Loading...
CCPC Agenda 02/04/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 4, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2016, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM,ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTICE: ITEM 9B, THE ARCHITECTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, WILL BE HEARD AFTER ALL OF THE LAND USE PETITIONS AND BEFORE 3 PM. THEREAFTER, IT WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 7,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: This item has been continued from the January 7,2016 CCPC meeting: A. PUDZ-PL20150000204: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier 1 County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Abaco Club RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 104 residential dwelling units on property located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.9+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith,AICP,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the December 17,2015 CCPC meeting: B. An ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida, by providing for: Section One,Recitals; Section Two,Findings of Fact; Section Three,Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code to make comprehensive changes to architectural and site design standards, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two —Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts, section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Chapter Four — Site Design and Development Standards, including section 4.02.12 Design Standards for Outdoor Storage, section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, section 4.02.37 Design Standards for Development in the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Overlay District (GGDCCO), section 4.02.38 Specific Design Criteria for Mixed Use Development Within C-1 Through C-3 Zoning Districts, section 4.05.02 Design Standards, section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, section 4.05.09 Stacking Lane Requirements, section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements,section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way, section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards, including section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; Chapter Six—Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including section 6.06.02 Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, section 6.06.03 Streetlights; Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision- Making Procedures, including section 10.02.15 Requirements for Mixed Use Projects Within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, Senior Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 January 7, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 7,2016 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 9:00 a.m.,in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman ABSENT: Wafaa F.Assaad Andrew Solis ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow,County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 11 January 7, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the January 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before the secretary does the roll call,we have two excused absences.Mr.Assaad notified me earlier he had a conflict,and Andy just noticed that this is the only remaining--we've got one remaining item on the agenda,or we will have,and he's got a conflict there, so he won't--he's not going to be attending. With that,I'll ask the secretary to do the remainder of the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just going to miss him. Ms.Ebert is here. Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We have several continuances to decide on today. The first one,the Marsh--the Pelican Marsh project,which is 9A and 9B. It's DOA-PL20140002309,which is the DRI portion of it,and it's a companion to PUDR-PL20 1 400022 1 1.There's a request to continue that to January 29th(sic)by the applicant. MR.YOVANOVICH: Twenty-first. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twenty-first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 21st,I'm sorry.January 21st. Since it is a continued item and it's been the longest continued item,it will be the first one up on that date. So is there a motion to continue those two items? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Charlette-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. One other continuance that was just requested this week is for the Abaco Club RPUD. It's 9D,No. PUDZ-PL20150000204. It's been requested to be continued to the 21st meeting as well. Is there a motion to continue? Page 2 of 11 January 7,2016 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Charlette, seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. And that takes us to our Planning Commission--addenda--Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is January 21st. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. There's--the minutes for the December 3rd meeting were distributed electronically. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve made by Karen. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Charlette. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. And then,Ray,do we have BCC report and recaps from December? MR.BELLOWS: There was no Board of County Commission meeting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.BELLOWS: --since the last Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***And Chairman's report,I don't have anything new to report today, so--and there's no consent agenda,so we'll move right into the only remaining item on the agenda,and it's 9C. It's PUDZ-PL20150000660. It's the Westclox 29 CPUD at SR29 and Westclox Street in Immokalee. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom on the end. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? MR.CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I spoke with Rich and David,and I think Wayne was at the meeting as well. Nope,he wasn't. Well,anyway,the two of them were,and that was yesterday. And we--the same Page 3 of 11 January 7, 2016 items we discussed yesterday will be discussed today. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlene? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,Wayne,it's all yours. MR.ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record,I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor&Associates. With me today is David Genson from the Barron Collier Companies;Jim Banks,the traffic consultant; and Rich Yovanovich is the attorney representing the applicant. This is a proposed rezoning to a planned development--commercial planned development for about 9.5 acres located at the southwest quadrant of Westclox and State Road 29 in Immokalee. The subject property is currently vacant. And I have a little closer image for you-all. The subject property is outlined in the yellow dash.And we are proposing a project that has a list of uses that we believe is consistent with the neighborhood center designation for the Immokalee Master Plan. This property is located just south of the property that we were rezoned for,the Walmart store on the north side of Westclox,and this would serve as more of a neighborhood-oriented shopping center. It's a fairly straightforward request.There's not a lot going on here. We did ask for a deviation from the parking standards that on a corner lot restrict how you allocate your parking.We've asked for 100 percent of the parking,potentially,to be allowed on a single side of--single facade of the building. Staffs supporting that deviation. It's a fairly narrow, skinny,long lot,as you can see,and parking orientation would be difficult to put 50 percent on each facade of the property. I think the real meat of this discussion comes down to the handful of uses that staff has indicated that they do not believe are consistent with the neighborhood center designation for the Immokalee Area Master Plan and,of course,we disagree with them and believe that the uses that we've offered make sense for a neighborhood center. And I think their contention is that because it references convenience commercial uses in the land use designation,that they've gone to the C2 zoning district,and anything that wasn't specifically C2,they've indicated that that would not be consistent with the neighborhood center designation. And we disagree. There's other language in the plan that allows them to also allow other compatible land uses,and we believe the uses we've offered are compatible. For instance,in your staff report,there was a list of those items that they disagreed with,and one of those,animal specialty services except veterinarian,that allows a use such as a dog groomer. It allows some other,you know,larger animal non-veterinarian-type uses,but also it allows the category for dog grooming. So we've selected that and think that's appropriate for a neighborhood center. Auto and home supply stores we believe also make sense here. You can have convenience stores, you can have gas stations in this designation. Gas stations commonly sell batteries and other auto supplies. We don't really see the distinction on why that wouldn't be an appropriate and compatible use. A liquor store,for instance,again,convenience stores can also sell beer,wine,and other liquor. We've asked for a liquor store as one of the potential tenant spaces for a strip center. I believe that's also compatible with the other uses that are approved. Physical fitness facilities,for instance,is SIC Code 7991. That's allowed in Cl. But we've also asked for 7911 as a potential use,and that allows dance studios,for instance,and we believe that would also be a compatible use to other physical fitness facilities. And then the whole gamut of public administration uses that we've asked for. They're the whole series of the 9000s for your SIC codes.That allows governmental offices,a variety of types,property appraiser offices and whatnot,and we believe that those governmental offices would make sense to serve the community at this location. Retail nurseries and garden centers is another use that appears in C3,but we think it's an appropriate-type use to have for a neighborhood center. It certainly is not incompatible with any other of the other retail-type uses that are permissible. And then there's a grouping of retail services that we've excluded a whole bunch of uses,including Page 4 of 11 January 7, 2016 pawnshops and things of that nature. Staff is indicating that our category with 5,000 square feet or less is a C3-type use,and we disagree,and we think that the miscellaneous retail-type uses that we're seeking here make sense in a typical retail strip center and are compatible with the other uses. So we believe we are consistent with your neighborhood center designation for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And I think that's really kind of the essence of this project. I'll put up the master plan in case we want to discuss it. That's all I had,Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Wayne,I normally do,but as you found out when we met,or as Rich and David did,I--this is a pretty simple,straightforward application,so I didn't have any issues with your PUD,which is the first time I think I can say that in quite a while. So,anyway,we'll move into staff report then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,do you? Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On No. 66 on Exhibit A,recorded and prerecorded tapes,could you put excludes--excluding adult-oriented sales and rental? MR.ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Rich keeps forgetting that number every time. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm just testing you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Seeing if I'm paying attention? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was No.66? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have anything else? MR.YOVANOVICH: I got it right on 80. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a staff report,Nancy? MS.GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning,Commissioners. For the record,I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the zoning division. And staff,unfortunately,is not able to recommend approval. We're constrained from recommending approval of this petition because it is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan.And we do have David Weeks here if you have any questions about that inconsistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I've got zoning questions,not comprehensive planning questions. MS.GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why does zoning feel it's inconsistent with the Immokalee plan? MS.GUNDLACH: Well,we simply can't recommend approval if it's not consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. So why do you think it's not consistent? MS.GUNDLACH: Because they've deemed it inconsistent. And if you read their-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a zoning perspective-- MS.GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the zoning department's position? MS.GUNDLACH: Our position is is that it's inconsistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why? MS.GUNDLACH: Because the uses that are prohibited,for the most part,are limited in square footage to 5,000 square feet and some to 1,800 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show me that in the Immokalee Master Plan? Just put it on the overhead. I'd like to see the language that limits the square footage. MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning director. I believe the correct response would be,from a zoning perspective,the zoning staff defers to Comprehensive Planning staff for Growth Management Plan analysis. The conclusion from the Growth Management Planning staff was that it was inconsistent with the Page 5 of 11 January 7,2016 Growth Management Plan. Their realm of expertise is zoning matters.The Growth Management Plan staff provides the analysis of a petition against the Growth Management Plan. They are--they are echoing the response of the Growth Management Plan staff. So the determination for Growth Management Plan consistency is provided to them from Mr.Weeks and his staff,and that's the conclusion that they're obligated to put forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I wanted to ask questions of Nancy focused on zoning,that's more appropriate for her;is that what you're saying? MR.BOSI: As a zoning staff member,yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy,there are 12 items that are allowed under the Immokalee Master Plan for this area,and I'll read them to you because I'd like to know what categories of zoning they fall into. Barber shops,No. 7241, SIC code number. Do you know what category that is? MS.GUNDLACH: Not off the top of my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a Cl. Beauty shops,7231. Do you know what category that is? I'll assume you don't know off the top of your head for all of these,and I'll tell you what I believe they are and I'll tell you what Comprehensive Planning believes they are. 7231 is a Cl use;drugstores,5912,is a C3 use;deli,5812 is a C4 use;meat market,5421,is a C4 use; bicycle services,sales,5941,is a C4 use;and repairs, 7699,is a C2 use;restaurants,5812,is a C4 use; dry-cleaning,7212,is a C2 use;veterinary clinics is a C2 use;medical offices are Cl;laundry facilities are C2. Then it says,any other convenience commercial uses which are compatible in nature with the foregoing. Now,the reason that some of those rise to a C4 use is because,from what I could find,and at the time I believe Comprehensive Planning could find,no size limitations in the Immokalee Master Plan in that neighborhood center. So without those size limitations,I think you're pushing some of these C3,C4 uses in addition to the Cl and-2. And with that in mind,I think the applicant originally came in with some what were presumably C4 uses and took those out to be more consistent and drop down to a handful of C3 uses that they're asking for now that certainly seem comparable/compatible,especially in an area that is bordered on the north by a proposed Walmart at a quarter of a million square feet,and in an area that is on a six-lane arterial road that will--or it will be six-lane when the FDOT finishes with it,and it's a major collector road on Westclox. Both of those are in the staff report acknowledging the intensity of those two road systems. So I can't see why it's necessary to limit this project when it's not clear that the limitation's required. I sure believe that there could be an argument for it,but I don't think it's 100 percent clear. And under that basis, I'm not supportive of seeing those uses stricken from their request. So with that in mind,I know you can't--you didn't analyze this that way,but I--David,did you have any or,Mike,did you want to comment on this? MR.WEEKS: I would. David Weeks of the comprehensive planning section. Commissioners,on Page 6 of your staff report,Paragraph F 1 states the specific provision from the Immokalee Master Plan that is at issue as pertains to certain uses here. And it reads as follows: Commercial uses shall be limited to,and then it lists several specific uses--Mr. Strain,you named those off in your questioning of Nancy--all of which,at the time the master plan--Immokalee Area Master Plan was adopted,were uses allowed in the C2 zoning district. The C2 zoning district at that time and today is known as the convenience commercial zoning district. So this paragraph identifies several uses specifically and then goes onto say,quote,any other convenience commercial uses which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses,end quote. The focus that staff sees here is the term"convenience commercial." It doesn't say any other commercial use that's compatible. It's any other convenience commercial. We believe that was deliberate to use that terminology. Again,because all of the explicitly identified uses at that time were allowed in the C2 zoning district. Today's LDC,Mr. Strain,as you were pointing out,differs,and the C2 zoning district now and no longer allows all of those specifically identified uses;however,because the master plan specifically calls them Page 6 of 11 January 7, 2016 out,it is staffs position that regardless of what zoning district those uses fall within,they are consistent with this subdistrict. For any other uses beyond those specifically identified,they need to fall within the convenience commercial zoning district--that's staffs position--because of the terminology in the master plan and keeping in mind the context at the time that this subdistrict was adopted and what zoning district was--uses were allowed at that time. So our opinion simply is that aside from those specifically listed uses,the only other uses that can be allowed would be those of the C2 convenience commercial zoning district. That's why staff has taken the position that uses that are outside of the C2 zoning district,that is C3/C4,are not consistent with the subdistrict. We're not questioning whether or not they are compatible with the surrounding area or with the other uses that are specifically listed in the master plan. Our issue is that the terminology is convenience commercial uses;therefore,that is the limitation. As to the question of square-footage caps,Mr. Strain,you're correct. There is no mention in this subdistrict at all about square-footage caps,but it goes back to the intent of the subdistrict being neighborhood center and intended to serve a certain population size and a certain--which is identified also on Page 6 of your staff report and a certain size of the surrounding area,certain distance from the neighborhood center itself. Let me throw out an example. You mentioned to the north of Walmart. Is a Walmart,a building that might be well over a hundred thousand square feet,a neighborhood commercial use? No,it is not. Not necessarily because of the actual uses,the products that are sold--that may cross the threshold--but it's more about the intensity,the size of the building. That's designed to serve either a community or even a regional market. This is intended for a neighborhood-size service area. That's why the square-footage caps, staff believes,are appropriate and should not be exceeded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying is any time we read the GMP,we need to go back and look at the codes at the time--in this particular case I think you said 82 or something like that--in order to understand what it means. Is that what you're saying? MR.WEEKS: I'm saying that for the context to understand what the intent was. I don't think we're locked in,that is,staff has not raised issue with uses that today are allowed in the C2 zoning district that--back in 1991 is when the subdistrict was adopted,when the master plan was adopted. We're not saying we need to go back to the C2 zoning district at that time and only allow these uses,but we are saying that correlates with a zoning district,and that should be the limitation of however that zoning district has changed,whether it's been more liberal or more conservative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we never update the GMP? MR.WEEKS: But we should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Don't we do that through a process called the AUIR,as a minimum? MR.WEEKS: Yes,we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I notice that the Immokalee GMP has been subject to the EAR changes a couple of different times and some language changes. MR.WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it was so concerning that this was from an'82 version of the code and it was a problem going forward,we didn't change it,I would suspect purposely,because it's not a problem going forward,because those uses,whether they were allowed in'82 or now make no difference and whether--the intensity of those are not making a difference. This is not a neighborhood commercial location. It's on major thoroughfares that have been acknowledged in the staff report. And a meeting I was in Immokalee with a CRA about two months ago I learned one thing,not--I shouldn't say one thing. I learned many things. But one thing stood out. They are not--they are concerned about the way they're looked at in regards to our urban standards on their community. And this is a prime example. The community is not objecting to this. In fact,the community needs this kind of commercial activity. If anything,we ought to be encouraging it,not looking for ways to defeat it. And I think that since the EAR process is there to update the GMP on an ongoing basis regularly,and we did not take the opportunity to update this section to correct it to what you believe is the way it should be Page 7 of 11 January 7, 2016 interpreted,then it should be interpreted consistent with our current codes. And I disagree with Comprehensive Staffs position on this, so... MR.WEEKS: A few comments. One,I don't know that there necessarily is an issue with this language. I don't know that there is necessarily a reason to update it. I mean,I would say--I would ask, what's wrong with this language now?Why--how is it not fulfilling the intent of the neighborhood center subdistrict itself? Second point is that most of the neighborhood centers in Immokalee are located on major corridors. This one is on State Road 29. There's another one on State Road 29,the south edge of town. There's another one on County Road 846,also known as First Street. And the only one that comes to mind that's on a less busy road,a less major road,would be on Lake Trafford Road out near an elementary school there. The other thing is that--my recollection is during the last EAR,the Immokalee Master Plan was not considered for EAR-based amendments because of the CRA-initiated overhaul that was proposed of the Immokalee Master Plan, so that's why it was not even considered. I certainly couldn't say whether or not this would have been a subject of discussion,whether this subdistrict might have come through if it had gone through the EAR process just as it reads today; I simply don't know. But that master plan,as you know,was not successful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So since'82,you don't believe we've had any EAR changes to the Immokalee Master Plan? MR.WEEKS: Since'91,when the master plan was adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ninety-one. MR.WEEKS: Yes,we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's exactly what I was indicating. We have gone through the EAR process more than once with the Immokalee Master Plan and didn't take the opportunity to correct it. The problem I have is that when you read this as an'82 perspective,you lock these uses into a Cl and C2 uses as perceived in'82. We've allowed some of these uses to move to other districts of more intensity,and now you're saying because they're--because some of the requests they have that are more intense than Cl and C2 are not allowed even though some of the uses today that they've asked for that are allowed by right are part of our C3 and C4 intensity. So by that comparison alone,I would--I would--I see nothing wrong with the operation of their use requests on this piece of property. The intensity is no greater than some of the uses they have there based on today's standards. Because in one case we're looking at it in today's standards,and then we're looking to turn it down on'82 standards,and I don't think that's the right way to approach this,so... Jeff? MR.KLATZKOW: You know,at the end of the day,you're the local planning agency. At the end of the day, it's your recommendation to the Board whether or not it's consistent with the Comp Plan.It's not David. David,from staffs perspective,can make a recommendation,but you can make a different finding that it is--that this is consistent or inconsistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate that. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just fascinated by the wording,recommendation, planning and zoning staff is constrained from recommending approval as the proposed petition is not consistent with the GMP;however,staff could recommend,could recommend that the Planning Commission forward the petition,whatever,to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulation;gave one stipulation. They could recommend. What does that mean? Are they going to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the applicant will remove--I think there's a half a dozen uses that comprehensive planning staff--and they're on Page 7 of the staff report. If the applicant were to remove the animal specialty services,which is a C3 use;auto home and supply stores as a C3 use; liquor stores,which is a C3 use;physical fitness facilities,which is a C2 and a C3 use;public administration groups,which are C3 uses; retail nurseries,which are C3 uses;and,of course,without a cap,some of these are C4;and auto retail services. Those one,two,three,four--six or seven would have to be eliminated. I don't see how we got there Page 8 of 11 January 7, 2016 to eliminate them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't see eliminating them. I'm just fascinated by how they worded it. Why didn't they just say,we would recommend approval if these were removed,you know? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I just wanted to clarify. When we are working with an applicant in regards to finding consistency with the Growth Management Plan,and if we come to a point where we agree to disagree,there's two ways to go about it. One,we could say we recommend approval subject to those conditions. But we have a recommendation of denial from one of the review agencies,so we're going to recommend denial--it's somewhat semantics,but--subject to those conditions being--or those uses being removed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm with Jeff.We're the Planning Commission. I mean,I don't see any problem with those uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,the community out there hasn't expressed a concern. They'd certainly like to see a traffic light at Westclox and 29,but that isn't within the applicant's power. That's a DOT issue. And they are participating in it when it does happen. So I don't have any other questions of staff.Does anybody else here? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'd like to ask Steve Lenberger something. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You surprised him. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He was complacent back there. Hi, Steve. MR.LENBERGER: Good morning, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In the environmental staff report,it says Brazilian pepper are rare through this site. Did you walk this site? MR.LENBERGER: I did not walk this particular site. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So Tim Hall says--what does that mean,in your opinion? MR.LENBERGER: Low densities. I mean,they are managing it for cattle,and they normally would remove some of that stuff to keep the forage available for the cattle. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. They don't have to remove it,though? MR.LENBERGER: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If this doesn't get approved,the Brazilian pepper stays? MR.LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you think there were any other exotics out there? Would he have noticed? I've got friends that are starting to see a lot of ear-leaf acacia everywhere,Melaleuca coming back. It would have appeared in the report,right,you would think? MR.LENBERGER: I would think he would have.Brazilian pepper would be the most expected exotic out there in those pastures. If it's wet,you would expect Melaleuca. Other exotics seem to be spotty, particularly ear-leaf acacia. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And we don't make people pull those out why? MR.LENBERGER: If there's a development order requiring its removal,then they're required to remove it and maintain the property free of exotic vegetation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But if it's invasive,then we just leave it there if it's not developed. And it spreads. MR.LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's--just curious. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve,just a clarification.You said if there's a development order,they have to remove it. So this is an ag zoned property. If they were proceeding with an ag activity when they came in for a shed or something or some service that they would need to come into under the ag zoning,would they be required to remove the exotics if they left it ag zoning? MR.LENBERGER: I'd have to check the code. I don't have that in front of me,but I don't believe the ag use would trigger that,but I would have to check that. Page 9 of 11 January 7, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next time you're here,I'll probably ask you that. So you might want to check it before your next meeting,if you show up for the next meeting. MR.LENBERGER: Okay. I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it,thank you. Anybody else have anything of staff or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any public registered speakers,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne,did you have any closing comments you wanted to make? MR.ARNOLD: No,sir. I think our presentation's complete,and we certainly agree with the comments you made relative to the finding that these are appropriate uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody on the Planning Commission--we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission.Anybody wish to make a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: With-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made from Karen,seconded by Stan. And some discussion. I'd like to suggest that we find it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and we don't support staffs recommendation since staffs recommendation is trying to say it's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. I'll include that in my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the second also-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Ray,one question. Will this be on the consent agenda,or will it go on summary at the board level? MR.BELLOWS: If staff,based on the findings of the Planning Commission today,consults with the appropriate staff and agrees,then we can put it on the summary agenda. But if we still disagree and want to bring this to the board,then it will be on the public hearing item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR.BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the next item on the agenda,which is old business. There's nothing listed there. There's no new business. And does anybody here from the public wish to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No comments. Then with that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. Page 10 of 11 January 7, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane,second by Karen. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you-all. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:30 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 11 of 11