Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/05/2002 RSeptember 5, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, FL, September 5, 2002 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 8:30AM in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Kenneth L. Abernathy David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young Russel A. Budd Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Frank Fry Collier County: Joe Schmitt, Majorie Student, Ray Bellows, Ross Gochenqur, Kay Deselem Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FL 2. 3. 4. o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~ THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL BY CLERK ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA - APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 18 & 19, 2002, (AUGUST 1, 2002 MINUTES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME). PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: DWIGHT RICHARDSON - ABSENT- AUGUST 1, 2002 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JULY 30, 2002 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2002-AR-2416, F. Jeffrey Pusateri, requesting a boathouse protruding 17 ft. into the waterway at 246 1st Street, further described as Lot 2, Block B, Little Hickory Shores Unit 1. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. BD-2002-AR-2564, Ben Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction, representing Richard Bye, requesting a 28-foot extension for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 48 feet into the waterway for property located at 267 3rd Street West, further described as Lot 22, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) 1 Co Do Eo Go VA-2002-AR-2445, Douglas R. Eaton, PSM, representing Ben Arledge, requesting the Estates "E" zoning district from the required 75 foot front setback along NE (south boundary), to allow a 30 foot wide front setback for property located at 4175 33 further described as Lot 70, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 67A, Plat Book 9, page 47 as Collier County public records, Collier County, Florida in Section 21, Township 48 28 East, Collier County, Florida.(Coordinator: Kay Deselem) PUDZ-2001-AR-1331, R. Bruce Anderson, of Young van Assenderp, Vamadoe & representing Martin S. Adler, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Unit Development to be known as ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD for a Business Park property located approximately ¼ mile south of Manatee Road on Collier Boulevard, the property site is immediately south of the Prime Outlet Center in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40.88± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDA-2002-AR-2559 (RB) Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., representing Waterways Joint Venture IV, requesting an amendment to the Hibiscus Village PUD to revise Table I to add development standards to the multi-family land uses to facilitate the opportunity to subdivide lands in a multi-family tract for fee simple conveyance. The subject property is located at 14625 Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 57.82± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDZ-2002-AR-2098, Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Benderson Development Company, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD Planned Unit Development known as Lawmetka Plaza PUD for the purpose of readopting the Lawmetka Plaza Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 99-4, which was originally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on January 26, 1999, for property located on the northwest comer of Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41, in Sectionl6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) RZ-2001-AR-1595, James G. O'Gara of Marquette, Development Company, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a thirteen-lot single-family subdivision on 3.15± acres on 2951 44th Terrace SW, further described as Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 103, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 97-105, Collier County records, in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 1, 2002 CCPC MEETING) RZ-2001-AR-1596, James G. O'Gara of Marquette, Development Company, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a thirteen-lot single-family subdivision on 3.15± acres located at 4501 30th Avenue SW, in Golden Gate Unit #3, Block 104, Parcel 1, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 97-105, Collier County records, in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 1, 2002 CCPC MEETING) 10. OLD BUSINESS: PROPOSED CCPC POLICY REGARDING TIMELY SUBMITTAL OF MATERIALS. NEW BUSINESS: 2 September 5, 2002 Collier County Planning Commission County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 Minutes September 5, 2002 -Chairman Kenneth L. Abernathy called the meeting to order at 8:30AM. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ATTENDANCE: Members: David J. Wolfley, Dwight Richardson, Lora Jean Young, Kenneth L. Abernathy, Russel A. Budd, Lindy Adelstein, Paul Midney, Frank Fry -Mark Strain had an excused absence Collier County: Joe Schmitt, Majorie Student, Ray Bellows, Ross Gochenqur, Kay Deselem III. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA -Mr. Abernathy asked if there were any addenda to the agenda other than the procedural matter that has been added to item 9. -Mr. Budd made a motion that item C (VA-2002-AR-2445) be continued to the October 3Td, 2002 meeting, it was seconded by Mr. Adelstein, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -The continuance was due to an advertising mis-hap. -Mr. Adelstein made a motion that item G (RZ-2001-AR-1595) be granted continuance indefinitely, the motion was seconded by Mrs. Young, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -Mr. Budd made a motion that item H (RZ-2002-AR-1596) be granted continuance indefinitely, the motion was seconded by Mr. Adelstein, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -The continuances requested by the applicant for Item G & H were because they are attempting to work a deal with the school board to purchase the property and therefore would moot the items. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 18 & 19, 2002 Page 2 September 5, 2002 VII -Mr. Budd made a motion to approve the minutes, it was seconded by Mrs. Young, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES -At the meeting of October 19th' 2002 no contemplates an absence. BCC REPORT - JULY 30TM, 2002 -No comments were given because no meeting was held. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT -Mr. Abernathy stated he had no report to give at this time. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS -The commission was informed that on October 3rd, 2002 the planning commission meeting will be held of the Supervisors of Elections Building. A) BD-2002-AR-2416 Mr. Jeffrey Pusateri, requesting a boathouse protruding 17ft. into the waterway at 246 1st Street, further described as Lot 2, Block B, Little Hickory Shores Unit 1. -Mr. Abemathy swore in all those testifying -There were no public speakers and no members of the commission stated problems with this item. -Mr. Richardson made a motion to forward with the recommendation of approval BD- 2002-AR-2416, Mrs. Young seconded the motion, all were in favor the motion passed unanimously. B) BD-2002-AR-2564 Ben Nelson, of Nelson Marine Construction, representing Richard Bye, requesting a 28ft extension for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 48ft. into the waterway for property located at 267 3rd Street West, further described as Lot 22, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat. -Mr. Abemathy swore in all those testifying. -There were no public speakers. -Mr. Fry stated he noticed the suggestion was that they go from a 20ft-48ft extension into the waterway and asked if it was normally done to more than double what is allowed? -Staff's answer given was that each of these exstention petitions is examined on its own merits according to the criteria given in the LDC. The exstention relates to the width of the waterway, affects on navigation, etc.. according to the code criteria. In this particular area this extension is about normal since the water is relatively shallow, the lots only use Page 3 September 5, 2002 is to accommodate a boat dock, they have a principal use approved with no residents on the property, so this is typical of a dock extension in that area. -Mr. Adelstein stated that staff stated all the criteria were met favorably and in the secondary criteria: "for a single family dock facility, whether or not the length of the vessels or the vessel combinations described in the petition exceed 50% of the subject property line waterfront footage", he stated that it seemed it exceeds 50%. -Staff replied that it does and that staff's response to that issue was that, that criteria was not applicable since these lots are unique because they are very narrow lots that only apply to boat docks, and therefore they didn't feel it would be appropriate to apply that criteria in these circumstances. -Ray Bellows added that this has a conditional use that allows for the boat docks on the smaller lots, which alleviates the requirements for some of these conditions in the boat dock review process. -Mr. Adelstein stated that due to this he understands that it will still pass but he would like to have it stated accurately in the record, that it did not meet that criteria. -Mr. Budd made a motion to forward with the recommendation of approval BD-2002- AR-2564 including the staff stipulations, it was seconded by Mrs. Young, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. D) PUDZ-2001-AR-1331 R -Mr. R. Bruce Anderson, of Young Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, representing Martin S. Adler, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" to be known as ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD for a Business Park on property located approximately V4 mile south of Manatee Road on Collier Boulevard, the property site is immediately south of the Prime Outlet Center in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 40.88 (+or-) acres. -Mr. Abernathy sworn in all those testifying. -No disclosures or ex-party communications were reported. -Mr. Bellows stated that the petitioner is requested to rezone the subject site from agriculture to the PUD district, to be known as the ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD. He used a visual to show the site. An Ariel photo was used to show the site was undeveloped. The proposed 40 acre PUD is intended to be a business park as allowed for in the GMP. The LDC provides criteria for business park zoning, however this is a PUD with business park uses. 26.3 acres of the PUD will be dedicated for the business park Page 4 September 5, 2002 uses, 7.93 acres will be for the preserve area. The Future Land Use map was used to show the site. Mr. Bellows stated that the urban coastal fringe designation restricts densities to 4 units per acre as a base density, and there is a subtract unit for being within the traffic congestion zone. It also allows for the business park uses subject to the criteria contained in the Future Land Use Element, that criteria that must be met and be consistent with is on page 3 of the staff report. Some of the criteria Mr. Bellows pointed out: 1) The PUD business park shall be permitted to include and up to 30% of the total acreage for non-industrial uses. This limits secondary uses to a maximum of 30%. The secondary uses are retail uses, which are found to be compatible with business park uses. 2) The PUD sets forth all project access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy. The master plan for this project is consistent with this. 3) The PUD allows Permitted Primary and Secondary Uses that are consistent with the FLUE and the "BP" Sub-district. He stated it is consistent with this. 4) The Business parks shall adopt standards for buffering, landscaping, open space, signage, lighting, screening of outdoor storage, parking and access management. This PUD provides standards which are consistent with the LDC and the applicant will also discuss some revisions to the landscaping that staff has agreed to, this is consistent with the LDC also. 5) The maximum additional acreage eligible to be utilized for a Business Park Sub- District within the Urban-Mixed Use District is 500-acres exclusive of open space and conservation areas. The subject site is 40.88 acres and this is the first project submitted under this Sub-district. -Mr. Bellows showed a copy of the PUD master plan. He stated that staff has determined that this petition is consistent with the criteria for business parks and is consistent with the GMP, the traffic impact statements submitted by the petitioner was reviewed by the transportation department and no changes were recommended at this time. In regards to compatibility, since the project a preserve area to the south and existing commercial retail used to the north and provides a type B buffer 25fi wide or deep along the northern boundary where it abuts the vacant residential; staff has determined that this would be consistent and compatible with adjacent uses. Staff has not received letters or calls in Page 5 September 5, 2002 opposition to this project. Staff is recommending that the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with the recommendation of approval. -Mr. Abernathy asked, when you are unaware of what is going into a site, how do you calculate traffic impact? Mr. Bellows replied that traffic impact statements looks at the worst case scenario. There is a trip generation manual that spells out certain types of uses and they are looking at the highest generating uses permitted in the PUD, they base it on the build out of the project, the projected growth of the roadway, the level of service at the time of build out, and they add the project traffic to that. -Mr. Abemathy asked how many rooms the TIS anticipated the hotel would have or how many rooms could they have? Mr. Bellows stated they are subject to the requirements of the LDC, which at the time was 26 units per acre. -Mr. Abernathy asked if the height limitation was 50fl? Mr. Bellows referred to the PUD document under section 3.4, max. height of structures: 40ft except at architectural features and non-structural buffering elements, which may be constructed at a maximum height of 50ft. So the base roof line of the structure is 40ft and they are allowing for architectural treatments to provide some design; 40ft/50ft. He added that if you look at general permitted uses, there are some restrictions: essential services, water management lakes, and community recreational facilities, which have a maximum height of 45ft. -Mr. Abemathy stated he noticed that in Lawmetka they are pulling their maximum height down from 50ft to 35ft and wanted to know if there was a different standard in North Collier County versus East Collier County? In response My Bellows stated that there is no overall requirement in the county to limit heights to a specific height, such as in the City of Naples. Mr. Abernathy asked if they have that opportunity in the PUD process and Mr. Bellows told him yes. Staff feels that this falls within the general uses permitted in a business park. The heights listed in the PUD document are 40ft/50ft, which would possible allow for a hotel to have five stories. -Mr. Richardson asked how the presumed water management of 7+acres figured in to the calculations of density on the hotel? His concern is conservation area being used to "jack-up" the intensity on a property. Mr. Bellows stated that the county has allowed this procedure in the past, that they can one time count preserve areas or water management areas of the PUD, as long as they are not being used to calculate density of some other kind. The county has allowed that use of their land, because it is part of their PUD and it won't be used for other purposes for some other project later on and it still comprises the overall project and can be used to calculate density in this case. If it is part of a tract of a Page 6 September 5, 2002 hotel/motel, staff would allow them to calculate that. Mr. Richardson told him that the fact remains that this piece of land is "un-buildable". Mr. Bellows believes the intent is clear to apply the intensity towards the development tract that the hotel/motel will occur on, if they don't plat it in such a way that the preserve or wetland areas are outside of that tract, then they will not be allowed to calculate that towards gaining density/intensity toward a hotel/motel. Mr. Richardson asked to see where the hotel/motel would be located, on which tract. He was informed by Mr. Bellows that until a client comes in to build a hotel/motel it is undetermined where it would be located, but anything designated as primary or secondary uses could have a hotel/motel. He stated they could limit where the hotel/motel could go and the size limit, if the commission so chose to do. -Mr. Richardson and Mr. Abernathy stated that if no stipulations are made, then you don't know what will come in the future and they would then be stuck with it. -Mr. Richardson then clarified that the 7.93 acres could be used to increase the density on anywhere they would choose to put this hotel. Mr. Bellows stated this was correct. -Mr. Midney had concerns that they were saying "this would not excessively increase traffic congestion", but it is in a traffic congestion zone. He asked what the threshold would be where one would state that it would increase traffic congestion? Mr. Bellows told him that the traffic element of the GMP spells out what would be deemed a significant impact and that is 5% of the adopted level surface C volume. The traffic account would take into consideration the smaller and larger projects of the site and they also look at the overall traffic increases over time. Mr. Midney clarified that the threshold would still be 5% of the total traffic, no matter what the size of the parcel. Mr. Bellows stated this was correct. -Mrs. Young then added that if they took advantage of some of the permitted secondary uses they might have a problem with the traffic impact, particularly since other groups are coming in. Mr. Bellows informed her that the traffic statement reflects all according uses and that its intent is to capture worst case scenario. Mrs. Young still had concerns over the large list of permitted uses over which they have no controls in the future. Mr. Bellows stated that since this is a PUD the commissioners have the right to make limitations and regulations and the petitioner has the right to agree or disagree. If they would disagree then it would be the Boards decision as to how they want to proceed. -Mr. Abernathy asked about alcoholic uses permitted here? Mr. Bellows told him that they would have to list it as a night club or something similar; there are also cases were a Page 7 September 5, 2002 restaurant could apply for an alcoholic license but their alcohol sales would have to be less than food sales. Bruce Anderson, on behalf of applicant, addresses some of the concerns the commission has expressed. 1) Only 30% of the total project can be used for secondary uses, that is no more than 12 acres. 2) The uses that are listed in their PUD for the business park district mirror the uses that are already allowed in the LDC for a straight business park-zoning district. 3) The traffic impact statement was based on a maximum of a 200-room hotel and they are prepared to stipulate to that maximum. Also approval of this project does not in anyway vest it from concurrency determinations which must be made at the time of site development plan approval or building permitting issues, therefore if there are traffic problems, then they will not be able to attain permits to go forward. 4) On the Northern Boundary, zone C-4 & RMF 16, allow a 75ft building height as a matter of right. Within a 45ft building height, typically you will get three stories for a commercial use such as a hotel. -Mr. Abemathy asked what type of hotel they envision? Mr. Anderson stated they did not know, that they may not even have one, at the present time there are no plans, but it is a use allowed. -Mr. Richardson asked if the preserved water management plan was intended to be used in their intensity and density calculations. Mr. Anderson replied that if they need to use a portion of the wetlands to achieve the maximum that they have just committed to of 200 units then yes they would. After clarification it was determined that with 200 rooms it would not be necessary to use the calculations and Mr. Anderson doesn't believe they can use it anywhere else on the property if they have to plat it as a separate conservation easement. -Mr. Wolfley clarified that they were committing to no more than 200 rooms would be put in a hotel if one is put on the property. Mr. Anderson informed him that was correct. -Mr. Richardson stated he does not feel that an area "like this" should have 75ft buildings and if the developers are encouraging this, then he believes they should take a closer look at this issue (RMF 16). He believes the scale is getting out of control for that area. -Mr. Young asked if they could make a limit of 35ft for that area? Mr. Bellows stated that they can recommend it with logic behind it, which in this case would be, that both Page 8 September 5, 2002 this site and the adjacent site would allow for 75fl buildings, which is also an issue for staff. Wayne Arnold, with Grady/Minor Engineering, indicated that they have a 75ft maximum and they are asking for a 40ft in height. He would like the commission to keep in mind that this is a business park and that the economic development council of Collier County is encouraging people to develop business parks, they have even said they can be anywhere in the urban area. He also asked them to keep in mind, that although they are limited to indoor uses, some of these businesses will include light manufacturing, storage, and things of that nature which "reasonably" require a height of 40ft. He pointed out that in the last three years they have seen at least two larger industrial areas be rezoned to allow community shopping centers, etc.., and as the area develops these uses become more beneficial to the community. -Mr. Wolfley asked how tall the buildings are at the Prime Outlets? The answer was 1 story, about 25fi high. Mr. Wolfley asked them to keep in mind that the request is twice as high as these buildings are. Mr. Arnold stated that when you add a story you will come around 40ft. -Mr. Richardson asked if they chose to add residential would they have to come back before the commission? Mr. Arnold informed him that yes they would have to come back and that they do not foresee changing the hotel into condominiums. Mr. Arnold, moved on to inform the commission that they made provisions for three categories of membership organizations: 8611 are business associations (more of an office type scenario for business associations), 8621 which are professional membership organizations, and 8631 which are labor union and organizations. He also discussed the landscape buffering language has been revised to: "Landscape buffers shall be required as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit "A". The Type "B" buffer adjacent to the project's northern property boundary where abutting RMF-16(8) zoned property shall be a minimum of 25fi in width and shall meet the vegetative height, opacity and landscape standards for Type "B" buffers per Section 2.4.7.4 of the LDC." (This is a replacement text of Section 2.9). He stated that staff is in support of this. -Mr. Abernathy asked about the buffer preserve area to the south? Mr. Arnold showed that the Silver Lakes Community Center falls in line with the back of their preserve, but the 400ft wide strip carries forward along the entirety of the joint and common property line, within this they can put limited uses but not residential uses, this was viewed as an appropriate separation and buffer. Page 9 September $, 2002 -It was asked what was behind the Prime Outlets shopping center in the L-shaped portion of the property? Mr. Arnold informed them that the L-shape was the RMF16 with a cap of 8units/acre project on it. In this area it was sensitive to density so it was capped to 8units/acre. Mr. Arnold stated they were sensitive to this and made a provision for an interconnect into that parcel as well as Prime Outlet. -Mr. Fry asked what they intend to do with the Preserve area? Mr. Arnold stated that the Master Plan was driven largely by the water management district review, (the EAC recommended unanimous approval), who was concerned about the potential for saltwater protrusion on this side of 951. They asked if it could be done without building lakes, using the preserve area as part of the water management system. Mr. Arnold stated that this is what they did and that they worked with water management to pick the best vegetative sites on the property that made sense to combine with the conservation area to the south and they set aside an 8acre preserve area in the middle of the site to accommodate. The water will eventually be discharging out to Collier Blvd. The only clearing that will be done there is for exotic removals. -Mr. Abemathy asked if Dean Smith, who did the traffic analysis, used the 200unit hotel model in the analysis? Mr. Arnold stated yes and that Mr. Smith worked with the transportation unit on this model over the last 10months. -There were no registered speakers. -Mr. Budd made a motion to forward with a recommendation of approval PUDZ-2001- AR- 1331 with the petitioner's stipulahon of a 200unit maximum hotel and the revised buffering language that would substitute item 2.9 paragraph B. It was seconded by Mrs. Young, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. E) PUDA-2002-AR-2559 (AR) -Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., representing Waterways Joint Venture IV, requesting an amendment to the Hibiscus Village PUD to revise Table ! to add development standards to the multi-family land uses to facilitate the opportunity to subdivide lands in a multi- family tract for fee simply conveyance. The subject property is located at 14625 Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 57.82 (+-) acres. -Mr. Abemathy swore in all those testifying. -There were no disclosures reported. Ray Bellows, explained that the petitioner was requesting a minor amendment to the PUD. He used a visualizer to show the subject site. The amendment allows for the Page 10 September 5, 2002 petitioner to have development standards that would allow for the multi-family units proposed to be constructed and sold. He referenced table l, attached to the staff report, stating that the petitioner was requesting to put as a minimum 2,500 sq. ft. lot area with a 25ft lot width and a corner lot would be 35ft. The general purpose is to allow for the multi-family units to be created and sold off. Staff would not allow them until the PUD standards were amended, they will subsequently have a PSP and go through final platting in order to accomplish this. -Mr. Abernathy stated that the multi-family would not be multi-family anymore. Mr. Bellows informed him that was correct. -Mr. Fry asked what type of buildings these would then be? Mr. Nadeau, representing Waterways Joint Venture, informed the commission that these are 2-story attached single family homes, 4 unit and 6 unit buildings. The development standards that were silent in this PUD created some procedural issues that were a concern to staff therefore in order to proceed, they need this minor amendment. The amendment allows for someone to purchase an attached single family unit, which by definition in the PUD (in existence) that a townhouse is a multifamily development or product, but you can also attain land along with it. Therefore the 2,500 sq.ft, lot area is associated with the unit itself, as well as the required front and rear yards. -Mr. Fry asked that they do not become a condominium association but a homeowners association instead. Mr. Nadeau stated that was absolutely correct. -Mr. Richardson asked what the maximum number of units per structure was? In response Mr. Nadeau told him there are 4 & 6 unit buildings. -Mr. Abernathy asked what the side yard setback was for? Mr. Nadeau stated it was for end units to provide for building separation. (The interior units would have no side yards, similar to a duplex). -Mr. Richardson asked Majorie Student if this was an amendment or a PUD. She informed him that it was an amendment, that a lot of times it is rezones from PUD to PUD, but it is strictly an amendment. -Mr. Adelstein wanted to know if they were going to have walls that would abut each other. Mr. Nadeau stated he was unsure, that there are probably fire codes that units would be separated with a fire wall. Mr. Adelstein's concern was how you would actually deed the area? Mr. Nadeau stated that it would be similar to a duplex. Mr. Fry stated that he lives in similar housing and that there are remedies for this situation. Page 11 September 5, 2002 -Mr. Wolfley asked for the total # of units. Mr. Nadeau stated it was 231 units and no more, there are no wetland impacts in this area, and there was no traffic study was required. He added that during the completion of the construction on Collier Blvd 4-lane they will move to 6 lanes. -Mr. Richardson asked staff if concurrency issues would reply and they would still have a "hook" on this. Mr. Bellows stated yes. Public Speakers 1) John Wellekens, stated he lives across 951 & Vanderbilt Country Club. He stated they have no objections to the proposal but requests the commission require some additional buffering in the front of the development on 951, so that their area maintains its residential character and there are no buildings right on the street. They want to avoid what happened with the Britmey Bay Construction. They also would like the developer to give prior notice and go over the proposals with the community. -Mr. Fry asked if they currently knew what the buffering was and if they had a right to do anything about it at this time, since it is presently an approved PUD. Majorie Student informed him that the County has continually taken the position that when it is just an amendment, that it could lead into other aspects of the PUD. Mr. Nadeau stated that the front buffer is required to reserve 65ft of right of way for the 951 widening, they will have a significant landscape burm that will be attractively maintained, he is not sure of the distance from the property line to the first building but he would guess -100ft. -Mrs. Young asked if he felt his plans for landscaping fit in with Mr. Wellekens' suggestions? Mr. Nadeau replied that it would certainly exceed the suggestions. Mr. Schmitt stated he felt the burm was going to be required more for sound than landscaping issues and that it will be landscape 1st as a sound burm then decorated as a landscaping item and it will be built according to the requirements from a sound perspective. Mr. Nadeau said the developer was building it from a sound perspective, ascetic perspective, and from a native vegetation perspective. -Mr. Richardson asked if during site approval all of these things were taken into consideration and the residents can feel comfortable that the County is considering their concerns. Mr. Bellows stated that this was correct. -Mr. Richardson asked for clarification that after the taking for the roadways if there was still a 100ft. buffer from the buildings and the edge of the highway properties. Mr. Nadeau stated that this would be his estimate. Mr. Bellows added that Mr. Garcia Page 12 September 5, 2002 assured him that the plans for the improvement of Collier Blvd. call for the Landscape median which also will provide a buffer across the road. -Mr. Richardson and Mr. Schmitt pointed out that there is no procedure for the public input in the review process. Mr. Nadeau will check with the developer to see if they would be willing, in the spirit of neighborliness, to expose the plans on a voluntary basis. He does not believe there will be any objection. -Mrs. Young made a motion that to forward with a recommendation of approval PUDA- 2002-AR-2559 (RB) as provided for in the attached ordinance, it was seconded by Mr. Adelstein, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. A 15 minute recess was taken. F) PUDZ-2002-AR-2098 Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Benderson Development Company, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD Planned Unit Development known as Lawmetka Plaza PUD for the purpose of readopting the Lawmetka Plaza Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 99-4, which was originally approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on January 26, 1999, for property located on the northwest comer of Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. -Mr. Abemathy swore in all those testifying. -There were no disclosures reported. Mr. Bellows, informed the that this was a petition to re-adopt an ordinance that was approved in "99" for the Lawmetka Plaza PUD. The petitioner went through a public information meeting in December. The county attorney corrected that we have gone beyond the re-adoption time. Mr. Bellows explained that during the public meeting there were over 100 people in adoption, he made it known that even though they were going to apply for re-adoption, it would not prevent staff from making any recommendations to improve compatibility with the changes in the LDC. The staff and applicant have agreed to repeal ordinance 99-4 and the previous ordinance and adopt the PUD submitted now with the changes that staff has recommended to improve compatibility. The applicant has agreed to this. He reviewed the activity center at Wiggins Pass and US 41, and stated that in "99" staff felt it was compatible with adjacent uses and the buffering provided at the time and they believe it was satisfactory for Tarpon Cove. Their was a lawsuit Page 13 September 5, 2002 brought from some residents of Tarpon Cove alleging notice impropriety with regards to the petition in "99". Staff and the petitioner felt that it was properly advertised. -Majorie Student stated that we do not need to rehash the lawsuit in this forum, because there are statements that could possibly be made that are not appropriate to be made in this forum and could affect the lawsuit. She cautioned staff on discussing the lawsuit, that today they are agreeing to look at this as a new PUD with some changes to make it compatible, and she does not want to go into the lawsuit. Mr. Bellows continued with his presentation. He stated that one of the changes in the "99" adoption was the revised master plan. He showed the committee the master plan before revisions and after. In "99" the flow-way in question has been relocated into a new preserve area to the west which coincided with the preserve area of Tarpon Cove. This opened another area, the concern is that a super-store would go in that would be larger than what was originally going to be put in. In review process to the PUD amendment, staff has come up with some conditions they would like to see incorporated into the approval, noted in the staff report (page 5) and the petitioner has agreed to these. He reviewed some of the major ones and why they were adjusted with the committee: 1) The intent of#1 was to alleviate the fears ofa superstore exceeding 100,00 or 200,00sq. ft being on the site. 2) Hotel and motel use will be deleted from Parcel "C". 3) The building height will be reduced from 50 -35ft on Parcel "C"; however, architectural establishments may be constructed above 35 feet to a maximum height of fifty feet. 4) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed or shielded by a visual and noise absorbing barrier. 5) The development shall be designed so that glare from lighting shall not penetrate adjoining properties. All fixtures shall be designed such that the actual lighting element shall not be visible from adjoining properties. (A similar standard currently exists in the PUD, which is replaced with the proposed language.) 6) For any use involving the placement of vehicles, including but not limited to parking lots, internal circulation areas, and loading areas, adjacent to buffers areas, a minimum of four feet tall opaque vegetative hedge shall be installed to eliminate headlights shining into and across the buffer area. 7) Limitations on the following uses are incorporated into the PUD, some of which are presently limited in the ordinance: Outside kennels, recycling activities, outdoor Page 14 September 5, 2002 recreation facilities, flea markets, tattoo or massage parlors, bottle clubs, agricultural services, fuel dealers, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, justice, public order, and safety facilities, and communication towers above 100 feet MSL. 8) The previous limitation of 40,000 S.F. of building area in Parcel "C" has been eliminated in favor of the overall limitation of 65,000 square feet of floor area for any single business and the reduction to the maximum building height from 50ft to 35ft. Mr. Bellows stated that he believes the petitioner has some design standards he would like to incorporate into this discussion. He showed Parcel "C", the additional language is to include a specified percentage of parking to be located behind the entire commercial building or project. This will be waived if the US41 &Wiggins pass street frontages are developed without parcels along the entireties street frontages, or if there are gaps, the type "D" landscape buffer would be provided. That would be the visual screening and would alleviate the need to put the parking behind the building, it would also be something the residents of Tarpon Cove would be in favor of. The residents of Tarpon Cove would like some other things to be addressed and they will explain these. -Mr. Abernathy asked how long ago they received the residents lists. Mr. Bellows stated that it was received a few days ago. He reviewed them: 1) For the northern property line of Parcel C, "shall maintain 15ft. landscape buffer measured from the southem edge" - they want this increased to 30ft. 2) On the southern edge, a 6ft. high opaque wall is currently provided for in the PUD, they want this to be at the southern edge of the Setback 3) They want "all traffic with deliveries shall not be permitted within 150ft of the northern property line during the hours between 8pm and 6pm, during these prohibited hours deliveries to areas not within the prohibited zone shall be permitted so long as such traffic enters and exits from the southern entrance; signs shall be posted as to the restricted hours and the approved entrances." 4) They want to add under uses permitted #9 retail or offices uses: "as of the effective date of this ordinance the permitted uses are only in the C-3 district instead of in the C-4" -The document is from an attorney hired by the Property Owners Association. Bruce Anderson, on behalf of the property owner, stated that since 1989 the County Comprehensive plan has designated this property as an activity center where the full range of commercial ranges is allowed. In 1998 a Commercial PUD was approved on Page 15 September 5, 2002 this property and in "99" as part of a PUD sunset review process, the PUD amendment was approved to bring this up to current LDC standards. In "99" the staff report stated, "the buffering, setback, and architectural standards meet or exceed all requirements of the LDC and are more restrictive than is allowed on adjacent commercial developments. The current staff report states that the additional changes "will improve the compatibility of the currently approved commercial and office uses within the existing Tarpon Cove residential community." The "99" report also noted that the commercial uses allowed are similar or more restrictive than that of adjacent properties. All of the statements of"99" hold true to date. This PUD builds on the protections that were in the "99". If the lawsuit is successful it would cause the zoning to revert back to the original PUD that was approved in "90", that PUD was approved before Tarpon Cove development existed. The point is that the same buffers and protections would not be provided as in this PUD. The lawsuit has been on hold until they went through the process again with notification. The petitioner wanted the same PUD that was approved in "99", but as a good neighbor he has agreed to concessions of his neighbors. The most important the concession is the limit to 65,000 sq. ft, it was done to answer objections ofa superstore. In "90" it was a max of 300,000 and the "99"sq. ft. was a max of 275,000sq. ft. and neither had limitation on the size of a single business. This concession represents a very substantial limitation on what this activity center can develop. The petitioner has made a number of other concessions that limit his development (listed above). One of the concession pertaining to an opaque buffer wall shows how his client has gone the extra mile. He asks for a recommendation of approval. Public Speakers 1) Richard L. Graham, 954 Carrier Bend Cir #201, Vice President of Master Cove Association. His main concern is to call the planning commission to keep the past in mind. In "99" they had a meeting with Mr. Carter, after the okay of it, and they, he wants to make sure the planning commission is aware of the things discussed and "kind-a" agreed upon: A) Wiggins pass was addressed and the 2-4lane expansion, the turn lane was agreed to be down at the end of Wiggins Pass so it would not affect traffic B) They discussed a traffic light at Tarpon Cove C) They discussed the desire to widen a section of Wiggen's Pass, regardless of when the entire road is widened D) Fence -discussed previously Page 16 September 5, 2002 E) Burm - discussed previously F) Deliveries - discussed previously G) Aesthetics of the building and the landscaping were to be equal to the surrounding area II) Closing and opening time - wants noise level to not rise 2) William Curci, 946 Carrier Bend #102, has been involved in this process for two years. He feels the message for the notice of meeting was fairly innocuous, that it stated they wanted to increase allowable square feet 15% & the height to 35ft. & modify site plan. He didn't attend because it didn't seem that important and he stated they have contested because there was more discussed in the meeting then the notice stated. He wants a curfew on deliveries, because of the noise element (deliveries restricted it from 8pm-6am). He submitted evidence that the petitioner agreed not to this curfew but to the theory of a curfew. He read CDL 251 under conditional uses, under C-3 zoning, 2.2.14.3 paragraph 7 section B and under C5, stating there is mention of the delivery restrictions. He added that he would like to see the 6ft high wall be changed to an 8ft. high wall, also to reduce noise reduction. 3) Ron Kulpa, 766 Wiggins Bay Drive, would like to "yield" his time to a resident of Tarpon Cove. He basically agrees with the limit of 65,000 sq. ft and other than that he has no problems. 4) Bill Adams, 785 Carrier Bend Cir #103, stated that because he is part of board of directors of his community he has many contacts with the community and believes he knows what they want. They bought these properties due to quality of life, ambiance of the community, this is a family community and they would like to keep it this way. He stated that three of his communities corner's were developed commercially, since this is the last comer they would like to use it as a commercial mix that compliments their quality of life and aesthetics. He added that when a driver comes into Naples at this community, this is the fist comer he would see. He would like commercial properties with some beauty to it not a mini-strip-mall. 5) Bonnie L. Karkut, 945 Carrick Bend Cir. #202, chairperson of Lawmetka, she stated she is a part of a large group of concerned residents. They want the principal use of tract C to be limited to C-3 zoning, a proper buffer on the northern side (6ft high cement fence, in addition a 30ft wide landscaping on the northern side of this fence), and they wanted 8pm-6am restriction on deliveries in this area. Increased traffic will Page 17 September 5, 2002 make it difficult for all residents offWiggens Pass and she hopes the commission will yield to these restrictions. 6) Camille Ricketts, 975 Tarpon Cove Drive #102, most of her concerns have been addressed by previous speakers, particularly buffer zones. 7) Bill Wagener, 13105 Vanderbilt Dr., His comments were successfully answered. 8) Mrs. Marilyn J. Whitlow, 746 Mainsail PL, stated she enjoys Tarpon Cove very much. She is concerned about noise & travel to and from Wiggens Pass. She wants to state that this is a very unique area and she would like it to stay that way. She was told by WCI that anything that goes into this area would be unique and probably upscale retail shops. 9) Doug Fee, 921 Carrick Bend Cir #201, enjoys his community and he has the same concerns stated by others about the impact of the commercial property. He is mainly concerned with the Northern border, they are asking that they have 30ft buffer rather than the 15ft staff recommended, (because they lose buffering within the ditch). He also stated that in parcel D the preserve does provide a buffer, but it pushes all the preserve to the E/W line and there are still units on the Northern line that would be affected if there was no re-allocation of that buffer, he would like some more footage on the Northern side. He also agrees with others who spoke on limitation of deliveries on Parcel C from 8pm-6am. He has concerns with the traffic impact even though it is permitted. 10) Mary-Lou Eaton, 654 Wiggins Lake Dr. #101, has concems about traffic congestion on Gulf Harbor drive. She stated her concern is a large "box" store that will add to traffic congestion, she is opposed to a move towards a four-lane highway here. She hopes the developer would consider not one store with 65,000sq. ft. but several stores that would add up to this. 11) BJ Savard-Boyer, 479 Palm Ct. & 965 Ta~rpon Cove Dr. #204, she wanted to address the lessening of value in their homes. She stated 15ft or 30ft on either side of water will not take away from the noise if there is nothing on the buffer. When she bought her property she was informed by the developer that the comer would be a one-story professional office park. She added that she had nothing in writing and had not check the zoning. She agrees with Tarpon Cove that they need more of a buffer from Parcel C, more than a 40ft wide debt and 15ft of trees on both sides. 12) Angela C. Moureau, 730 Tarpon Cove Dr. Unit 201, she requests the commission consider and approve the changes to section 6 of the ordinance. She stated the Page 18 September 5, 2002 community wants to preserve their way of life, and have peaceful and quiet surroundings. 13) Terrence F. Lenick, attorney representing Bonnie Karkut and others from Tarpon Cove, stated that things are not as Mr. Anderson leads you to believe there were minimal changes from the "90" - "99" zoning and that this is not correct. He explained that in the 1990 zoning they had what you call specialty commercial uses. What happened was they went from an intensity of use from that area to C-3 & C-4, there was a substantial change in the actual usage, this is what caused the lawsuit. He stated would like to resolve the final issues: 1) His clients were concerned about the big box. He referred to page 11 of the ordinance. He said what concerned him was "at the ground level" since this would permit an increase of square footage in an establishment if you go to another floor. He would like this phrase to come out. 2) Page 8 of the ordinance: He stated that the problem here is "allowed for permitted retail and office uses". He wants to add "including retail and office uses". 3) Stated that what currently exists in the ordinance is a 40ft. drainage easement, on the north portion of the property, and a 70ft. setback. They propose to take the vegetative buffer back, don't change the setback, and put the wall where the buffer is at. He referred to the language in page 2 of the staff report, "owner shall maintain a 30ft landscape buffer measured from the southern edge of the" drainage easement and it stated a "minimum of 6ft in height shall be installed within the buffer area at the southern most edge of the setback". They are only asking for at the end of the setback, to put the wall there and have the 30fi of buffer or at least to put the wall in that place. 4) He referenced the first page of the ordinance: that the section closest to residential uses should be limited to C-3 uses and that it would be sufficient. 5) He referenced the last page of the ordinance: his suggestion is that for the area closest to the residential they have no deliveries from 8pm-6am and signs. That way both sides will get what they want when only that one portion is limited. Mr. Anderson, stated that with regards to Mr. Lenick' s first two points, about the 270,000sq.ft. and the 65,000sq.ft., done. They will concede on these two items. With regards to the others they can't, they have limited the square footage it tied there hands to accommodate other changes. He asked the commission to keep in mind that Page 19 September 5, 2002 up until 1999 PUD amendment, that anyone who bought in the Tarpon Cove project, on the southern boundary ,only expected a 75ft setback with no extra buffering and a 50ft tall building and now they are getting the same setback, 15ft of landscaping within that and a 35ft tall building. He stated the people bought knowing they were buying next to a commercial PUD. -Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Abemathy, and Mrs. Young asked if the delivery times could be compromised. Mr. Anderson replied no. -Mr. Wolfley asked if they have considered the road improvements, south of Wiggens Pass and doing improvements on Wiggens Pass west of 417 Mr. Anderson stated there are requirements in the PUD and all impact fees have been paid. Mr. Bellows stated the transportation department will review what is being proposed during the site development plan. -The question was posed about the aesthetics of the zone. Mr. Anderson stated it at the time they did not know what would go in but they have to follow the county's architectural guidelines. -Mr. Fry asked if they who they had in mind for tenants of the land. Mr. Anderson replied that they don't have any tenets signed but they would hope for a grocery store. -Mr. Fry stated he understood the concerns of the residents with regards to the noise of deliveries, but it is a commercial area, and the difficulty of balancing the rights of both parties. -Mr. Richardson asked if they wouldn't commit to a C-3 because they don't know what will go in yet and are seeking flexibility. Mr. Anderson stated yes. Mr. Richardson then asked about the hotel/motel use of Tract A, he asked if they had a problem with limiting the size of the hotel/motel? Mr. Anderson said they would limit to 130 units total on tract A. -Mr. Abemathy asked if they were willing to yield on C-4 in Parcel C. Mr. Abemathy stated no. He then asked what are the delivery time limits. Mr. Anderson stated that it is unfettered, there are no county restrictions, but them are noise regulations they must abide by. -Mr. Schmitt stated for the record the only time there are specified noise periods are when there is a request for a conditional use and that becomes part of a conditional use. Page 20 September 5, 2002 Mr. Budd made a motion to forward with a recommendation of approval the petition PUDZ-2002-AR-2098 with the stipulation of the 130 limit maximum that Mr. Anderson agreed to, a stipulation on item 5.6J that clarifies the 65,000sq.fi maximum "eliminating at ground level", a stipulation of item 5.2 paragraph one, that the 270,000sq.ft. maximum for all uses, and a clarification of the location of the buffer wall to be at the southern most edge of the northern property setback. It was Seconded by Mrs. Young, all were in favor, the motion passed unanimously. -Mr. Midney stated that he feels sympathetic to the residents, but it is on US41 in an activity center. IX. Old Business: Proposed CCPC policy regarding timely submittal of materials -Majoric Student explained that she provided thc draft to them for their information, but it should come back as an advertised public hearing matter. -Mr. Fry stated hc was concerned that they have thc flexibility to do this and Majoric informed him that they do and it is covered under paragraph C. -Majoric Student added that under paragraph one they have to mcct a two week requirement so she will add some clarifying language that references back to paragraph 3 as being an exception to that. -Mr. Abcrnathy views paragraph three is the door that mischief can come out. Hc questioned how they can get around some of the language. -Majoric Student stated that it was put in is because it already appears in thc resolution that governs procedures before the BCC and this body. She referenced page 3 of exhibit. She stated thc mason they did thc policy was, if they chose to re-do the resolution that could open things up and it was the opinion of thc county attorney to not re-do this resolution and open it up. -Mr. Fry clarified that as a general rule is that it is two weeks, and a five day period for other circumstances, and if someone brought something thc day of thc meeting then thc commission would have to decide if they want to accept it or not based on if it is capable of being reviewed in that time. -Mr. Abcrnathy told Majoric to go ahead and advertise it for October 3d, 2002. New Business -Mr. Abcrnathy stated that Mr. Anderson wrote thc commission a letter about density blending and PUD's & TDR's. Mr. Anderson stated that this was intended as a courtesy Page 21 September 5, 2002 was not for discussion. They wanted to explain why they felt the way they did, but he is not trying to resurrect it. He stated it was scheduled to go before the BCC for the l0th. He wanted to make a few practical points on proposed new rules of procedure: typically staff report does not come out till a week before the hearing anyway so they do not have the up-to-date information. And he added that with this, if they try to work something out with staff, then they are likely to get continued. -Mr. Abernathy agreed and stated that those are high expectations. -Mr. Schmitt stated that they would have to make clear expectations of the petitioner and it may have to be extended, because there is not enough time to process all the information through the system. -Mr. Anderson stated the public doesn't always know by the deadlines, because the mailings are done 15days prior to the hearing. -Mr. Abemathy added this may all become moot when they move to the hearing examiner. -Mrs. Young asked how the search for the hearing examiner was going. (Mr. Anderson left the room). -Mr. Fry stated in reference to the two weeks, it is good in an ideal world, but he thinks they may be causing more problems, hurt the public, and not help themselves as much as they think. -Mr. Adelstein stated originally they asked for 10 days and he feels this would be enough. -Mrs. Young asked about reverting to 10days. -Majorie Student added to the record that there were people on vacation when it was being coordinated, this gives a chance to do that and bring it back on the first, but it does need to be advertised and a public hearing. -Mr. Schmitt stated he has no problem with 10days or requiring this time. -Mr. Fry wanted staff to come back with a proposal they think would work, what the public expects, and what they feel we can handle. -Mr. Schmitt stated they will come back with a time line. -Mr. Adelstein addressed Mrs. Young's question about the hearing examiner. He stated he believes there are four very competent applicants. He said there were 52 application that varied widely. The overall process worked out well. The base responsibility has not yet been defined. He believes if one or two of those candidates are not accepted that they should be hired to the legal department. Adjournment - the meeting adjourned at 12:lSpm. Page 22 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 September 17, 2002 F. Jeffrey Pusateri P.O. Box 1115 Bonita Springs, Fl. 34133 REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-2416, Jeffrey Pusateri Dear Mr. Pusateri: On Thursday, September 5, 2002, the Collier County Planning approved Petition No. BD-2002-AR-2416. A copy of Resolution No. 02-6 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Goc~aur RG/sp Commission heard and Enclosure CC: Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 02- 0 ~' RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2002-AR-2416 FOR A BOATHOUSE 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 (LDC) (Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting approval for boathouses; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public heating and considered the advisability of a 14-foot by 17-foot boathouse allowed by LDC 2.6.21. to authorize a 14-foot byl7-foot boathouse in an "RMF-6" zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangemefit have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21.; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collie: County, Florida, that: Petition Number BD-2002-AR-2416, filed on behalf of F. Jeffrey Pusateri, for the property hereinafte described as: Lot 2, Block B, Little Hickory Shores, Unit 1, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 6, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 14-foot byl7-foot boathouse otherwise allowed by LDC 2.6.21., t authorize a 14-foot by 17-foot boathouse in the RMF-6 zoning district wherein said property is located, subjec to the following conditions: 1. Before Collier County will issue a permit to construct the approved boathouse, corresponding permits, letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department Environmental Protection must be provided. 2. In order to protect manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuo~ manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway. 3. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must l removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required certificate of completion and property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution 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 day of ,2002. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDj~-~----.~ Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator ~ ii,and Legal Sufficiency: l~atrick G. Wl~iie' Assistant County Attorney BD-2002-AR-2416/RG/lo COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 September 17, 2002 Nelson Marine Construction Ben Nelson 10530 Wilson Street Bonita Springs, Fl. 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-2564, Ben Nelson Dear Mr. Nelson: fi,, On Thursday, September ,,,l~, 2002, the approved Petition No. BD-2002-AR-256. Collier County Planning A copy of Resolution No. 05 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerely~ Ross Gochen~ Commission heard and Enclosure CC: Richard L. & Linda M. Bye, Trs, 27581 Hacienda East Blvd #328A, Bonita Springs, Fl. .34135 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. colliergov, net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 02- D,-5' RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2002-AR-2564 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 (LDC) (Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 28-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21. to authorize a 48-foot boat dock facility in an "RSF-4" zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21.; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: Petition Number BD-2002-AR-2564, filed on behalf of Richard L and Linda M. Bye Trs. by Nelson Marine Construction, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 22, Block G, Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Replat, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 2, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 28-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21., to authorize a 48-foot boat docking facility in the "RSF-4" zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Before Collier County will issue a permit to construct the approved extension, corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection must be provided. 2. Prior to final approval of this dock extension, reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway. 3. In order to protect manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required certificate of completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution 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 day of ,2002. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator ~Approve~ as~tg, Form and Legal Sufficiency: Pah'ick G. ~9'hite Assistant County Attorney BD-2002-AR-2564/RG/lo