CCPC Minutes 10/17/2002 ROctober 17, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, October 17, 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 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Kenneth Abemathy
Frank Fry
Paul Midney
Lindy Adelstein
Russell Budd
Dwight Richardson
David Wolfley
Mark Strain
Lora Jean Young (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Joe Schmitt-Community Dev. & Environmental Serv.
Ray Bellows-Chief Planner, Planning Serv. Dept.
Marj orie Student - Assistant Attorney
Fred Reischl- Principal Planning-Planning Serv. Dept.
Ross Gochenaur-Planning Services
Don Scott-Transportation Planning
Greg Garcia-Principal Planner, Trans. Planning Dept.
Stan Litsinger-Planning
Page 1
AGENDA
COI.I,~.R. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2002, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
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 ALLOTYED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZF-D BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN ~ CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A
MINIMUM OF l0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRI'ITEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CC'PC SHALl. BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. AI.I.
MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILI. BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAIl.ABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COIJNTY 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CAI.I. BY CLERK
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES:
BCC REPORT- RECAPS- SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
BD-2002-AR-2537, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Damas and
Patricia Kirk, requesting a 154-foot extension to create a boat dock facility protruding a total of
174 feet into the waterway for proPerty located at 1143 Chokoloskee Drive, further described as
Chokoloskee, Parcel 63, in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator:. Ross Gochenaur)
VA-2002-AR-2908, Craig J. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, requesting a 40-foot height variance
from the required 35 feet to 75 feet in the Public Use District for the addition to the Naples Jail
Center located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building "W", Collier County Government Center, in
Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. -(Coordinator: Don Schneider) C~,,~;,x,~. 6..
Fo
VA-2002-AR-2909, Craig J. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, r~presenting Collier County Board of
Commissioners, requesting a variance from the maximum height of 35 feet to 110 feet for a
parking garage at the Collier County Jail. This variance is required for the 5-story construction
and future expansion to eight stories of a parking garage. Thi.~ request of 110 feet is 75 feet greater
than that allowed in the Public Use District at this location. (Coordinator: Don Schneider)
PUDA-20001-AR431, ~v:.~..~...~...vv..,rr ..... ~..A......Tr'v~, James O'Gara, representing Park East Development,
LTD, requesting an amendment to the Founders Plaza PUD by updating the existing PUD for the
purpose of including language that permits additional retail and commercial uses on parcels that
exceed 150' in depth for property located on both sides of Golden Gate Parkway at the Santa
Barbara Canal Crossing in Golden Gate City, Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
(Coordinator:. Ray Bellows)
PUDZ-2001-AR-798, Tim Hancock, AICP, of Vanasse & Daylor, Il.p, and R. Bruce Anderson of
Young, vanAssenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson, P.A, representing Baldridge Development, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as The Baldridge PUD for a maximum of 125,000 sq. ft. of retail and general commercial
uses for property located on the southeast comer of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896)
and Livingston Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 17.5+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi)
PUDZ-2001-AR-1639, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing The Strand
LTD. A Florida Limited Partnership, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the option of 120
residential units in lieu of 140 motel/hotel units for property located at the intersection of
Immokalee Road and 1-75, Pelican Strand Subdivision, in Sections 18 and 19, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (COMPANION TO DOA-2001-AR-1638) (Coordinator:
Fred Reischl)
DOA-2001-AR-1638, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Hardy
Development Group Inc., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Strand DRI for the purpose of
reducing the number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,160 and to allow for the option of 120
dwelling units to be developed within the commercial portion of the DRI in lieu of 140 hotel/motel
Units for property located at the intersection of Immokalee Road and 1-75, Pelican Strand
Subdivision, in Sections 18 and 19, Towns_hip 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(COMPANION TO PUDZ-2001-AR- 1639) (Coordinator:. Fred Reischi)
H. CU-2002-AR-2759, Craig $. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, Inc., representing Collier Board of
County Commissioners, requesting Conditional Use 3 of the "P" Public Use zoning district to
allow for the expansion of an existing jail facility for property located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail
in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:. Don
Schneider) C~4~.~_. ti('/
I. Rural Eastern Lands Adoption Amendments to the Future Land Use .Element and related maps,
The Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Immokalee Area Master Plan, Potable Water
and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Elements of the Public Utilities Element, per Final Order, Case No.
ACC99-02 (DOAH CASE NO. 98-0324GM). (Coordinator: Stan Litsinger)
2
ge
11.
12.
13.
Concurrency Adoption Amendments to the Capital Improvement Element, Transportation Element
and the Future Land Use Element. (Coordinator: Stan Litsinger)
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS: CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 3, 2002 - PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS
(Presentation by: Ray Bellows)
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS
DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
ADJOURN
10/17/02 CCPC AGENDA/SM/SP
3
October 17, 2002
1. Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
2. The meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM by Chairman Kenneth Abernathy.
Roll call was taken - a Quorum was established.
Addenda to the Agenda - Ray Bellows reported there is a continuance ofltems 8B-VA-
2002-AR2908, 8C-VA-2002-AR-2909 and 8H-CU-2002-AR-2759 and will be
rescheduled for the November 7th meeting. The reason is because of miscommunication
at the Public Information Meeting as to the purpose of the request of the variances.
Stan Litsinger recommended considering continuing Item J - (Concurrency
Amendment) due to the lengthy items on the Agenda and will be rescheduled for the
November 7~ meeting staff is not available today to present the Amendments.
Mr. Richardson arrived at 8:35 AM
Mr. Adelstein moved to continue and reschedule the Items 8B, C, H and Item J to
the November 7th meeting. Seconded Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously. 7-0
Joe Schmitt (Adm. Community Development and Environmental Services) stated that
updates are still being made to Item J and will provide the Board with the strike through
updated portion in preparation for the meeting.
e
Approval of Minutes - September 19th, 2002.
Correct misspelling of Mr. Midneys name throughout the minutes.
Change Chairman's name on subject page to Kenneth Abernathy.
Page 2, Item 4, 2nd paragraph change to read "not as favorable".
Page 3 corrected misspelling of Mr. Adelstein's name.
Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the minutes of September 19th, 2002 as corrected.
Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously. 7-0
Mr. Midney arrived at 8:40 AM.
Planning Commission Absences: Mr. Fry and Mr. Adelstein will not be attending the
October 23ra meeting. Mr. Budd will be out of town for the regularly scheduled meeting
of November 7t~.
It was noted the LDC Packets were mailed yesterday to the Board members.
BCC Report -Recaps - September 24, 2002 - The Board heard the Silver Lakes
Amendment Storage Facility and the petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner Monday
afternoon. The Board approved the permit for the Center Point Project and the ASGM.
The Silver Lakes Amendment may be back for review and approval.
7. Chairman's Report - None
8. Advertised Public Hearings:
A. BD-2002-AR-2537, Miles L. Schofield of Scofield Marine Consulting,
representing Damas and Patricia Kirk, requesting a 154 foot extension to create a boat
Page 2
October 17, 2002
dock facility protruding a total of 174 feet into the waterway for property at 1143
Chokoloskee Dr...
Those testifying were swom in by Mr. Abemathy.
Mr. Ross Gochenaer - Planning Services - This is 2 lots and contains about 145 feet of
water frontage. The project consists of removing existing pilings from a previous dock and a
replacement of a walkway accessing a platform with 2 slips. The petitioner has obtained
permits from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corp of Engineers.
He showed an aerial map. There was one objection from a resident saying the proposed dock
would violate existed zoning, impede navigation and destroy habitat. It would not violate
existed zoning if approved or impede navigation and it has been determined there are no
environmental issues. The project meets all criteria and staff recommends approval.
The map was referred to concerning other docks and existing pilings. If the lots are separated
or two adjacent lots are combined for building, the owner signs an affidavit stating that if the
lots are separated in the future they have to conform to the requirements of the Land
Development Code. If the dock was on one lot and the house on the other & he tried to sell
the lot with the dock, legally he would have to remove the dock. This meets the side setbacks
for the two lots that have been combined for building purposes and owned by the same
person - two different parcel numbers and treating them as one big lot. Mr. Abemathy asked
if the owner sold the lot that the dock isn't on - would the dock still conform to the zoning
code? Mr. Gochenaer said - "no" - he could not legally sell the property without removing
the dock.
Petitioner: Rocky Schofield - representing the applicant - the applicants purchase the lot
and the lot next door to the mobile home park and combined them with two parcel numbers
and one tax bill. A survey exists. There is a building on the other property (metal storage
building). He referred to the map of the location of the property and the channel. He pointed
out the water is shallow at the end of he dock. The depths were discussed.
Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to approve petition BD-2002-AR-2537. Seconded Mr. Fry. Carried
Unanimously 8-0.
PUDA-20001-AR -431 - James O'Gara - Park East Development, LTD,
requesting an amendment to the Founders Plaza PUD by updated the existing
PUD for the purpose of including language that permits additional retail and
commercial uses on parcels that exceed 150' in depth for property located on both
sides of Golden Gate Parkway.
Those testifying were swom in by Mr. Abemathy.
Ray Bellows - Planning - Location is on north and south side of Golden Gate Parkway and on
the east and west side of Santa Barbara Canal. The map was referred to. The church site is
located in tract "C" east comer of Golden Gate and the Canal. Parking lot is on Tract "A" and
Tract "F" starts the commercial buildings and retail office buildings. The petitioner wants to add
additional commercial uses that are approved in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment allowing
for the additional uses that are compatible with the area and meets the needs of the residents. Ray
Page 3
October 17, 2002
discussed the specific Tracts. This incorporates the Founders Plaza PUD. The stafftook pictures
of existing developments surrounding the area and the proposed structures are consistent with the
Counties architectural theme requirements and the Growth Management Plan for buildings that
are low with hip roofs and other styles. A picture of the church was viewed. The different
pictures are shown in the handout. Staff did not receive any letters of objection and petition was
submitted prior to the information meeting and petitioner held his own meeting to inform the
residents of plans and changes. Some of the concerns were the possible proposed pedestrian
crossways, bridges over the canal, children crossing, and creating crime and traffic. The
applicant has requested obtaining impact fee credits for construction of the bridges. Ray is not
sure Transportation would be in favor.
Disclosures were given - Mark Strain had discussions with Cheryl Newman-Civic Association.
The church parcel was discussed. The parcel is built out. Mr. Strain read #22 on page 10 that
was underlined. The petitioner does not own that parcel. There will be no changes to A & B of
pages 9 & 10. Mr. Strain was asking if any changes were being made to parcels A & B when the
property owner was not being represented. Mr. Strain referred to page 4 (Relationship to Future
Land Uses). He made mention of the underlined portion. It was explained by Mr. Bellows that it
is the Growth Management Plan. He also wondered what the Level of Service on Golden Gate
Parkway was. It was stated it is a "D".
Petitioner - James O'Gara - The Founders Plaza PUD already has a number of entitlements
approved for such things as banks, sit-down restaurants etc. They are moving forward with
developing the parcels and have a number of uses. Small scale retail shops were requested a few
years ago to be added and had been approved through the various departments. Very specific
uses. The Golden Gate Civic Organization asked them to rethink the plan they had on Parcel
"E" - a wide building to screen a parking lot. They then had an idea of a Bank and some small
scale retail uses. In the existing Flounders Plaza plan and PUD that is approved, a provision for
pedestrian bridges is there that can be built and use impact fee credits to pay for it. He finds there
are many organizations and persons that would like to see that happen. If the impact fee credits
are taken out for the bridges it wouldn't make economic sense for them to do it. He is not
encouraging the Planning Commission to make decisions on the bridges or impact fees to the
BCC. The purpose of his request is to add to the existing uses and the ability to build small scale
retail shops.
Mr. Wolfley asked about the concerns he mentioned with the Golden Gate residents. He
mentioned fast food restaurants. Mr. O'Gara said it excluded that type of establishment. He did
say it could be a McDonalds, but the market probably would not exist for that particular site. The
different types of uses were discussed. Traffic oriented businesses was one of the concerns of the
residents.
Mr. O'Gara stated coin-operated laundries are also excluded.
Mr. Strain mentioned that those particular "Permitted Uses" are stated in the handout on page 15.
There seems to be many "Permitted Uses" listed which are not intended to be used by the
Petitioner. Staff said those uses can be removed. The concern of residents is having the right
retail stores in the area. Different footage and setbacks were discussed for the open space
mentioned. The lots are tight and the petitioner is still required to meet the open space and fire
restrictions. Mr. Strain is in favor of leaving the setback to the 25' otherwise it puts them 10'
closer to the residential area. He does not want too see it change to 15 feet of the PUD
boundary. Page 18 was discussed with the side yard setbacks being changed to 15 feet. If they
don't butt residential Mr. Strain would not have a problem.
Page 4
October 17, 2002
Mr. O'Gara stated they have built a number of buildings with the 25 foot setback so would be no
problem with him.
Mr. Wolfley said something needs to be done with the bridge since children cross twice a day.
He feels pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be a major thought in the redevelopment process in
that area. This is the reason Mr. O'Gara is proposing bridges.
Mr. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - He addressed the impact fee credits. The
current language, the way it is written today would not quality as there is no planned project for
Golden Gate within the next 2 years.
Mr. Wolfley stated that if the County isn't going to do it, why not give the developers credit so
they can provide the services for the public. Then the Developer can do it right now. Mr.
Wolfley doesn't feel the County and or Transportation are in favor of the impact fee credits. The
people in the Golden Gate are trying to upgrade the area and make it a nice livable place.
Mr. Don Scott - Transportation Planning - The pedestrian bridges would not be impact fee
creditable the way the Ordinance is written. It would have to be capacity improvement. Mr.
Strain suggests changing Item 'T' that reads "the petitioner "may" construct new pedestrian
bridges" to "the petitioner "shall" construct new pedestrian bridges".
Mr. Scott mentioned there are other types of funding and grants monies to help the petitioner.
Mr. Fry feels this is a community problem and not fair for the developer to pay and solve what is
already an existing community problem. He has no problem of putting a requirement in but the
developer needs to be reimbursed for the expense for that particular project that may not be a
benefit to them. Why shouldn't the community pay for it? He feels they should be fair to the
developer and the community.
Mr. Strain feels the developer is increasing the uses on the property that will increase his
potential to sell and develop it. That is dollars in his pocket. He is creating the impact that
justifies a need for this project.
Mr. Fry is not that familiar with the area but the problem already exists and they are not creating
the problem - maybe adding to it, but not creating it. Let the community pay for it. Discussion
followed on the different areas in the county and how different they are in upgrading and
updating.
Mr. Abernathy would like to see the bridges put in at the developers' expense and the County
Commissioners deal with the issue.
Mr. Bellows suggested an alternative for an MSTU for pedestrian access along the entire Golden
Gate Parkway where there are numerous safety concems, which would mean everyone would pay
their fair share for improvements. It was brought up that not just the people that live in the
Parkway use the Parkway, so could be a problem.
Mr. Strain commented about the language of "flat roofs".
Ray Bellows stated they are not to give the appearance of flat roofs. The old PUD had language
such as "in instance where flat roofs are provided decorated parapet walls shall be constructed
above the roof line" which he suggests leaving the language in.
Mr. O'Gara stated they have an existing option today which allows the construction of the bridges
using impact fees. They are receiving some economic benefits but grossly exaggerated as to the
magnitude. A few small retail shops are what they are looking at. Not a big money maker.
Building pedestrian bridges isn't something they want to do, but will do it to help the community.
If it comes out of his pocket, it will not have an economic value. They have not pursued a grant
Page 5
October 17, 2002
because of not knowing the cost. If it was a new project, it would not be a problem with impact
fees. They are just trying to help out the community.
Marjorie Student - Attorney -stated there are some issues of exacting things from property
owners and the United States Supreme Court has ruled you cannot over exact. Need information
from staff what the impact of the development is and how it would impact the needed
improvement. She suggests Transportation work with this developer before it gets to the BCC.
Greg Garacia - Staff will work with the applicant before going before the Board and look at
interconnectivity which would include pedestrian bicycle as well as motor vehicle. They will
also look at other sources of funding.
SPEAKER:
Cheryle Newman - Golden Gate Area Civic Organization President - There have been
several issues in thc area and they have been working with Mr. O'Gara and have smoothed out
many rough edges that developed. Thc developer came to thc Organization that would enhance
thc entire project and thc community and developer would benefit from having thc retail on the
Parkway. She feels that insisting the developer go forward with thc bridges would allow him to
back out. To put it on thc community would bc an injustice. Thc bridge crossovers would not
quality duc to being too narrow and too close to thc roadway. They are a safety issue. Thc
School Board is in favor of thc project. She is not sure the petitioner would move forward with
thc retail if this is not allowed. It would provide more Community Character. She talked about
thc different uses and establishments that could bc in thc project. She is not sure thc whole
project hinges on having thc bridge but assists thc community as well as the developer in making
the whole project work. She clarified her statement earlier that the developer wouldn't ask for the
additional uses in thc amendment, with small retail shops, if certain exceptions.
Mr. Abemathy asked who should pay for the bridges if not the developer or the community. She
feels he should be able to use impact fee credits for the pedestrian bridges.
Mr. Strain suggests making a recommendation to ask staffto explore the possibility of impact
fees and language that the BCC could consider resolving the issue.
Cheryle said there are grants and other options, but feels strongly the impact fees should be used.
She noted Tract "F" -says "no new uses", but noticed others have been added. She was under the
impression there would be no other uses or changes.
Mr.O'Gara stated they are not seeking any other changes.
They are also concerned about overnight parking.
Mr. Midney asked about increasing traffic.
Ray Bellows stated the amendment will not change because they are not increasing the square
footage of what is already approved. It will not increase traffic significantly - less than 1-2%.
Mr. Midney said if it was going to increase traffic that it might be fair to ask for some
contribution on the pedestrian problem. Some language could be put in that says the pedestrian
bridges would be constructed and an alternative source of funding is developed that provides a
fair share payment. (Would have to be defined).
It is a constrained bridge and the County will have to face the issue of replacement. The issue
will have to be taken up with the community, school board, MPO, and the Board of County
Commissioners. Impact fees are not proper to correct deficiencies that currently exist. They are
Page 6
October 17, 2002
to be used strictly for improving infrastructure based on the impacts that are created with new
development. This is a shared responsibility.
Public hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved to recommend approval of Petition PUDA-01-AR-431 subject to the staffs
stipulations with additional stipulations of the permitted principle use groups, 7211, 7215,
7216, and 5921 being removed and that the side yard reduction be required to stay at 25
feet where it abuts residential. Flat roofs, if used, be screened, by a decorative parapet
above the roof line according to the previous PUD, and to cover the bridge issues have staff
explore Impact fee credits or related proposals that may be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Seconded Mr. Fry.
Mr. Strain would like to add to the motion - the 28th avenue southwest connection is added
back in so new connections are added to the location.
Mr. Budd and Mr. Fry agreed.
Carried Unanimously - 8-0.
10:08 AM Break.
Meeting reconvened at 10:22 AM.
Mr. Budd did not return
PUDZ -2001-AR-798 - Tim Hancock, Vanasse & Daylor and R. Bruce Anderson
of Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, representing Baldridge
Development Inc. requesting a rezone from "a" Agricultural to "PUD" known as
Baldridge PUD for a maximum of 125,000 square feet of retail and general
commercial uses for property. Located on SW corner of Intersection of Pine
Ridge Road (CR 896) and Livingston Road.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy.
Fred Reischl - Planning - The site is currently occupied by a golf driving range. Site was
shown on the visualizer. The surrounding areas in the PUD were shown. The proposed PUD as
read is for commercial uses, maximum of 125,000 sq. feet of offices and retail compatible with
C4 zoning District. It is consistent with Livingston Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Sub district and
staff recommends approval of the PUD as appears in packet. He had conversations early in the
day of which they will give more details on transportation that have been worked out. The
petition was submitted before Public Information meeting, but a meeting was held. The concerns
were drainage and storm water outfall. The petitioner states this project is different from the
others in the Whippoorwill drainage basin. This one has an option for an outfall outside the
Whippoorwill drainage basin so didn't have to wait for completion of the study. Staff has not
received any stated objections and recommends approval.
Mr. Strain stated according to the description of C4 in the zoning book, that C4 is generally found
at the intersection of arterial roadways.
Fred responded that because of the Livingston Commercial Pine Ridge Sub district - when the
board approved it they approved the full range of commercial uses in the sub district of this
parcel. They could have requested up to C5.
Page 7
October 17, 2002
Mr. Strain was wondering how it is compatible. Fred said there are a preserve on the proposed
Baldridge side and a preserve on the Brenwood side. On the East it is Agricultural and the Fire
Station.
Mr. Abemathy asked about the Growth Management Plan - Page 3 - 4th Paragraphs and asked for
an interpretation.
Fred stated the preserve to the south - the water management district did not want an interconnect
to the Brenwood to the south and the Baldridge Preserve. This would be part of the flow way that
goes east and west and connects to the Whippoorwill drainage basin to the East.
Mr. Richardson asked about The Level of Service concerning the transportation.
Greg Garcia mentioned the extension of Livingston to Immokalee will be in place which will help
getting to 175. There will be changes in the future with the Golden Gate Interchange that will
make a positive impact.
Petitioner - Bruce Anderson - Representing applicant. The property was previously a site
specific comprehensive plan amendment for the property formally used as a driving range and
golf school. That amendment was unanimously approved at 4 public hearings with the PUD
being recommended for approval by the Environmental Advisory Council. Both limit the amount
of commercial square footage to 125,000 square feet which is less than the normal retail
commercial formula of 10,000 square feet per acre. The size is just over 16 ½ acres and under the
normal formula would be 165,000 square feet. The property is located next to the North Naples
Fire District Sub station and at the intersection of two major roadways which will be at least 6
lanes. There will be turn and stacking lanes also. A market study has been done on the property
and concluded it was not economically feasible for a residential development because of the noise
and activity generated by Pine Ridge Road, Livingston and the Fire Station. The Baldridge
Company is committing to construct a loop road to provide motorist and the North Fire Station
with an access road to enable them to avoid Pine Ridge Road and the Livingston intersection. He
has reserved 60 feet at the south end of the projects for potential county road.
Mr. Strain discussed all the uses that the applicant may or may not want for the project. Some of
the uses discussed were shooting ranges, bowling alley, car wash, motor cycle, hospitals, drinking
establishment, power laundry, waste management, (administration building), and some being
redundant. Many of those uses will be removed.
Parking was discussed about having adequate parking space for the square footage and the use
they propose on the Site Development Plan.
The time period of paying impact fees was discussed. Legal opinion was given and stated general
language will have to be put in according to Ordinance.
A change has been made under "D" it will read "Road Impact Fees will be paid in accordance
with Collier County Ordinance #2001-13 as amended and will be paid at the time building
permits are issued, unless otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners".
Mr. Budd returned at 10:45 AM.
Transportation and the intersections were discussed with bypasses etc.
Mr. Adelstein asked about the wetlands. Mr. Wolfley was concerned about C4 - Warehousing and
Outside Storage. Mini-storage has to meet commercial guidelines.
Mr. Abernathy wanted everyone to know that he feels staff should be doing a more thorough job
of scrutinizing the numbers of "permitted uses" and taking care of them with the developer before
Page 8
October 17, 2002
it gets to the Planning Commission. Time is spent on going through all the numbers and
discussing them at a public hearing, which is unnecessary.
Fred Reischl stated they do go through them and will spend more time going through the
numbers.
Ray Bellows mentioned in some of the cases they have already been approved by the Board of
County Commissioners with the uses in and then the second time the Board doesn't like them but
staff will do a better job.
Tim Hancock - Planner of Project - VanasseDaylor - On the wetland issue he states that the
impact of the wetlands was unavoidable. When the right of way was acquired for Livingston
Road and Pine Ridge Road - access points were guaranteed as a condition of the agreement.
He showed these areas on the map displayed. Two things caused them to impact this -
1) Access the project
2) request by previous transportation administration of a reservation of right of way - they
anticipated it would impact the northern extension. They were faced with impacts that were not
in their control and did meet with the South Florida Water Management District on both matters,
and outside mitigation was reasonable. Since the impacts could not be changed or altered we
received unanimous approval from the Environmental Advisory Council.
Outside storage is permitted only with permitted use. Storing pallets is a code violation and
would not be allowed on this project.
He referred to the Errata Sheet handed out at the meeting. The first item on the first sheet is a
request to alter the signage for the project. Item "J" was referred to along with the map. He
clarifies the out parcel signs they are requesting. The second item is 4.6 of Transportation. He
noted that this was discussed when Dawn Wolfe was involved and during the transition he didn't
feel all the information was passed on to Mr. Garcia. They are now in total agreement with staff.
The only changes are with Items "m .... n" and "o" of the handout. In item "m" the ingress and
egress of Pine Ridge Road says that the 1 lx17 site plant handed out, the access shown on Pine
Ridge Road would be permitted. It takes out a right-out movement, eliminated it and left the
right-in at the mid-block.
Item "n" the north bound turn lane is continuous for 860 feet which is extremely long. He again
referred to the map as to the reasons. That would be temporary until Livingston Road is extended
to the north or the Golden Gate Interchange is in place.
Item "o" says "if it is unsafe, it can be closed". It is standard language and they understand it.
The new language covers whoever would develop the property.
SPEAKER:
Frank Craparo - Land owner to the East of Parcel - he had made an agreement with the
County to have a median cut which is in dispute at this time. Two driveways on his property is to
the East of this project and wants to insure his options of the County replacing the median cut
which was part of a condemnation settlement in the 1980's. He doesn't feel they have enough
room for turn lanes for signalization or three cars to turn into the area. He feels there will be a
drainage problem in his backyard. He had water surrounding his area and has a drainage
agreement with the County for a below ground drainage system. He feels this project would have
water on his property affecting many things in the area such as mosquitoes and plants. The plans
should be ready to review and he doesn't feel he had adequate time to see them. He doesn't want
to see any more signals. Mr. Craparo showed the commissioners where his home was on the
map.
Page 9
October 17, 2002
Mr. Hancock referred to the map. The original permit for the project currently drains south to an
existing wetland and then tries to find its way in a southerly and easterly pattern to the 175 canal.
The district is looking at the area holistically for water management. Livingston road was
designed to accept the drainage runoff from this parcel. He discussed this at a public meeting and
with Mr. Craparo. They have the ability to reduce the water that is currently flowing toward Mr.
Craparo, and explained the circumstances. He referred to the map concerning the 6 lanes,
separation and 50 foot buffers.
Mr. Budd could not find the list of controlling partners. His concern is any conflicts there may be
in the future without disclosures.
Mr. Strain talked about striking 7999 "Permitted Use" of different items he doesn't feel the
applicant really wants. If a specific inclusion is going be used, and right for the area, it can be
added.
This will be resolved between now and the BCC meeting.
Alan Can - Petitioner - part time resident of Naples - A very nice grocery store neighborhood
center is planned with a few free standing buildings on the front and the traditional multi-tenant
space that goes along with a grocery store. He is willing to eliminate 99% of the list from what
he has seen so far. The bays are 20x60 feet - 1,200 foot spaces - they are small. He is happy to
accommodate the commissioners due to the fact of wanting a nice neighborhood center.
Mr. Abernathy suggests striking 7999 completely with the understanding the applicant reads
through the list, finds a couple of things he would like to leave in and staff can inform the County
Commissioners, if they are in favor of them, they can be reinserted.
Mr. Fry has been supplied with the list of current sellers and is being passed to the
commissioners.
Public Hearing was closed and opened for discussion and motion.
Mr. Abernathy read the names of the sellers for the record. (It was not furnished for these
minutes.)
Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of PUDZ-2001-AR-798 Baldridge PUD subject
to the Errata Sheet presented on Transportation, the additional site plan submitted, and
removal of items discussed concerning the permitted uses on the property, (7933, 7999,
5571, 5599, 7359, 5813, 5921, 7211, and 8062 through 8069) along with the revised sign
language in the Errata Sheet. - page 6, and if a liquor store is associated with a grocery
store or next to it, have a separate entrance.
Seconded Mr. Adelstein.
Carried unanimously - 8-0.
Fe
PUDZ-2001-AR-1639 &- Robert L. Duane of Holes Montes, Inc., representing the
Strand LTD. requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the option of 120
residential units in lieu of 140 Motel/Hotel for property located at the intersection
of Immokalee Road and 1-75, Pelican Strand Subdivision.
Page 10
October 17, 2002
DOA-2001-AR-1638 - (Companion Amendment) - representing Hardy
Development Group requesting an amendment to the Pelican Strand DRI for the
purpose of reducing the number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,160 and allow
option of 120 dwelling units to be developed in the commercial portion for
property located at Immokalee Road and 1-75, Pelican Strand Subdivision.
Mr. Abernathy swore in all those testifying.
Fred Reischl - Planning - Presenting both "F & G" but will need separate votes.
Disclosures - Mr. Strain had a discussion with the applicants' representative on both items.
Mr. Wolfley had a meeting with one of the principals on another matter and it was
only mentioned. No discussion.
Fred referred to the map where area is located. The main change is the option that the PUD
amendment would allow to substitute 120 residential dwelling units for 140 Hotel Rooms. It is
adding an option to the commercial tract. He again referred to map. They could have an option
of office use or Hotel use. If the hotel option was utilized then they could not utilize the
residential option and vise versa. This was a petition submitted prior to the public information
meeting - Mr. Duane held a meeting and was well attended by Strand residents.
The main concern of the residents or the consensus was they would rather have a hotel than a
residential development. One reason was the strain on the Club if residential. One gentleman's
concern was someone from Publix could walk across the street, through the residential area onto
the golf course and get into the homes at the Strand.
He wanted assurances from the petitioner if it was residential that it would be gated, either front
or behind, so no one could walk into the homes at the Strand. There is a slight reduction in the
density from 1,200 units to 1,160. Decrease in the retail use and increase in the office use.
Staff recommends approval of the Amendment.
Applicant - Robert Duane - Hole Montes & Associates - Attended the neighborhood meeting
with approx. 100 people in attendance. Didn't feel there was any dissent. He asked if anyone
had concerns to call him. He stated this gives a good mix of land use.
Fred said it was approx. 50/50 of those in opposition to the residential.
The project on the aerial map shown is almost built out with only 2 vacant tracts showing 7 acres.
There will be a buffer - wall or landscape buffer. Mr. Fry was asking of the plans or thoughts of
what is planned for the area of residential.
Mr. Duane stated it will reduce trip generation and broadens the mix of land uses and introduces
residential next to office and retail which will have benefits to traffic reduction.
Mr. Fry said they need to be concerned about schools as well as traffic and the different services
the community needs to provide. It all needs to be taken into consideration.
Discussion followed on buffers, security, and acres involved.
Mr. Strain asked about the setbacks if the hotel was to convert to residential and Mr. Duane
replied it would be standard of 20 feet from the golf course and 25 feet from the street right of
way.
Mr. Adelstein stated he would have a difficult time voting on this amendment if they are not
being told what the residential is going to be.
Page 11
October 17, 2002
Mr. Strain responded they have a list of development standards and uses within the PUD and
defines what they can and cannot do.
Mr. Fry has a problem with the petitioner asking for the change and not knowing why. He feels
they are left in the dark and can't imagine the petitioner does not know what he is putting in that
area.
Joe Schmitt commented that they are digressing from the responsibilities and authority of the
Commission - they are not there to design or view what is going to be built but to discuss the
rezoning,. The applicant is under no obligation to present any plan whatsoever. Once rezoning is
approved it is staff' responsibility to review and make sure it complies with the standards that are
set forth in the Land Development Code.
Mr. Abemathy stated not only can they not pin the applicant down to what he is building, they are
not assured it is going to be residential. Fred stated the school board does review the PUD's and
99% get no comment.
Public Hearing was closed and opens for discussion and motion.
Mr. Budd moved PUDZ-2001-AR-1639 be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with recommendation for approval. Seconded Mr. Strain.
Carried. 6-2 - Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Fry voting "no".
Mr. Budd moved DOA-2001-AR-1638 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
with recommendation for approval as described by the amending DRI Development
Resolution and the follow-up traffic study is done pursuant to the recommendation.
Seconded Ken Abernathy.
Carried - 6-2 - Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Fry voting "no".
Recess for Lunch - 12:10 PM
Reconvened - 1:15 PM
Mr. Budd did not return.
I. Rural Eastern Lands Adoption Amendments to the Future Land Use Elements and
related maps, The Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Immokalee Area
Master Plan, Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Elements of the public Utilities
Element.
Presenter - Nancy Linnan - Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith & Cutler - on behalf
of the County staff. Also Marti Chumbler.
Nancy is letting the Commission know the significant changes that have been made in response to
the comments, questions and concerns. A report was handed out to the Commissioners. Data for
the study was collected by Wilson Miller, reviewed by a technical advisory committee made up
of regional and state agencies. She worked with the committee that led to the County transmittal
last June. Certain lands, 5,000 acres were added to the habitat stewardship areas. She referred to
a map displayed on the visualizer.
Page 12
October 17, 2002
She gave a brief overview of the process that is being proposed and the responses to the ORC
Report. She stated this is still a work in progress, but all the interest groups seem to be in
agreement. The groups are East Collier Property Owners Association, the Conservancy, the
Florida Wildlife Federation, The Audubon, and the Dept. of Community Affairs.
They needed to tweak the plan to make sure the language matches the original concept of those
that came up with the plan.
She referred to "Base Line Rights". ......
She discussed how they can do towns, villages, hamlets or CRD (Compact Rural Development).
Each category has requirements, such as size, mix of uses and set out in the Exhibits that were
displayed in the handout report. Bonus credits are given if you transfer your development rights
off Habitat Stewardship areas in the first 5 years of the program.
Base Line Rights are 1 unit to 5 acres - and have to meet Habitat and Wetland protections in the
fringe. She covered the restrictions. The process will be a County Resolution and language for
public notice and public participation.
The Department raised 7 major issues:
1) Establishing a real town, village - where are they going and how to discourage sprawl.
2) No binding criteria for towns, village, and hamlets. It now provides 99% requirements
for those areas.
3) Policy 4.6 which left development pattems open. Make sure there is a functional mix-so
took language out.
4) 4.7 had a cap of 4 dwelling units per acre. Meant 4 units per gross acre. Language was
added.
5) Raised the minimum size to 40 acres. Set criteria and put the proportionality in.
6) No percentage mix of uses in the receiving areas. Put per unit amount and a maximum
ratio in - chart in the handout explains the above.
7) No intensity standards for receiving areas so put in language to correct it.
Second area raised -
Location of the Receiving Areas -
1) Show data assigned and how it was arrived at.
2) Concern was inappropriate to designate SRA's the Receiving Areas and the area of
Critical Site Concern. Again referred to visualizer. Information on State Road 29 and
Oil Well Road - the information has been explained but the Department has not seen it.
It does not show evidence of a corridor. Not panther crossings.
3) Questioned a lack of infrastructure planning. Is there a capacity, will there be a capacity
and who is going to pay for it. Do not have the capacity today.
4) Incompatible uses within the Habitat Stewardship areas. How can they allow golf
courses and mining?
5) Need more data and analysis on getting a higher index value that on a water retention
area.
6) Vagueness in language.
7) Lack of Wetlands.
Mr. Abernathy asked Nancy what she wanted of the Commission. Were all the people involved
in the amendment process participants involved in the negotiations in Tallahassee?
Nancy responded - yes many of them were. This has been a 3 year process.
Page 13
October 17, 2002
Mr. Richardson brought up Immokalee and Nancy said it was not included in the study area. She
referred to the colors of the map from the report handed out. Mr. Richardson stated apparently he
has not seen or no one has required the Immokalee Master Plan and an effort to come together.
He thought she suggested the area could be a receiving area.
He asked what the market value of a credit would be.
Bob Mulhere stated this is a different scenario than the Fringe. Once a process is established then
a market value will be established. An upfront analysis was done to determine preliminarily what
the market value would be. No one can tell anyone what the market value is today, it is
something that will evolve over time.
A1 Reynolds - Wilson Miller -answered the question of credits with the credit calibration being
8 credits per entitled acre.
Mr. Strain had questions:
1) If 195,000 acres is taken - divided them into 5 acre tracts there would be 39,000 units.
If the SC Credits into the 16,800 acres and add to that the acreage the bonus credits will
buy - come up with 80,000 units potential - how is this less of an impact than 39,000
homes.
Nancy explained the units with septic tanks, where the units are, sensitive areas, animals in areas,
additional impacts and decided to have areas that are not sensitive environmentally and is a place
for growth as long as compacted and a functional mixed use. Limited would be no sprawl.
2)
Real towns, real villages were stated - he assumes when they are put in with residential
they will have corresponding industrial and commercial uses to make them a "real" place.
At what stage of the development are they required? Developer can put all the homes in
and someday say they will have commercial there? Market will dictate.
Someone can not build an intersection with commercial or a golf course by itself. Self-
standing golf courses would not occur.
Nancy said theoretically if a "CRD" of over 100 acres it could. 100 acres would not
support a golf course.
3)
If there are al50 acres - how do you choose if it is a "CRD" or a hamlet or village? Is
there a requirement?
Mr. Reynolds - Wilson Miller -stated the difference between a "CRD" hamlets or village
is it is a residential form of development that must be associated with a center level of
support for the residents. A 'CRD" is not required to have permanent residential housing.
He gave examples of hotels etc.
Discussion followed on the WRA's, SRA's, receiving areas, stewardship credits and the
nontransfer of bonus credits.
Marti Chumbler - one of Nancy's partners and outside Council to the County - She referred
to the copy of the handout and the changes that have been made. She went page by page with
the Commission under tab RLSA GOP. She covered the policy changes that were described to
the EAC, made additional changes and the motion made by the EAC.
In referring to the handout Mr. Strain asked:
- About native vegetation and their classification.
- If the policies had gone back to the committee, been approved and public input? Marti
answered "no" they have not had sufficient enough time and wished they would have.
Page 14
October 17, 2002
-Policy 1.9 - asked if it had been "ground proofed" - answer was "yes-down to the acre".
-Why Policy 2.5 & 2.6 is needed. To insure the preservation in Collier County and addressing the
issue. Court issues were discussed.
-5.3 #6 was taken out - ref. Federal Wildlife - it was placed back in under 5.5.
-4.10 were discussed concerning stewardship credits. Golf courses will not need stewardship
credits. He feels it widens up the amount of acres used.
-5.1 - FSA- SSA's were referred to and discussed.
- In conservation restoration natural resources included is oil and gas fuel development. Nancy
answered it is something that never goes away and is subject to the requirements that are in the
rest of the plan.
Mr. Fry asked about the questions the EAC had brought up concerning golf courses.
Marti stated they felt it will all work and be a major success.
She covered the areas of the motion made by EAC.
The motion from the EAC is as follows:
The EAC stated that they understood this document was a work in progress and supported
moving the document forward, with substantive additions presented by staff at the meeting
(Policies 1.21, 3.7, 4.3, 4.7, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, & 4.9) subject to the following areas of concerns
being considered/addressed:
1) Delineate the Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA's).
2) Identify the incompatible uses in the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC).
3) Provide a mechanism for re-evaluating the delineation of Hogan's Island and the
area west of Lake Trafford.
4) Increased level of detail for infrastructure needed.
5) Check countywide policies.
6) Assess the treatment of golf course as open space.
7) Remove golf courses from Compact Rural Developments (CRDs).
8) Further refine essential services and conditional uses in Habitat Stewardship Areas
(HSAs)
Mr. Strain asked about general conditional uses. It was noted they are not changing current
conditional uses to permitted uses. Mr. Strain referred to Attachment "B" of the handout report.
Mr. Strain commented that he had a concern about the amount of additional land needed - a list
of things have been pulled out of SC Credits but being used by the towns created by them.
WRA's do not have to be in SRA's, government essential services is out. Nancy interjected
discussing specific attachments of the handout report. Mr. Strain talked about the different
bonuses.
Mr. Midney feels looking at the map of the Eastern Lands, with Immokalee in the middle, that the
development should be occurring in the Immokalee area. He doesn't see an appropriate place for
population centers in the Rural Lands.
Joe Schmitt stated they are bringing all this to the attention to the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Midney feels that is more logical.
Bob Mulhere stated it had specifically excluded certain areas. This is a long term planning - 25
years plan - Immokalee requires more short term thinking.
Page 15
October 17, 2002
Mr. Midney felt it would have been a good idea to transfer the credits into the areas that are low
density residential now but appropriate for development within the large urban boundary.
Break 3:10 PM
Meeting reconvened at 3:22 PM
Mr. Reynolds commented about moving credits into the Immokalee area. New State Legislation
that creates rural land stewardship prohibits from moving credits outside of the rural boundary.
Under that Statute it can not be done. They are not strictly under the State Legislation but if there
is some benefit that goes With being designated as an official stewardship area, possibly some
grants, then they would want to have the option of turning it into a pilot program. A demand
needs to be created. A lengthy discussion took place about the urban boundaries and the use of
credits and entitlements.
Mr. Reynolds talked about the water retention areas, early entry bonuses, receiving areas, and the
forms of development in the area and benefits.
Mr. Strain referred to the handout concerning Rural Land Stewardship - it was noted it should
read Rural Stewardship Credit Programs. He talked about new permitted uses, earth mining and
asked if it was a conditional use. The answer was "yes". Mr. Strain referred to different pages
and policy numbers in which his questions were answered.
Bill Lorenz - Environmental Services Director - He explained he left particular language in
the handout until the challenge and will then go back to the fringe language.
SPEAKERS:
Gary Davis - Conservancy Southwest Florida - He is very pleased with the Department of
Community Affairs and how they addressed the OREC Report with the many issues they faced
when the plan came in for transmittal in June. He also appreciated the work all the groups did
and in working together to resolve many of the issues. This process can work. Not everything
was changed in the plan they wanted, but will wait for the final wording. They can support it and
look forward to it going to the Board of County Commissions and look forward to working with
the committee in the future.
Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation - She feels they are ending up with a good plan,
innovative, new and feel it is going to work. They committed to working with all the other
groups to address the ORC Report from DCA. Productive meetings were held with the many
groups. A concern of essential services has been addressed and do not anticipate any problems.
Communication towers were a concern of theirs with migrating birds but were worked out
through site plans, construction design and County wide policies. County Road 846 with
panthers was another concem but has been addressed with Wildlife Crossing. Will be working
with Transportation Dept. She encouraged the Commission to endorse the plan and move it onto
the BCC.
Brad Cornell - Collier County Audubon Society - He also supports the policies as amended
and asks the commission to move it forward to the BCC. He looks forward in watching the plan
being implemented.
Public Hearing is closed for discussion and motion.
Page 16
October 17, 2002
Mr. Richardson complimented those involved in the policies and supports the amendment.
Mr. Strain asked about Item 4.10 stewardship credits- he feels it undermines some of the process
and would support deleting that policy of exceeding 35% out of the stewardship applications.
-He wondered how the rest of the members felt about the HAS's and FSA's and wonder if it
would be wise to create a buffer in the HSA's that are up against the FSA's. (1,000 feet)
-A minimum buffer is established before any permitted or conditional use is applied for.
-He wants to make sure he sees the language changes in 5.1-taking of the land is treated with the
owner having voluntary use - or whatever language was spoken concerning the subject earlier in
the meeting.
-He wants to make it clear there are no changes in the permitted or conditional uses for FSA's or
HAS's.
Mr. Reynolds responded that his concerns have been addressed. Mr. Strain just wants to make
sure they are not just verbal and will be in the policy changes. The 1,000 foot buffer was
discussed.
Mr. Reynolds responded again with policy 3.12 addressing the buffer for flow ways and 4.13 in
providing for adequate buffers for any receiving areas.
Mr. Abemathy felt he needed to know the pros and cons of the golf courses. George commented
that CRD's are under 100 acres so golf courses do not fit. In villages and towns and CRD's over
100 acres with no SC requirements based on the open space exemption is the difference. The
different policy numbers were discussed.
Mr. Strain doesn't feel the golf courses should be exempt from the SC process. Discussion
followed on conditional use permits, open space, incentives and the credits addressing the issue.
Mr. Reynolds talked about the process
Mr. Richardson moved to recommend adoption of the amendment, to include all the
elements and readoption of the County wide policies and all language changes, to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Seconded Mr. Midney.
Carried Unanimously 7-0.
gm
OLD BUSINESS - Mr. Richardson stated Mr. Abemathy had mentioned in a previous
meeting, giving the Planning Commission Board a broader role, recommending staff
work, for issues going back to the board having deliberation and consideration. He feels
after today's meeting this should be a priority of staff. He also stated more thought
should be given to the Immokalee area situation.
Joe Schmitt said some of the issues developed as a result of the impact fee workshop and public
Forum conducted prior to the workshop dealing with the social and economic effects of the
raising of impact fees. Several proposals were made to the Board. He has a document of which
can be provided to the Planning Commission members.
Commissioner Coletta is working with representatives from Immokalee and working with Wilson
Miller looking at a Master Plan and things that can be done for incentives in the community.
There is an issue to possibly create a separate Planning Commission for Immokalee and separate
standards for architecture and landscaping. This Planning Commission may want to give ideas as
to all of the above. Mr. Richardson felt we should be more effective.
Page 17
October 17, 2002
NEW BUSINESS-Ray Bellows - Presentation of Written Material - Cont. from
October 3fa, 2002
Mr. Abernathy reminded everyone that Mr. Budd was the supporter of this subject and is
absent. They felt it would be better if he were present.
Ray's intent was to have a general discussion before any final decisions are made to
change current policies in getting materials to the Commission.
Mr. Abernathy felt if the existing Ordinance was enforced it would be okay and not
create another set of standards which may not be any better than the past.
Marjorie apologized for a computer error in one of the figures. Her concern is the
consistency with 98167. She finds an inconsistency in Paragraph 2 - limitation where
staff can give additional materials 5 days prior to the hearing, she reads - "additional or
supplemental information provided for the public hearing shall only contain information
that does not materially modify the information previously submitted". Her concern is
the limitations being too broad and being in conflict with it.
Discussion followed on the amount of time materials are received by the commission,
and problems staff has getting them out in a timely manner. Ray mentioned when
materials are ready, they can be sent on time -if other materials are not received in a
timely manner and not sufficient time to review a particular issue or subject, it will be
continued. Enforcement is the issue and will be taken up at another meeting when Mr.
Budd is in attendance.
Mr. Richardson moved to continue Item 9 under New Business - Presentation of
Written Materials by Ray Bellows. Seconded Mr. Wolfley.
Carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Richardson mentioned Doverco Associates are engaged by the County to do a
detailed community plan for Naples Park, ($211,000 commitment), starting on November
15~ for a kick-off meeting. Other activities are planned.
Mr. Abemathy feels they should discuss the Community Character Plan at some time.
Joe said it is just that "a plan", a guidance.
Being no further business before the Planning Commission Mr. Adelstein moved to
adjourn - meeting was adjourned at 4:35 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
KENNETH ABERNATHY
Page 18
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
(?OMMUNITY-DEVICI~()PMI,]NT AND ENVII{()XMI.:NT.\i~ ~I,TI-{\'I('ES I)IV1SIi)N
November 15, 2002
I'I~\NXIX(; ,~ElIVI( 'ES DEPAIIT*lf~XT
SCOFIELD MARINE CONSULTING
MILES L. SCOFIELD
3584-B EXCHANGE AVE
NAPLES. FL 34104
REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-2537, KIRK. DAMAS
Dear Mr. Scofield:
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, the Collier Counu' Planning
approved Petition No. BD-2002-AR-2537.
A copy of Resolution No. 02-07 is enclosed approving this use.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400.
Planner
RG/lo
Enclosure
CC:
DAMAS P & PATRICIA A KIRK
1080 1 lth Street North
Naples, FL 34102
Land Dept. Property, Appraiser
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
Customer Service
Addressing (Peggy Jarrell)
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
File
Commission heard and
Phone 1941 ~ 403-2400 Fax i 941 ) 643-6968 www.,:ol lieraov, m,t
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 02- 07
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD~2002-AR-2537 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 ~
counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as a
necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinam
91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of tl~
County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held
properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 154-foot extension for a boat dock from th
20-foot length allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21. to authorize a 174-foot boat dock facility in a "VR" Village
Residential zone for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC bas found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement bay{
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-2537, filed by Miles Scofield, of Scofield
representing Damas P. & Patricia A.Kirk, for the property hereinafter described as:
Marine Consulting,
Chokoloskee, Parcel 63, located in Section 36, Township 53 South, Range 29 East,
Collier County, Florida,
be, and the same is hereby approved for a 154-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise
allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21, to authorize a 174-foot boat docking facility in the "VR" Village-Residential
zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
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 an,
filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this 17 day of (~f..a[_ ~ , 2002.
ATTEST:
sephK S o~1~1~'~ -~
~°8~h~~IrOaPti;nt and Environmental
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4
KENNETH L. ABERNATH~, CHAIRMAN
~P~:oved}ats to Fo.rm. ja~d Legal Sufficiency:
Patrick ~it~
Assistant County Attorney
BD-2002-AR-2573/RG/Io