues, granting this PUD rezone will alleviate any future concerns about the long-term survival of this important wetland slough, to also ensure that a Master Surface Water Management System designed by a professional engineer is in place to help improve the existing drainage conditions in the area. Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. MR. HEDRICH: Sure. Page 34 July 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you have a name for the slough? MR. HEDRICH.' No. It's basically a -- it's a wetland slough, primarily consisting of cypress trees. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And where does the water eventually end up? MR. HEDRICH: Into the Palm River -- there's actually a slough down -- directly downstream of us. And then from there it goes into two 36-inch pipes and directly into the Palm River. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So it goes into the Palm River Slough -- MR. HEDRICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- and moves on out? MR. HEDRICH'. Correct. This is actually probably considered part of the Palm River Slough. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I was -- MR. HEDRICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- thinking from my background. That's why I was trying to picture what you were making a distinction. The other question is you said Candlewood, the water goes elsewhere and Imperial, water goes a different -- MR. HEDRICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Where does that water end up? MR. HEDRICH: Let me go back over to the map here. Imperial Golf Estates is roughly right around here. And this is a Collier County drainage atlas, which Collier County's in the past hired other engineering firms to come up with basically drainage boundaries where water flows. And Imperial actually comes to the west here and it also comes down to the south and also into the Palm River, downstream from of project. But a good part of it drains to the west. Just like Willoughby Acres, they actually drain down to the Cocohatchee Canal, which is a -- which is down next to Immokalee Road there. They have a drain system that was put in place I think five or six years ago. They replaced their existing ditches. There was a large assessment that was placed, that inlets and pipes were used to get it down there quicker, and to help alleviate any drainage problems in that area. Candlewood is right in this area here, and that also drains to Page 35 July 20, 2000 the slough directly downstream of us. It actually drains into here. So here's Candlewood and it drains into the slough downstream of our project. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I just want to be clear. You said you designed it one foot higher for -- MR. HEDRICH: It's more than one foot higher in our -- in our residential areas here where the lakes are, the elevations that are designed in there are one foot, one and a half feet higher than it is in the slough here. And the reason for that is because it was a difficult design process, because we couldn't -- just normally in a project you would drain directly into the slough after you treated it for water quality. And in this case we couldn't do that because surrounding properties had been draining to that slough for a long time, so we couldn't adversely affect them by raising water levels. So how we did that is we put a good amount of lakes in our residential areas, and we're staging up in there before it goes into the slough. And so we're taking roughly 115 acres of drainage area away from the slough in a big storm event, and it bleeds down slowly into the slough, which also helps increase the hydro period of this slough and enhances it. So that's our drainage design. And it is very complicated. And I understand why people have so many questions about it. But that's what we're here today to try to help alleviate those. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Having been a former property owner and resident in the area, I can certainly understand their concern. MR. HEDRICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it sounds like you covered an awful lot of the issues that immediately came to mind when people were calling me last night. Some of the things I reviewed here. MR. HEDRICH: Yes, I believe there was some information that was distributed that was not necessarily correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you actually feel that you're going to be able to enhance the higher quality wetlands -- MR. HEDRICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- that exist? MR. HEDRICH: Yes. There's actually going to be a very small berm and control structure put on the west end of the Page 36 July 20, 2000 slough that in low storm events is going to hold water back. In large storm events, it's going to go over top of that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And when you say a small berm and control structure, could you be just a little bit more specific? MR. HEDRICH: When I say small, it's probably about three feet high. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. HEDRICH: So it's not very tall, if you think about it. You know, it's maybe this high. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Like a fixed control structure? MR. HEDRICH: It will be an earth berm, and it would be a concrete overflow structure that would prevent flooding in large storm events. And there would be a very small bleed-down device, which is an orifice. And I don't want to talk, you know, above anybody, but basically it's to enhance the wetland during the small storm events that we have during the summer. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else from the petitioner? MR. SALVATORI: I guess we were just going to ask if there were any questions, we'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: We need to talk about the first two. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, we've -- you've still not addressed two of the things on the page. MR. SALVATORI: Let's go ahead and address those staff recommendations, if we could. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Let's leave the sidewalks till last. MR. SALVATORI: Sidewalks until last. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We'll be here a week. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Because that's never pleasant. The -- and I have some concerns with, you know, a new development interconnecting with the old neighborhoods and, you know, the road width and all that. But -- and I also understand the county's goal of interconnection. Talk to me about the interconnection to the property to the north that's not developed, and what your thoughts might be there. MR. SALVATORI: We'd be willing to do that. The only Page 37 July 20, 2000 reservation we'd like to put on record, that is if we need to do that, we'd like that to be a secondary access. Like Susan said, we understand that is going to be a school to the north. And if they're required to have a road there, we will have a connect there. And we're going to show a connect on our master plan. More than likely, if that ends up being a school, we will for sure, without regard as whether it's required by the county, have a pedestrian access where the kids can get over to the school, if any of them go to that academy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And then I'll turn to staff and ask, if that's an interconnect, then does that not help us meet our goal, you know, that we've required an interconnect with the surrounding properties without, you know, adversely impacting the existing development? MS. MURRAY: To the north, sure. Sure. It would allow traffic flow to the north, but not necessarily to the south. Ed Kant's here also. I think we wanted to add a few additional comments, and I'll let him go ahead and do that. Maybe shed a little bit more insight on it. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services -- operations director, sorry. Still getting used to -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Today. MR. KANT: -- musical titles here. The interconnections actually that are being recommended by staff are not a -- I'm stumbling around here because really, it's kind of a fallback position. An initial look at that roadway would mitigate in favor of it being a public roadway as an extension of Euclid Avenue so that there would be another collector to add onto the network and connect with both Immokalee Road and Livingston Road. That would have a significant impact on the existing neighborhood, as well as having a significant impact on the proposed project. So I think that staff's proposal that there be some interconnection will meet the spirit of the comp. plan. I'm not a planner so I'm going to stay away from that. But I also think it's important to recognize that the circulation -- the circulatory aspects of it, if there's a problem on Livingston Road, how do these people get serviced? If there's a problem on any of our gated communities that have only one Page 38 July 20, 2000 access, how do they get serviced? But, you know, we can't hang him for what might have gone on a long time ago. So I think that the requirement, or the recommendation, I should say, that we have allowances for interconnect is not only reasonable, but is really necessary in a case like this, because most of this property is adjacent to other undeveloped properties. So unless somebody can convince me that this is a bad thing, I'm going to continue to make that recommendation. COMMISSIONER BRUET: But Ed, shouldn't the focus more be on undeveloped areas? I mean, taking future traffic and running it through existing neighborhoods, that's going to be a tough battle. MR. KANT: If you look at the history -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Even though they're public roads. MR. KANT: I hear what you're saying. And if you look at the history of a number of the roads in Willoughby Acres, they started out a half mile long, then they added another half, then they added another half. And then there were some opportunities for some interconnects. Well, by that time it was built up. So gee, we can't do that because those folks bought on a dead-end street. I don't deny that there's an argument in favor of that, but we're going to be struggling with that. And I say we collectively, because as the Planning Commission, you're going to see it. We're doing a Golden Gate Estates master circulation plan that's probably going to affect some streets out in Golden Gate Estates that dead end canals right now. Well, I don't see any difference here. We have to look at the urbanization of the area. We have to recognize that at the densities that we're talking about, which are not great densities but are still in this case going to put 400 and change units in here of some 3,000 or so trips per day on an average day at a minimum, we need to be able to handle that traffic. And by constantly putting all of those, you know, balloons, if you will, with one outlet, you could be creating future problems. So I think that from the staff perspective, we have a duty to make these recommendations, and they'll fall where they fall. But the idea, well, they were there first so we can't disrupt that Page 39 July 20, 2000 neighborhood, unfortunately while I'm not unsympathetic to that, because I live in a neighborhood too, but from a circulation point of view, you can't -- that's not a valid argument, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Can you refresh my memory on where the Board of County Commissioners stands on such interconnect? Is that part of the direction as staff you're following? MR. KANT: It's my belief that the board has been very clear in their direction to staff to facilitate interconnections, to facilitate new roadways on the network. Notwithstanding some of the issues that have appeared recently in the paper, I think that the board has been very, very clear about that to staff. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY'* I just wanted to make one more point. I don't think Ed really touched on it but it's kind of important to remember, is this portion of the property is currently zoned RSF-3. I mean, it's developable right now at urban densities. I did pose the question to Ed, if somebody was to come in and just simply subdivide the lots, provide a private access easement or a road, would they have the ability to link up to Euclid and access, and his answer to me was yes. MR. KANT: Yeah, thank you, Susan. Susan brings up a good point. Right now there's nothing to prevent an extension of Euclid Avenue. There's nothing to prevent an extension of Lakeland. A number of years ago there was a proposal for an extension of Lakeland. Without going into all the gory details, that fell through. And while the county had even acquired some right-of-way, I think that some of it may even still be in dispute. But the fact remains that there are property rights out there, and there are developable property rights out there, even as we sit here. And I think that the idea of amalgamating these and trying to get some kind of a unified plan of development obviously makes sense. So there could conceivably -- under the scenario that the developer chooses to come in off of Euclid Avenue and begin to develop one parcel at a time by subdividing into an existing zoning designation probably gives them the opportunity to put two or three streets in there, four or five streets in there. They could all be public roads. They could all, you know, add to our taxpayers' responsibilities. Page 40 July 20, 2000 So there's a lot of scenarios that could play out here. I'm not an advocate for or against this project. I think that the developer and their representatives have made some very cogent arguments in favor of amalgamating these properties. But that of course is a decision that you and the Board of County Commissioners are going to have to make. MS. MURRAY: May I also throw one more wrench into this mix? And I apologize, I had a very last-minute discussion with parks and rec. director. I've been made aware of that there's a need for a neighborhood park in this area to serve these residents of Willoughby and Turnberry and this development. Late yesterday an E-mail was sent to Tim Hancock from the director, indicating their need and desire for an acre of land in this project. And Tim did indicate that they would look for that possibility. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention, because it's not part of staff's stipulations, and it was kind of a very last-minute thing. But I would like to forward that as one of our recommendations, that an acre of land at least be set aside to provide for a neighborhood park. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And they only need one acre? MS. MURRAY: That's what I've been told, one acre. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a quick question of the petitioner. Is this going to be a gated or non-gated community? MR. SALVATORI: This will be a gated community. And the first we heard of the park issue was late last night, so we're really not in a position to respond. We'd really have to look at the land and the land plan. Of course we'd be looking for impact fee credits and we're going to look into that. So that's something we will review ourselves with our client and see what can be done. But we're not in a position to respond. So today we'd have to reject that suggestion. Also, just perhaps as a compromise on this access issue, again, stressing that we're fairly -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, before we go off the park issue, you said you want to reject that issue because you have not had an opportunity to review it? MR. SALVATORI: We only heard about this for the first time late last night. We haven't had a chance to study it at all. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Does the parks director Page 41 July 20, 2000 have something she would like to get on the record? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. For the record, Maria Ramsey, director of parks and recreation for Collier County. I personally only found out about the PUD two days ago, so I'm behind the eight ball myself here at this point. But I did have a conversation, and I asked if we could get an acre that would back up against the conservation easement areas or the wetland areas, at least so that we'd enhance the property itself. And I did talk with Mr. Hancock about the possibility. And he did assure me that they would look at it. And I am aware that it's a gated community, and we talked about some ways of maybe resolving that as well. So we are just really in the infancy of that particular discussion. MR. SALVATORI: And when I say reject, I'm saying, just for the record, that we will look at the issue to see what we can do to accommodate the staff, but that's a fairly major change to a land plan. And I'm sympathetic that you just heard about it, but so did we. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I just really wanted that point clarified. MR. SALVATORI: I was going to perhaps also suggest, maybe as a compromise -- THE COURT REPORTER: Would you please slow down? MR. SALVATORI: No, I can't. This was my father's fault. He spoke this quickly as well, and what can I say? Perhaps as a way of compromise on the second issue, something that we would proffer, again, suggesting our preference would not be to have any interconnects with Euclid/Lakeland, recognizing that is an appropriate staff request. If the real concern here is emergency issue access -- emergency vehicle access, I see no reason why we couldn't have a gate there with access only to emergency vehicles, much like you see at the end of Gulf Shore Boulevard into Naples Cay and other communities where you have a gate there able for emergency vehicles, but not for general access. That would satisfy our concerns. I think that would satisfy most of the neighbors' concerns to the rear. I know a number of communities have access points such as these for emergency vehicles. They seem to work just fine. I'm not sure how often if at all they are utilized. But I think that may be a compromise Page 42 July 20, 2000 that we could -- we would be willing to accommodate obviously the staff on. Which brings on the sidewalks. And -- hoping I'd forget. Our only request, it's a soft request, is we do have sidewalks on both sides of the main primary road. The staff's suggestion is that we had sidewalks on both sides of the roads on the cul-de-sacs that lead into some of the neighborhoods. In our client's experience, he felt it has not been necessary to have sidewalks on both sides of the roads on these non-arterial small streets. If it's a strong preference to staff, we could accommodate it. But our request would be that we not have sidewalks on both sides of the street off the small cul-de-sacs, as has been many of the case in many of the other developments of which I'm familiar, as representative of the developers. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO'. Are we talking about a strong preference of the staff, or part of our Land Development Code? I've missed -- MS. MURRAY: Part of our Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- some translation here. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah, your land development -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If we're talking about the Land Development Code, that's not a strong preference. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That is an exact requirement that we've gone through here on more than one occasion, sir. MR. SALVATORI: This is what happens when you ask me to speak slowly. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You may have to speak slower for me, too. MR. SALVATORI: In any event, our request would be as has been waived in many instances, on many other clients, that we do not have sidewalks on both sides of the street on the cul-de-sacs. With those points being made, those are our answers to the staff recommendations, and our presentation. If there's any other questions, we'll be pleased to answer them. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Susan, let's talk about the sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs. These cul-de-sacs are how long? MS. MURRAY: Well, there's a requirement in our land Page 43 July 20, 2000 development code, and I'm not sure exactly how much it is. Stan, do you know? The maximum length of the cul-de-sac? 1,000 feet, at the most. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I still remember the chewing out I've had on sidewalks, so I'm not saying anything. MR. SALVATORI: I would say to the extent it helps any, one thing that has not been addressed, the cul-de-sacs -- the sidewalks at the end of the cul-de-sacs actually connect to each other along the rear, much like an Autumn Woods that you see. So there is actually interconnect between the cul-de-sacs from one end to the other along the rear, if that helps any. There is circulation among the areas in that regard. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? If not, we're ready to hear from anyone else interested in speaking. Nino, if you'd call names. MR. NINO: Yes, I'm going to call Rail -- is it Ralf Brookes, attorney, who represents the Willoughby Acres Homeowners' Association. MR. BROOKES: Good morning. One of my first times in front of this board. I come from Monroe County, where I'm special counsel to Monroe County, which is the Florida Keys, their growth division, their planning division. So I'm pretty familiar with planning/zoning issues and hope to be of assistance to you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: You have to state your name for the record, please. MR. BROOKES: Oh, yes, I always forget. R-A-L-F B-R-O-O-K-E-S. I'm an attorney representing Willoughby Acres Homeowners' Association. I've been retained to review the application for legal deficiencies, and I represent the group for the planning commission, the county commission, and file any challenges to the proposed development, either a certiorari, writ of certiorari, or under a challenge that proposed development would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan under Chapter 163. I hope that I would be defending a county denial, rather than bringing an action against both the county and the developer. Today in front of the Planning Commission, I wanted to bring up a few points on deficiencies that I found with limited review. I've only been looking at this for about a day. Normally one of first things I expect to find in a staff review Page 44 July 20, 2000 by planning is a review of the existing zoning category; how many units are allowed per acre under the existing zoning. I had to actually calculate the amount of acreage in each zoning area myself, doing a rough map, and looking at how many acres are in the different sections and adding it all up. And it was confirmed today by planning that there are 45 acres in agriculture or rural agriculture at a density of one unit per five acres. That would allow nine homes in the area that's currently zoned A. In the 100 acres that's zoned RSF-3 -- oh, I did want to thank counsel for their candor in disclosing that Judge Baker does own some of that property in A, that's currently zoned one per five 438. 309. acre. RSF-3 is currently zoned three units per acre. There's 100 acres of that, so that would be 300 units under the current zoning. If you combine the two zonings, you would have 309 units for this total property. They're asking for 438. Now, it's interesting, I don't know if you made the same mistake I did when I was reviewing. There's a site development plan here, and I thought that's what we were approving. Then I said okay, you know what, let's count these up to make sure. Guess what? There's only 288 shown in this development plan, at least the one that was included in the book here that I have on the Environmental Impact Statement. Maybe you're looking at a different plan than I am. Maybe planning is looking at a different plan than I am. But that certainly raises concern that when you think you're reviewing something, you're reviewing something Twice as big, twice as dense, twice as compact. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me? MR. BROOKES: It looks like the same thing when I'm looking at the maps on the wall. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Rail? Excuse me. Right here. What was the number you said was on your site development plan? MR. BROOKES: Well, if you count these, it's 288. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 288, thank you. MR. BROOKES: If you look at the rezoning application, it's If you look at the existing zoning code, they're only allowed COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. Page 45 July 20, 2000 MR. BROOKES: So we would be opposed to anything that dramatically increases the density, especially in that rural agricultural area from nine units to nearly 150 or more, depending on whether you look at the existing zoning or what they're actually asking for. Willoughby Acres Homeowners' Association has concerns about traffic. If you looked at the original traffic report that was filed, the traffic impact statement dated April 10th, 2000, it says that they didn't comply with the provision of the comprehensive plan, Policy 7.2, the traffic element. Namely saying that no neighborhood traffic impact assessment would be required, because all the access was going to be off Livingston Road. Now planning staff recommends that there be interconnects to other roadways that would cause traffic to circulate through this neighborhood. And I think that you should reconsider. Perhaps staff might want to reconsider this traffic impact, in light of their new recommendation. In fact, that policy would require a neighborhood traffic impact study to be perform. We have retained a traffic engineer. I was able to fax this over to him yesterday, along with the provisions of the traffic element of the Collier County plan. And he is reviewing this report for deficiencies, and we'll look into it. But my preliminary analysis, not being a traffic engineer, of course, and looking simply at the report itself, it sites to the ITE trip generation manual and says that they pulled the numbers for detached single-family homes. The current proposal also includes attached single-family dwellings, which may or may not have more or less of a traffic impact; we can't tell until they do that. Again it says through track, no significant through traffic is expected. Well, that could change if the planning staff recommendation for interconnects is approved. We also want to look at the actual tables there in the traffic report. There are a few more roadways that are of concern and may not violate a specific criteria of one policy but may violate some of our other policies. If we look at future roadway conditions and what will be deficient, we're looking at Immokalee Road from Livingston Road to 1-75 going to F the year 2002. Which is probably before this thing will ever get built, or right around the time it does, or comes on line. Immokalee Road, Livingston Road to Airport Pulling, F. Again Page 46 July 20, 2000 in 2002. 1-75, we all know the problems there. North of Immokalee Road is going to be at F. And actually, I think that segment is already a D. And it's supposed to be at C, so that's distinguish he went. 1-75 south of Immokalee Road is going from C to D. That will then become deficient. Goodlette-Frank Road on Immokalee to Vanderbilt will go to F about 2004. And no planned improvements are in the five-year capital improvements plan. If you look at just the amount of traffic that this project alone will cause, we're looking at a percentage of level of service peak C volume consumed by traffic from this site would be four percent of the traffic would all be consumed from Livingston Road to 1-75 along Immokalee. One percent of all the traffic there is would be coming from this particular rezoning. Doesn't seem like that big a deal, but it is. Four percent of the traffic on Immokalee Road from Livingston Road to Airport Pulling, unfortunately that is one of the areas you have of road project improvement already planned. That's expected to go to B, not yet on line though. 1-75, again, the deficiency problems, they say that this development will have one percent impact on that. 419 trips out of 4,627 during the peak hour services. South of Immokalee Road and 1-75, another one percent. But again, this is 629 trips, so even more trips are expected to go south. And then Goodlette-Frank Road, Immokalee to Vanderbilt, one percent or 200 trips on a road that's running at 1,700 trips. We looked at these projected impacts and which roadways are going to become deficient at build-out or legal of service at build-out. Table five, you've got F, F, F, D, F. So there's five different roadway segments that are going to become deficient at build-out. So what you're really doing here is aggravating the existing traffic problems by approving a change to go from agriculture at one unit per five acres to three units per acre in that area. So we definitely would be opposed to at least including the agricultural area within this rezoning application. Let's see. We reviewed the other documents that were Page 47 July 20, 2000 submitted. I wanted to make it clear, I think the Environmental Advisory Commission, there were four votes against it and only one in favor of it, due to wetlands. And coming in here, you can see one of the problems. It's bisected here by a roadway. You're taking a natural slough system that feeds a water body, the Cocohatchee, that is not in compliance with water quality standards already. It's on the 303-D list under the Clean Water Act for cleanup. And we all know the Co¢ohatchee Canal feeds it. One of the things we should be trying to do is actually preserve this slough area, rather than turning it into a manmade lake system. The map also iljustrates another interesting concept. If you look at that map on the right-hand wall, which is just the project outline, you'll notice there's a parcel in the middle. That's what they call creating spot zoning. That's unconstitutional to create spot zoning like that. I realize that gentleman lives there, but he will be a rural estate in the middle of an urban type development. And what we're doing is creating a spot zone. A hole in the donut is what the Supreme Court calls it. And those are impermissible. Let's see. Sidewalks, I know that's a sore subject with some of you. I don't know if it's been brought up before, but I'm a big bike rider, I'm also a rollerblader, I like to do both. But I also have friends that are in wheelchairs. And the Americans with Disability Act might require that new project allow access to all handicap people without requiring to go to the middle of the roadway. Whether that's on a cul-de-sac or not, I think that my may be a requirement. Although I'll grant you, it's probably less dangerous to ride a wheelchair in a cul-de-sac than it might be in a roadway. And I may have this sideway (sic) issue confused, because I just heard about it today. So if you're talking about building a subdivision without a sidewalk, and perhaps it may be allowed by the ADA, then I would say that under traditional neighborhood development concepts, that we should all be promoting to reduce concurrency problems, to promote a neighborhood to community character. We really want to promote things like sidewalks and porches and types of concepts that I'm sure you're familiar with. Page 48 July 20, 2000 Euclid Avenue apparently is interconnected to Immokalee Road. They have a big speed problem already on Euclid Avenue. And one of the things that the traffic engineer, at least the one that I hired, looks into is school bus stops. There's a number of school bus stops along Euclid Avenue. It runs parallel with Lakeland Avenue on the western side. And that would be of concern to the community character and impacts. I know there's quite a lot here. I did want to say that I reviewed the Environmental Impact Study. I'm not sure who to turn the exhibit in to. But this is habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrel. You can see the overlay, it's actually right in the middle of it. There was no mention of it at all in the environmental study. I don't know whether they exist there or not. And I don't know what the transects that the biologist walked were, because they're not shown in the report. I don't know what dates, what times he walked them. So I would be leery of approving that environmental study at this point. One thing that was mentioned was a contract for nearly a million dollars for off-site wetland mitigation. I would point out to you that that contract is probably contingent upon getting approval of the rezoning. In fact, this applicant may not actually own this property and may be applying for a rezoning, and their purchase may be contingent upon gaining approving of the rezoning. We would urge to you stand by your plan. It's a new logo, a new phrase, a motto that we're using in light of the growth management committee that's been performed. Stand by your plans. Stand by the level of service that you've committed to. Stand by the rural agricultural zoning that you have committed to, to preserve natural areas and to allow some agriculture to continue or even grow in this area. And at least to preserve the rural nature of the area. It's currently zoned at five units per acre. What we're doing here is expanding the RSF-3 back out into the agricultural area. We would say that that is impermissible and may in fact require a plan amendment to one or more policies, objectives or maps. 13 of the staff report, Page 13, No. 13 -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Excuse me, Mr. Brookes. We have a 10-minute limit in -- MR. BROOKES: Oh, I wasn't aware of that. I'm sorry. Page 49 July 20, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: --speaking -- MR. BROOKES: I thought that applied to attorneys. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: -- as a representative of the community. MR. BROOKES: I didn't know that applied to attorneys. But I understand why it would. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Especially attorneys. MR. BROOKES: I have-- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Actually, it's five. MR. BROOKES: I have other things that I could talk about. In light of the time requirement, I'll stop and simply submit these ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I think we have a really general idea of how you feel. MR. BROOKES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sir -- Mr. Chairman, could Ed Kant -- I think he's going to get up. I need to understand this comment about triggering a neighborhood traffic study. I think I'm confused on what this gentleman was presenting. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation operations director. Before I answer your question, Ms. Rautio, I need to set the record straight. The level of service issue that was brought up about the Level of Service F on Immokalee Road, that road is presently under design. And the last, which would be the 1999 LOS tables would show that as F. But well before this project ever builds out, that will be back up to six lanes. So that's not going to be an issue. And 1-75, as you're probably well aware, is in the FDOT work plan now. So I just want the record to reflect that if in fact there was going to be a revised TIS required, I'm sure that those facts would also enter into the revised TIS. With respect to your question, we do have a neighborhood traffic management program, which is our traffic calming problem. Is that what you're referring to? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. And if there's no interconnects to Lakeland and Euclid now-- MR. KANT: If those are -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- they don't have to have them. MR. KANT: If those are private -- if those will be remaining as private roads, we do not -- that program's not applicable. It's Page 50 July 20, 2000 applicable only to public streets. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But if we as a Planning Commission say we want these interconnects, then it's going to trigger this plan? MR. KANT: Not necessarily, no. Typically the request for neighborhood traffic calming are initiated by the residents, as opposed to as a consequence of any rezoning. Obviously, if my earlier comments with respect to having connection at Euclid and therefore creating a new collector roadway, that would change the character of Euclid. By its very nature, collectors and arterials are excluded from the traffic calming program, because it -- they're just diametrically opposed in their intent. The idea of the traffic calming program is to protect the residential streets, as opposed to the collectors. Euclid and Lakeland right now function as classic collectors, even though they only collect from one neighborhood. There's no -- the short answer, unfortunately -- I guess I've been listening to attorneys too long, because I tend to talk a lot, too. But the short answer is there's no automatic trigger for this program. Any neighborhood at any time is entitled to make those requests through the process. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'- Mr. Kant, I have another question to clarify what you stated earlier. Right now this morning, while we're sitting here in our comfortable chairs in the air conditioner, a bulldozer could be extending Euclid into some of that property without asking permission from anyone. MR. KANT: That's not entirely true. They would still have to go -- if they were going to do more than develop the single property, they would have to plat it. And in the platting process, we do have some controls, some exercise, if you will, of police power in terms of laying out roadways and those types of-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. But I guess the point I'm wanting to make is the first property owner could go put the road in without coming before this body or the county commission. MR. KANT: That would be my understanding. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The second property owner could extend that road again without coming before this board or the County Commission. So we could end up with an extension of Page 51 July 20, 2000 Euclid that ended up out on Living -- the future Livingston Road without us having any discussion about it. MR. KANT: Theoretically, that's correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Excuse me, we have to take a little break so the court reporter can change her paper. So we'll take a five-minute -- is that enough, or do you need more? Five-minute recess. (Recess.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, we're ready to resume. Would everyone please take their seat. If I start the meeting now, you can leave, gentlemen. All right, meeting is now resumed. MR. NINO: I'm going to call Michael Simonik. MR. SIMONIK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Michael Simonik. I'm the vice president of environmental policy for The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, here in Naples. I am speaking on behalf of our 5,800 family members, which is over 10,000 people in Collier County. You rarely see me coming to the Planning Commission, speaking before you about projects within the urban boundary. I sit back and I watch them go through and I -- sometimes I see some good ones and sometimes I see some bad ones. We haven't entir -- The Conservancy hasn't entirely written off the urban boundary environmentally. But I'm commenting today on a project that we're definitely not writing off. Some projects do a very good job taking into consideration the lay of the land and the natural resource attributes on them. I've actually been impressed with some of the projects that have come through in Collier County that balance the needs of the environment and are still profitable. We did not comment on Winding Cypress, which is a big one. It was on the rural fringe. We had a couple of questions but we didn't object to it. It was smart growth. It was good environmentally. They're going to write that down now, if they can hear it. We are not impressed with the conceptual design of the Villages of Madeira. There are some aspects that we like, but there are many more that have thrown up red flags for us. And that's why I'd like to speak on some of these issues. We do commend the developers for consolidating all those Page 52 July 20, 2000 projects into one. We believe the planned unit development is better than sprawling ranchettes. Although I do have some environmental colleagues that disagree with me on that. But The Conservancy does believe that we do better for the environment when we have a planned unit development within the urban boundary. And since -- but since this consolidation was just done, the developer should have known the challenges they face environmentally, knowing what land they were purchasing. We think the project needs more innovation and more thoughtful design. On the issue of density, when The Conservancy looks at the big picture in Collier County, we tend to think we'd like to see all the density within the urban boundary and lower the density outside to preserve the environmental attributes we have in our rural land. This is a project within the urban boundary. The developer needs to evaluate the existing conditions in more detail. And it's interesting to note, and a shame that we can't see on any of these exhibits here what it looks like now. This is what it looks like now. And it's not hanging up anywhere. The project is almost 100 percent vegetated. I say almost because it's not, but it looks pretty good on the map. We should have had both of these next to each other. They need to consider potable water wells in the area. They need to be certain the lakes will not breach the confining layer. I'll remind you of Calusa Bay. They need to provide better water source during flood conditions. They need to provide better water quality measures and attenuation before discharging into the slough and before discharging off-site. They need to allow natural water flow into the slough from off-site properties. They need to hold more water on-site with slower discharge rates. They need more thoughtful consideration of upstream and downstream conditions. They need to provide better erosion control measures at discharges. They need to double-check the RAP assessment scores and not over-devalue the wetland systems. Okay, wetlands. The developer needs to redesign this master plan to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands. 62 percent wetland impact is unacceptable. There's more than one wetland slough on this project. Where you see the lakes is a Page 53 July 20, 2000 wetland slough. The only acceptable wetland impacts should be the roadway crossings through the wetland sloughs to get to the other side of the property. That is avoiding and minimizing. If you need to go through a slough to get to the other side of your property, we can accept that. Cumulative and secondary impacts have not had careful enough review. We proposed and fought for the Cocohatchee Outstanding Florida Waters in the estuary area. That's where this water goes. Additional data is necessary regarding potential impacts to water qualities, stormwater, wetland functions and listed species. The upland buffers around these very minimum wetland preserves is not sufficient. Additional uplands need to be preserved. We just had our chief scientist do a fish study on wetlands, and we found that the biodiversity and where the wildlife is, is not in the middle of the slough, in the deepest section of the slough. When it rains and it floods and they go into the hydric flatwoods even, which are around these areas, that's where all the fish are, that's where all the tadpoles are, that's where everybody is, because they're getting away from bigger fish or bigger things in the slough, and that's where all the birds are. You take away that buffer, you don't have any -- you don't have the values you could have. We need to become more confident that the hydrologic enhancement and hydro period increases are real. This is an opportunity in this area to restore some lost function to that slough. We recognize it is not the perfect pristine slough it once was before man came here, but there's opportunities, and that's what planning is all about, and that's why we are in favor of PUD's in these areas. There needs to be more coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Commission for the state and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over listed species. The notes for the wildlife surveys did not show an observation of an Indigo snake. However, in speaking to a landowner nearby, he described exactly what I would say is an Indigo snake. We are not convinced that we'll be protecting the gopher tortoises, and we are not convinced there's been an accurate count of them. Additional and more accurate data is needed to Page 54 July 20, 2000 fully assess impacts on this critical resource site. To conclude, we're not impressed with this design. It is not an environmentally friendly project. I know what a project looks like when it's environmentally friendly, and that's when I sit back and I don't come up here. I let it pass. This project is not compatible with the environment, but it could be with religion -- revisions. Religion, yeah. Some people claim that wetlands are my religion. I agree. And, well, we urge this commission to ask the developers to go back to the drawing board on this conceptual design. It's projects like this that have convinced The Conservancy that we need to move forward to approve and implement a gopher tortoise protection ordinance, which we're working on, and most recently, the wetlands protection ordinance. We can do better in Collier County. A couple of things were said by the petitioner that I saw in the EAC. I was not present at the EAC, but I watched it last night on video. More was said today about the wetlands that are going to be impacted. 50.99 acres, 51 acres of wetlands impacted. And they make people believe that those are just the worst quality wetlands on the site. I've heard 100 percent melaleuca said. Okay, so I have the numbers, the facts that their own consultant came up with on the FLUCS codes. If I look to all of the FLUCS codes that have 75 percent or more exotics, 75 percent or more, not even 100, there's only 8.31 acres with 75 and over. I still don't devalue a wetland to zero if it's 100 percent melaleuca. It still has functions and it still has values. So only 8.31 of those acres have over 75 percent exotics of the 50.99 that are going to be obliterated. Another question that I just have is how much more water will the lakes hold in that stormwater system than the wetland system? Do we have a number on that? Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. MR. NINO: We have Richard and Ann Zielske. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Again, I would just like to reiterate that if we've spoken -- if someone has spoken on a subject, we would really appreciate it if we didn't have it repeated again and again. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Nino, can you repeat the names, please? Page 55 July 20, 2000 MR. NINO: Richard and Ann Zielske? They're not here. Theresa Amato. Or Amato. Gary Thornton, if you would get up and be ready to speak. MS. AMATO: Hi, I'm Theresa Amato. I live at 94 Mentor Drive. I'm right -- I'm very nervous. I'm right on the corner of Euclid and Mentor. And I'm highly concerned about the traffic. I already -- I have two children and a dog. And it's already a major traffic issue. I mean, you can sit on my porch, you can listen to people drive by my house at 60, 70 miles an hour. They don't slow down. They don't care. The school buses try to leave Willoughby Acres at 8:00 in the morning, especially in season on Euclid. You can't. The traffic is -- it's terrible. They've put in stop lights down on what, Airport Road and down the other way. But they're not even that safe to get -- to turn into them. Half the people I know won't even use them, because they've almost gotten into accidents trying to use them. The way it was developed was not that well. They won't give us a stoplight. They put one -- you know, they said that we're not in a position because we're too close to have a stoplight. People have gotten killed at that intersection, so they had to block it off so you can't take a left turn out. And now you're proposing putting in more traffic on Euclid. When I moved in, Lakeland had a bridge, Euclid had a bridge, so the traffic was not as bad on Euclid. They took out the bridge on Lakeland. I guess there was something wrong with it. So they took off the bridge, so now all the traffic comes down Euclid. And I think if you're going to make it so you've got another entranceway to the subdivision through Euclid, you're going to cause us more problems. We can't even handle the traffic that we have. And if the people are flying down our street that fast now and you're going to have it even further out, what are they going to be doing at 9:00 at night, 10'.00 at night? How fast are they going to be going? Try coming and living on the corner there. Try to live in our division and try to leave in the morning when you have to go to work. I don't think you'd be for this either, you know. I don't know who's thinking about this. Put in the extender road for nine houses. You know, they said that you could go and extend the road to build a house. Page 56 July 20, 2000 Nine houses is a little bit different than 400. And if you were living where I live, I don't think you would want it either. But you don't live there, so you don't care. MR. NINO: Edwin LaFortune after Gary. MR. THORNTON: Hi. My name is Gary Thornton. I live at 124 Wickliffe Drive. There are a lot of issues with this project that will affect Willoughby Acres. A couple of questions I have that have come to light as people discussed this issue so far are the impact it will have on our community as far as road traffic volume. It was mentioned that there's going to be a possibility of an emergency exit at the end of Euclid Avenue, just to access the new development. And this was mentioned by one of the developer's representatives. But I've heard everything in between that. I've heard by Ed Kant, our transportation secretary, that this would be a way to interconnect all our neighborhoods and be part of a new plan in Naples to connect all the roadways. The problem with that is this neighborhood has been established -- I think it was started in 1969. The roads aren't designed by today's standards. They're very narrow, and they need to be -- if anything like that is to be considered, I think a traffic study needs to be brought -- needs to be done to make sure that these roads are -- we're not going to be negatively impacted in this neighborhood with all this extra traffic. Us -- us, the residents of Willoughby Acres, know that right now there's not even a good access to the neighbor. The new bridge will probably let five to six cars travel through it from our direction towards the Euclid end before they catch the next traffic light. And it would just amaze me that we could handle this volume of cars on a regular basis, on top of what we see already. Some of the other issues were the school situation. We have kids that catch buses in several locations along Euclid Avenue. I can't imagine anybody trying to get from point A to point B from the Immokalee Road area out to Livingston Road, cutting through our neighborhood. And it would just be a real bottleneck with all the cars in the morning, and the buses stopping at every other block along that roadway. This neighborhood has a -- I would call it an older -- it's an Page 57 July 20, 2000 older settlement in Naples. It has an elevation, a natural elevation, that was one of the high points in the county. Now, 30 years after it was started, a lot of the developments around us have built up, and they've been brought into -- they built up with a new code that they actually build the elevation of land up underneath the homes in the streets. That actually makes us a low-lying area, I believe. And that has to be considered. And that's another problem as far as water is concerned. I'll give somebody else another -- a chance to speak on some of the other issues. Thanks. MR. NINO: Beth Nelson, get up after LaFortune. MR. LaFORTUNE: Edwin LaFortune, resident of Willoughby Acres. I guess mine is more of a question. I really would like to know who's responsible for posting signs. I'm here this morning because of a hurry-up memo put out to the residents of Willoughby Acres. I walk in that subdivision quite a bit, and I do walk to the end of Euclid. And I made a point of stopping by the end of Euclid this morning to see if there was a sign posted for this hearing. It was there now. But I've walked that corner many times, and my bulletin here that I got handed out in Willoughby says it was back in the weeds. It must have been, because I didn't see it. That's the thing that brought me here. But I'm glad that there are people speaking up about these concerns. I've heard many things running through my mind that I've already heard. Thank you. MR. NINO: Joan Oberton, after Beth. MS. NELSON: Good morning. I think it's still morning. My name is Beth Nelson and I live at 615 Lakeland Avenue. And before you make a recommendation today, I'm asking that you consider several issues of vital concern. Residents of Collier County, myself included, have spent a lot of time to bring these concerns to you. I have objectives and goals that all came from the Growth Management Plan, including page numbers. But for the sake of brevity, I'll skip page numbers. But I assure you, they all came directly from the plan. I've got it back here. The plan contains an element on recreation and open spaces. The county states that they will continue to ensure a Page 58 July 20, 2000 comprehensive system of parks and recreation facilities, as available from among the facilities provided by the county, other governmental bodies and the private section (sic). It also states that the county will acquire suitable lands for park sites and areas where major population growth is expected. And as we know, North Naples is a major population growth area. My suggestion is the county acquire this land using BAT, Best Available Technologies, BMP, Best Management Practices, whichever term you use, to create a passive recreation area, not an acre park -- not an acre parcel park. This area of environmental concern, as our area is listed on the Future Land Use Map, could be cleared of exotics, invasive exotics, and restored to its pristine environmental condition. Okay, the above mentioned solution would be in compliance with the Policy 1.6 on this basis. That states the county shall continue to establish and implement a program with appropriate criteria to designate or acquire open spaces and natural preservations. Okay? The Cocohatchee Canal has been mentioned a few times this morning already, and it's already on the State of Florida's 303-D noncompliance list. And this is a big issue, because now we're not looking at just Willoughby Acres or this Madeira PUD. We're looking at a lot larger impact. This canal is out of compliance with Objective 2.2 of the Coastal and Conservational Management section, which states all canals and rivers and flowways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state and local quality standards. The Cocohatchee Canal does not. There's a SWIM project that I'm trying to locate that brings that point up very clearly. And here's again part of the bigger picture that needs to be considered when we look at little projects like this that pop up all over Collier County. You're no doubt familiar with the 951 Bonita Grand roadway and the associated exit weir structure required for the PUD development. And I think Art Staples is -- this is his big concern already. We already perceive problems with Weir No. 3, the easternmost weir, whose control elevation has been set too low. Okay, 12 point -- I'm sorry if I get technical here. I've been doing lots of homework and lots of reading. Page 59 July 20, 2000 And when you consider these things, it's -- the elevation was set too low, 12.5. This weir should have been at 14 or 15 feet, which was the recommendation of the BCB staff. Okay, 14, 15-foot level, and I think Michael Simonik addressed this, would increase the storage aquifer and prevent saltwater intrusion. Now, if this project is approved, their outfall has to also be set at 12.5 feet, because the preceding weir structure is 12.5. Again, this is too low and this is going to impact both native wetland and upland plant communities, and it's against the recommendation of the CBC staff. What happens with this weir structure is that we're creating another problem that compounds the potential problem or the perceived problem we already have with Weir 3. This problem will ultimately have a negative impact on the downstream receiving waterways, Wiggins Pass, which is an Outstanding Florida Waterway, OFW. Another concern for this canal is found under Objective 2.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management section. It states, by January 1st, 1992, all estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state and local water quality standards. Again, we're not working toward meeting these goals. This project is going to negatively impact this already noncompliant body of water. As you have already heard and I'm sure will hear, the traffic on Immokalee Road and the preposed access -- now, I've heard access is on, access is off. I think further study needs to be done. This does warrant additional neighborhood traffic study. And there are several other concerns, including Big Cypress fox squirrel and other birds or animals that like you say, the Environmental Impact Study did not fully explain or describe the procedures used to gather that data, okay? All right, Objective 1.2. And I hope I'm not speaking too quickly. I want to get some things -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: No, but you only have a few more minutes. MS. NELSON: Okay. Well, then I will speak quickly. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I come from New York, I'm used to it. MS. NELSON: Okay, all right. Objection 1.2 of the plan says the county will protect designated recreation space and open space from incompatible Page 60 July 20, 2000 land uses through the development of appropriate design criteria and land use regulations. Well, we all know what it's zoned and what the request is. I would suggest better use of BAT and MBP (sic} with regard to the environmental features that exist on this property in question here. And another -- yet another, Objective t.4, Policy 1.4.1 says the county will maintain and improve the existing system and encourage developers to provide recreational sites and/or facilities which are consistent with park and recreational guidelines. Dover/Kohl effect is along those lines of passive recreation. Right down the street we've got Veterans Park with baseball fields, and we're talking passive recreation, the natural reservation. Instead of enhancing an area of environmental concern, the developer's proposing a high density development that will replace a natural slough with a manmade stormwater retention lake system. Okay? Collier wellfields recharge areas and a large cone of influence will also be impacted by this development. That impacts our drinking water, potentially. Other citizens of Collier County, Florida Wildlife Federation, Collier Audubon, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, are just a few of the many agencies that share our concerns. These concerns range from the quality of life, the environment, natural habitats. As I mentioned, plain drinking water with this cone of influence. Failure to consider the cumulative impacts of this project on traffic, public services and the environmental issues would be a mistake. The true and total cost of such rezoning and permitting has to be considered. Okay, my request is that this planning committee carefully considers these issues by making a recommendation to the Collier County Commission. I have more to say, but I guess it won't be today. Time is up. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one question, quick question. When you talk about Weir No. 3, would you pinpoint where that weir is? MS. NELSON: It's on the easternmost boundary of -- and I'm not familiar with these maps, so I couldn't identify it for you on such short notice, but it is the easternmost weir. Phase 3, which Page 61 July 20, 2000 they've just completed, and they're working -- Phase 4 would come in with this development, as they're going to extend that water -- that weir system, that structure for that water flow. That ultimately impacts the Cocohatchee Canal. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I can't picture Weir 3. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anything else? Next? MS. NELSON: Thank you. MR. NINO: Lori Stresen-Reuter, following Joan Oberton. MS. OBERTON: Hello. I don't have to go through all these. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Can you identify yourself, please? MS. OBERTON: My name is Joan Oberton, and I live on Kirtland, in Willoughby. Considering all these handbills that you see, the letters were printed on Monday, delivered on Tuesday, returned on Wednesday, yesterday, and I'm bringing them to you today, just to show you there was a great concern among our people, the residents of Willoughby Acres. And they -- I'm proof of Willoughby. I'm just so proud of them for having done this. It was so great. I mean, they just responded in spades. All the petitions that I've read, I only found two negatives. And these weren't necessarily for the community but the roadways. I was told a Cindy Michaels did request a traffic impact study, on more than one occasion, I believe, and she was interested in speed bumps for us. A point of interest. I just wondered, is this going to be a gated community? Did I hear them say it was going to be gated? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. MS. OBERTON: So they're going to gate themselves in and gate us out. So how come -- what kind of -- I don't understand that. In other words, if I want to go out through that way, I can't ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: That's right. MS. OBERTON: -- but they can come through us. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: That's right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: No. MS. OBERTON: We can't go in. I wondered. I thought I Page 62 July 20, 2000 heard somebody say gated. That doesn't open up the roadways any. Okay. That's really all I have to say. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: While you're there, may I ask, is this -- are you holding the paper that says attention residents of Willoughby Acres? MS. OBERTON: I sure am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. You can turn those in, but I wanted to, since you brought those up -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: You have to bring them up -- ma'am? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One of the statements on here is they want to use Lakeland and Euclid Avenues as a means of access for this development. The way this is defined right now is Livingston Road. So this information on here is incorrect. And I can certainly understand, having lived in Willoughby Acres, why if someone's talking about dangerous conditions for the children, that would get a lot of people to sign this. There's a statement in here that says rezoning promotes urban sprawl, and that is an inaccuracy. It's not urban sprawl. This is within the urban district. The area that we have urban boundary, as Mr. Simonik pointed out, that there are times when we want the density to be increased in this area, or at least use the maximum out so we don't encourage urban sprawl. And we're talking about potential flooding here. And it says that -- a statement says that the South Florida Water Management District also has concerns with the proposed system. I haven't heard any concerns from either staff or the petitioner, really, with the concerns of the system. So if I had seen this and not been as familiar with the types of things that occur in the county, I probably would have signed it also. I'm impressed, and I don't in any way want to suggest that Willoughby Acres' residents don't come and speak. In fact, I am impressed and it's good that you're getting the discussion going. It's too bad that some of this discussion didn't happen with the petitioners and the landowner much sooner, rather than sitting here in this public hearing. You've made some really good points, but I must say for the record that this particular petition is emotional, it's not factual, and I'm sure a lot of people signed it to just get our attention. Page 63 July 20, 2000 And they did. MS. OBERTON: Well, you've heard a lot of facts and figures here, though, from the people who do know, and they're trying to tell you just that. Plus there's more people behind me, so maybe some of your questions can be answered by them. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question. I'm a bit confused. Are you for open access into the new community, or you're against it? MS. OBERTON: I'm against it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You're against it, okay. MS. OBERTON: Unless you'd really widen our roads and put in sidewalks or do something else, because the traffic is terrible. Mostly I don't even think traffic. I think flooding. Because I know, I've only lived there seven years, and in the seven years I've been there, it took a 19-inch rainfall to give me any water at all on my side yard. Now it can rain five inches and I have the same water. And people over on -- some of those extended neighbors, there's knee deep in water all the time. They've put in these roads, they're higher, they're damming up the sites, and the water gets trapped. They can talk about the fall-off and the drains, but we're already in a bad way. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Next. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If you want to hear about the South Florida Water Management before the next speaker? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Please. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Since the topic came up. Stan Chrzanowski, with development services. And this project was submitted by the developer to the South Florida Water Management District, because of its size and the fact that it has wetlands on-site. As he'll get -- he'll have to deal with the Corps of Engineers and DEP and the other agencies. South Florida Water Management District, on their first review, sent about a 12 or 13-page review back consisting of 46 comments. Comments maybe 17 through 30 we consider fairly substantial, because they really address the water management. A lot of the comments are toward the legal side and accessibility Page 64 July 20, 2000 and environmental. But -- and I think Brad Hedrich brought out -- one of the comments was that they had chosen a .06 CFS per acre allowable discharge, and the District is limiting them to .03. That's half of what they had considered. The District also doesn't like their control elevations. And I've been told by the developer's engineer that a lot of this is worked out with the District, but the District didn't really look into the plans well enough, and a lot of it's answered. I didn't know that for a fact. We had tried to get the developer to deal with the District a little more before pursuing this through the county, but they seemed to want to go ahead with it, so here we are. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you know what Weir No. 3 is? Palm River-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's the Water Management District system. I don't know them by numbers. I could just about show you where they are, but -- well, we don't have a map here. But there's one at Lakeland, there's one farther up by -- but I don't know them by number, no. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And she's saying it said 12.5 elevation. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's probably fairly far upstream from where they are. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's what I think. And I'm not sure that fits with what Mr. Hedrich was saying earlier, so perhaps when they get back up to talk, they might clarify that point if we continue on here. Thank you, Stan. MR. NINO: Suzanne Griffin, after Lori Stresen-Reuter. MS. STRESEN-REUTER: My name is Lori Stresen-Reuter. I live at 585 Lakeland Avenue. I had my nice little speech prepared here, but I wanted to address a couple of things first. First of all, what you had stated with Lakeland and Euclid Avenues is not being public information. This was made known last week, Wednesday, at the environmental meeting. That's where that came from. It's been on TV as well. As far as them wanting to look at accesses, it was proposed by the planning committee to also get accesses into Euclid and Lakeland Avenue. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do believe it's staff that's saying Page 65 July 20, 2000 that, and our Board of County Commissioners that's suggesting this. So we're working on a much larger issue here. And I'm sympathetic to the residents and what's happening, but you do have an issue of traffic circulation within the county. And here we're just going to drop it into one spot. And I can see why you'd all be concerned. But that is a staff type recommendation and it is a policy that the Board of County Commissioners is attempting to implement so all of us residents can benefit within the county to be able to get from point A to point B with a minimum hassle. And unfortunately in some cases, that's going to be going through neighborhoods. MS. STRESEN-REUTER: I just wanted to address that. But that's the means by which this came about. And also, I'd like to submit these that have -- will answer some of the questions with the South Florida Management District having concerns with this proposal. MR. NINO: Bill Vonier. MS. STRESEN-REUTER: I'm still speaking. Now I'm going to read my letter. We recently moved into Armadillo Estates neighborhood off of Willoughby Acres one year ago, after living in Willoughby for 13 years. We loved the people and the community feeling of Willoughby, but wanted more room and privacy to raise our three children. We were horrified to learn that the proposed development is within 300 feet of our new home. We also felt secure in knowing that Armadillo Estates -- knowing that this is a private neighborhood where the residents owned their own Streets. Never did we imagine that a possibility existed to use our small private neighborhood for a big development thruway. My children are concerned that they won't even be able to ride their bikes or rollerblade if the proposal passes. Flooding is another issue. Because we wanted to preserve the existing natural environment surrounding our new home on our acre and a half, we built a stem wall home. We already experience much flooding during the rainy season. I'm concerned about (sic) what this development will inhibit the flow of the natural waterways. Last night as I was standing at the drop-off box for the letters of concerns for our community, I was so impressed with Page 66 July 20, 2000 the amount of people stopping to voice their opinions. People were gathered in their driveways, cars were lined up to drop off their letters, and phone lines were buzzing. As I was driving home, I was aware of all the children on bikes, people walking their dogs, teenagers rollerblading, and a real sense of community. Although Willoughby may not be the high end economically for North Naples, we are a true community. We know and have concern for our neighbors. The good news is that everyone, no matter what their economic status, has equal rights according to the law. I have a hard time believing that if a similar proposal was suggested with a possible thruway through Pelican Strand, that this would pass. Please do not let this happen to our neighborhood. Thank you very much. MR. VONIER: Bill Vonier. I live in Imperial Estates, so this is a fresh approach. Our concern is in here does, as somebody mentioned, drain away from this property. But it's fairly adequate. We do -- with minimum rainfall, our backyards are -- there's water in them. So adding a property behind where there's a potential water problem we feel might compound our problem. In addition, along this area where the road runs right adjacent to the backyards of homes, we think that a good neighborly program which would allow for a sound barrier, a hefty berm and planting, would be -- would be in order. Because they're putting a road right through their backyard. That's all I have. Thank you. MR. NINO: Carol Barber. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the past speaker, not -- Lori. What's the idea behind this? It's about 15 pages. And what are we to get out of it? I for one am not a fast reader, and she didn't give us any -- MR. BROOKES: There are a number of concerns that this Water Management District letter touch on, some of the things you brought up, like the Big Cypress fox squirrel, they would have to have a management plan for that. There's a bunch of other things in here. This is the Water Management District, not Collier County, so your concerns will be different. However, they may touch the Page 67 July 20, 2000 same, or still have the same subject matters. And they may overlap the county plan, the county LDC, and the Water Management District different rules, but some of them talk about the same type of things. You heard testimony about weirs and things like that. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. BARBER: My name is Carl Barber. I live at 259 Madison Drive, in Willoughby Acres. And I only want to make a couple of real quick comments. It's about the traffic congestion in the area already. I know this has been addressed before, but if any of you have ever tried to drive along Piper Boulevard, which runs next to Immokalee Road, our only two exits out of Willoughby Acres are Livingston Road and Airport Road. If this is added -- if this development is added with access onto Livingston Road, the biggest problem is, if you're going east on Piper Boulevard to get on on Livingston Road, you cannot see to the left. It's impossible. Because of that big sales center for Mediterra and the shrubbery and brushes that they've got there. You have to stick the nose of your car clear out on Livingston Road in order to see what's coming. If you add any more units in there, we are not going to be able to get out of there. The bridge and traffic light at Airport Road is a joke. In the morning and in the evening it's impossible to get in and out of Willoughby Acres. The other problem is flooding. We were the high point in Collier County. Now we're going to be a retention pond for flood water. Because everybody else is raising the elevation above us. Everything around us, the elevation is being raised above us, so we're going to be a retention pond. Thank you. MR. NINO: Mike Zewack, Leroy Thompson. MR. ZEWACK: I don't have anything. MR. THOMPSON: Bill covered everything. MR. NINO: Tony Lawhon. MR. LAWHON: Good morning. Tony Lawhon. I live at 436 Corbel Drive, and that is right here. So I guess I'm going to experience firsthand just exactly whether or not this weir works. Because I am -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Excuse me, you have to use the microphone, because she really can't hear you too well. Page 68 July 20, 2000 MR. LAWHON: I'm immediately adjacent to that preserve area right there behind Falcon Ridge. And I guess I'm going to learn whether or not that really does works correctly. I guess I'd like to echo just a couple of the concerns from the Imperial Golf Estates gentleman. First of all, if the elevation is going to be raised to the northeast such that the water is going to naturally flow down this way, I don't think any of us truly believe that this system can capture 100 percent of the water and then discharge it out this little funnel point here. For one thing, you've got all the Candlewood residents that live right along -- that abut that property there. I think undeniably those people are going to experience additional flooding, because none -- not all the water's going to get captured by that lake and then drop down there. And as it stands now, my property, even with some moderate rainfall, I already get flooding around the perimeter of my property. And if this system is supposed to take 145 spread-out acres of slow moving rainfall and put it into a funnel and discharge it out one point, especially during high water time, that preserve -- there's no way that preserve is enough to accommodate that much water. So what's going to happen is you're going to have a tremendous amount of standing water, you're going to have my property flooded, you're going to have a lot of the Candlewood properties flooded, and conceivably you'll have the Falcon Ridge properties to the south flooded. And I think one thing the commission needs to also keep in mind is that Mediterra project, which is an enormous project, is getting built just to the north of this as well. And if the natural water flow is from the northeast to the southwest, as was expressed by the Willoughby gentleman there, what do you think's happening with all the water?. They're taking something that flows very slowly and creating a system that's going to make it flow very fast, all the way down to the projects that are going to be adversely affected by that. And that includes the Candlewood property there. So I think I have a pretty significant concern about flooding, not just on my property, but also for the Candlewood residents there as well. And -- oh, by the way, I'm the person that saw the Indigo snake there that Mr. Simonik referenced. That snake was living Page 69 July 20, 2000 in my yard the end of last year. I did see it and describe it to him. And that was consistent with the description of an Indigo snake. And I guess that snake has already decided to -- anticipating this new development, I guess he's already moved, looking for better ground. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Anyone else? Okay. That's it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a question for the applicants. Mr. Brookes I think brought up earlier that there was a discrepancy between the number of units that you're asking for and the verbiage of the text, and the number of -- shown on the site plan. Could you clear that up for us? MS. MURRAY: May I do, that, please? Susan Murray. First of all, the plan he was looking at is the conceptual water management plan, which is part of the petition, but not necessarily part of what we call the PUD master plan. Any subdivision of the property will require that the petitioner go through a planning process. What we typically evaluate is kind of a worst case scenario. So if somebody comes in for a PUD rezoning, they want -- they will request a density, which has to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, which in this case it is. But that does not require them to build out at that maximum. So that the 438 dwelling units is the maximum that they are permitted to build on that property. And that is what we evaluate when we look at all the criteria is a worst case scenario, what is the maximum development potential for this property. Also I wanted to bring up that duplex dwelling units would be permitted here. And those count as two dwelling units. So what you might be seeing at one lot may actually be developed with two units. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And the agricultural land inside of this development is also inside the urban boundary on our Future Land Use Map? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. The entire project is within the urban boundary. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think Mr. Brookes may have been a little confused on the appropriateness of that also. Page 70 July 20, 2000 MS. MURRAY: Perhaps. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions from staff? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. What is the desire of the board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll make an attempt at this. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve PUD-2000-9 with the staff stipulations as stated, with the exception of future interconnects would only be made where they abut future development, not existing development. And that emergency access only interconnects take place where there is this current development. And that a land -- an appropriate landscape design be adjacent to any of the existing homeowners or developments, that that be taken into account. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Sidewalks. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's as per code. As per stipulated in the staff recommendations. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: So are we saying that you do not want to see interconnectivity between Euclid and Lakeland in this development? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That would be a very fair assessment that I -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: -- I just want to get that straight. I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. MS. MURRAY: May I get some clarification on the landscape? I don't understand what you're -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess what I'm attempting to do is what one of the gentleman suggested. Anywhere that we have an existing residence, that an appropriate landscape design, whether it be berm, wall, extra landscaping, whatever, be put in place to minimize any affect to the existing developments or homes that are there. MS. MURRAY: Right now we have a code standard. Is that sufficient, or would you like to go over and above that? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would think as a good neighbor Page 71 July 20, 2000 that the developer would show up with a little bit better enhanced landscape design when they come in for the site development plan. I just see that taking place. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Russell? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chair? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You're talking about berms or walls where there's existing open area now that's going to inhibit the little ¢ritters from running around? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, I'm not -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean, are we going to impact the habitat? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' -- not necessarily talking about a wall or a fence, but I would leave it as an appropriate landscape design, which I would trust that these folks will meet with the neighbors and -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And the purpose of the landscape design would be? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To minimize visual impact of this new neighborhood. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And would we want to not incorporate that landscape design would be sort of environmentally friendly to the flow of creatures? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Absolutely. I want to leave a place for that little squirrel to get from place to place. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because I know what happened in my subdivision when they closed off from Victoria Park to Stonebridge. I used to have quail going through my yard all the time. And those little quails just can't get through that wall. COMMISSIONER PRIDD¥: I would like to leave the -- leave my landscape comment vague for that to be worked out at the appropriate time before site development plan is approved. But I think we all understand the intent of what we're trying to accomplish here, and that's to minimize impact to existing neighbors. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes, Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Part of Mr. Priddy's motion, does that include anything about the park, or did I miss it? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I didn't mention anything about a Page 72 July 20, 2000 park. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So I didn't miss it. Did you want to mention anything about the park? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I did not want to mention anything about a park. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Okay, we have a motion made by Mr. Priddy, seconded by Mr. Wrage and Mr. Bruet simultaneously, so take your pick. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'd just like to add, I think a lot of the issues that we heard here today are really permit issues and not really land use issues. Talking about how to use RAP rate of discharge, wildlife issues, exotic removal, mitigation. These are all hurdles in which all developers have to take on and solve with the permitting agencies. And I think we kind of got off the track here today. These are land use issues here that we need to talk about and not permitting issues. But I do support the petition and I'm sure the developer will move forward and resolve these issues with the District, Corps and all the other agencies. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, there being no further discussion, I'll call for the vote. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What didn't you like about my motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I wanted a park. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' You wanted a park. MS. MURRAY: May I have that for the record? Because the board will ask me again for -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, I felt there should be a park, and I feel that a few other issues with reference to traffic circulation need attention. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE.' Okay, are we ready to get started on the last? No. CU-2000-09. Mr. Murray. Oh, anyone wishing to speak, would you kindly stand up and Page 73 July 20, 2000 be sworn in. I have a hard time with that one. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MURRAY: Good morning. For the record, Don Murray, principal planner with the planning services department. I'll keep this brief. Staff has reviewed this conditional use located at 3285 Pine Ridge Road. It's for a conditional use church, which would be housed in the existing building No. I located on -- located in the Pine Ridge Sports and Recreational School. And we've looked at it for consistency with the Growth Management Plan and found it consistent. And also with compatibility with surrounding development fine it will cause no impact to the surrounding development. Therefore, based on the findings of fact in staff's report, we are recommending approval of this, with stipulations. Any questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE'. Any questions? Petitioner, do you wish to speak, or do you want to -- okay, close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning Commission send its recommendation of approval to the BZA for Petition CU-2000-09. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE'- We have a second. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Meeting over, go home. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Wait, no, we've got old business. Do we have any old business? MR. NINO: No old business. Do we have any new ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: business. MR. NINO: No new business. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: comment? No? That's good. Do we have any public Page 74 July 20, 2000 Should we discuss any addenda? And are we ready to adjourn? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. I don't think so. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:20 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL PEDONE, ACTING CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 75 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION July 25, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Jerry C. Neal 270 Robin hood Circle, #201 Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-11, Jean M. Wickett Dear Mr. Neal: On Thursday, July 20, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-11. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-20 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very trulj~ yours, Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-11 ff{G/cw Enclosure cc: Jean M. Wickett 8900 Quail Ciricle Plymouth, MI 48170 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- 20 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-11 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 67-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for an 87-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Jerry C. Neal, representing Jean M. Wickett, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 97, Isle of Capri No. 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 67-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for an 87-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 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-2000-11 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 20th day of .July ,2000. ATTES~. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator COLLIER COUNTY...~G COMMISSION RUSSEJLL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Assistant County Attorney g/admin/BD-2000-1 l/RG/im 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION July 25, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave., Naples, Florida 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-13, Andreu & June Vails Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, July 20, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-13. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-19 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very t~fi yours,./~. Ross Gochenaur, Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-13/RG/ts Enclosure cc: Andreu & June Vails 324 Bryant Ave Levittown, New York 11756 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- 19 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-13 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 15 -foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 20-foot boat dock and boat house in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinat~er described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Andreu and June Valls, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 2, Dolphin Cove, as described in Plat Book 19, Pages 55-56, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 5 feet to allow for a 20-foot boat and boat house 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. -1- 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. The dock shall be field-adjusted to minimize removal of mangroves at the shoreline. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-13 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 20th day of . July ,2000. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PL~I~ING COMMISSION C OLL IE~OUN~/Y/(F ~D,~A ~/US'S~L/A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN MarjorieCM. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-13/RG/ts 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION July 25, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-14 Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, July 20, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission Petition No. BD-2000-14. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-18 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very/~ your~/~/~, _ Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-14/RN/cw Enclosure cc: Andrew P. DeVito 3491 Cassia Ct. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File heard and approved Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 18 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-14 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 28-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 48-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 filed by Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Andrew P. Devito, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 27, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, 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 28-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 48-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, 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-2000-14 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 20 th day of July ,2000. VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator COLLIER COUNTY/J~IING COMMISSION COLLIER~OUN/TY, FLO~IIDA RUSffELL/A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN ~ Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Mami 1~I. Scuderi Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-14/RG/irn -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION August 21, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Ben L. Nelson, Jr. Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10900 East Terry Street Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2000-12, Patrick Ciniello Dear Mr. Nelson: On Thursday, August 17, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-12. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-22 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very/~y yours, Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-12/RG/im Enclosure Patrick Ciniello 5611 Queens Kew 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- 22 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-12 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 1 O-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 30-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 filed by Ben L. Nelson, Jr., representing Patrick Ciniello, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 15, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 1 O-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 30-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of mariatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 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-2000-12 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 17th day of August ., 2000. 'VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: oOLL I RR cC( i )i OMMISSION Marjorie M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-12/RG/im -2- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION August 21, 2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Ben Nelson, Jr. Nelson Marine Construction, Inc. 10900 East Terry Street Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2000-16, John & Joan Gilchrist and Wilfred & Dorothy Jacobson Dear Mr. Nelson: On Thursday, August 17, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-16. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-23 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-16/RG/im Enclosure John & Joan Gilchrist Wilfred & Dorothy Jacobson 340 Old Farm Road Northfield, IL 60093 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- 23 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-00-16 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 16-foot after-the-fact extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 36-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 Commassion in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Ben Nelson, Jr., representing John & Joan Gilchrist and Wilfred & Dorothy Jacobson, with respect to the property here'mafter described as: Lot 4, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, 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 16-foot after-the-fact extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 36-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. 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. The dock shall be field-adjusted to minimize removal of mangroves at the shoreline. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-00-16 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. 17th day of August ,2000. CAUTERO, ntCV- Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORI~ R~LL A' B ~I~rDD, CHAIRMAN Mariofie M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-16/RG/im -2-