Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/07/2002 RNovember 7, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 7, 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 Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Dwight Richardson David Wolfley Mark Strain Lora Jean Young Frank Fry - Absent Russell Budd - Absent ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Serv. Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Marjorie Student, Assistant Attorney Greg Garcia, Principal Planner, Trans. Planning Dept. Don Schneider, Principal Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Fred Reischl, Principal Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Patrick White, Assistant Attorney AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 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. 7. 8. NOTE; INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIM1TED TO 5 MINLFrEs ON ANY ITEM. INDWIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRrKTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO TI-IE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC W[LLBECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEKEFORE 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 CALL ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: RUSSELL BUDD OUT 21sr OF NOVEMBER BCC REPORT- RECAPS- OCTOBER 8, 2002 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (LUNCH 12:00 P.M.- 1:00 P.M) BI)-2002-AR-2918, Ben Nelson, Ir., of NeLson Marine Consuuction, representing Paul & Linda McCullough, requesting an extension to allow for a boat dock facility protnuting 50 feet into the waterway for property located at 197 San Mateo Drive, further described as Lot 32, Southport on the Bay Unit One. (Coordinator: Ross Gocheanaur) Bo VA-2002-AR-2389, Linda B. Berthelsen and Stuart S. McDaniel-requesting variances in the RSF-3 zoning district from the required 30 foot front yard setback pursuant to LDC Sections 2.2.4.4.4. and 2.6.2. to allow: 1) an after-the fact 5- foot variance, 25 feet, for the existing house; and 2) a 5-foot variance, to 25 feet, for a proposed pool and screen enclosure, on property located at 571 Piper Boulevard, further described as Lot 65, Palm River Estates, Unit 1, Plat Book 3, page 90 as recorded in Collier County public records, Collier County, Florida in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Eo VA-2002-AR-2431, Tina Levan requesting a 6.5 foot variance for a pool screen enclosure in the RSF-1 zoning district, from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement, to allow a 23.5 foot setback, pursuant to Land Development Code Sections 2.2.4.4.4 and 2.6.2.1.4.on property located at 250 Carica Road further described as Lot 4, Block 7, Unit 2, Pine Ridge 2~ Extension. Plat Book 10, page 86 as recorded in Collier County public records, Collier County, Florida in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) ' VA-2002-AR-2552, R. Brace Anderson of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing The Bailey Company, requesting variances in the PUD zoning district granted by Ordinance No. 92-8; 1) a v~ from LDC § 2.3.16. Off-s~eet parking and stacking requirements that require nine car stacking lengths, to allow a reduction to five-car stacking lengths; and 2) a variance from LDC § 2.8.4.4.2. that requires windows to cover a mini of 25% of the building facade, to allow windows to cover only the existing 10.7% of the fa~N~ on Outparcel #1 (formerly occupied by Arby's Restaurant), in the Courthouse Shadows Shopping Center located in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) (CON UN ED VA-2002-AR-2617, Mario Valle, of Creative Homes of Southwest Florida, Inc., representing Lloyd E. Wynn, requesting aP~er-the-fact variances in the Estates (E) zoning district from the required: 1) 30-foot side yard setback (LDC Section 2.2.3.4.3.1.), to allow a 14.4 feet side yard setback (a variance of 15.6 feet); and 2) 75-foot front yard setback (LDC Section 2.2.3.4.3.2.), to allow a 70.1 feet front yard setback (a variance of 4.9 feet), for property located at 2231 14a~ Avenue NE, further descn~i as Golden Gote Estates Unit 16, Tract 99, Lot E-150, as recorded in Plat Book 7, pages 3-4, Collier County records, in Section 36, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. (CoordinAtor: Kay Deselem) 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 DisUict 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. (Coorrlin~tor: Don Schneider) (NOT BEFORE 2:00 P.M.) VA-2002-AR-2909, Craig $. Pajer, P.E., of AEC National, representing Collier County Board of Co-~sioners, requesting a variance from the maximum height of 35 feet to 110 feet for a parking garage at tbe Collier County Jail. This variance is required for the 5-story consm~ction and future expansion to eight stories of a parl~g garage. This request of 110 feet is 75 feet greater than that allowed in the Public Use District at this location. (CoorainA~or. Don Schneider) PUDZ-2002-AR-2200, Rich Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodle~te, Coleman and John*on, representing First Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., requesting a rezone from "C-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Mission Square PUD for property located at 1595 Pine Ridge Road, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 2~ East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.5:1: acres. (Coordinator:. Fred Reischl) 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 loca~d at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Section 12, Township 5~South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Don Schneider) (NOT BEFORE 2:00 P.M.) $. PDI-2002-AR-2~62, D. Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, representin~a B. H Development, Inc., an insubstantial change determln~tion to the Eboli PUD revising the Master Plan to establish a specific development plan identifying building placement, on-site vehicular access, and wetland identification for propex~y located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (CoordinAtor: Fred Reischl) 9. OLD BUSINESS: Second 2002 Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle (DCA No. 02-02) Use including amendments to the Transportation Element, Capital Improvement Element and the Future Land Element (Continued from 10-17-02) TIME CERTAIN 1:00 P.M. 10. N'~W BUSINESS 2 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 11/07/02 ccPc AGENDA/SM/ID November 7, 2002 0 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kenneth Abernathy at 8:36 AM. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll call was taken - a Quorum was established. · Addenda to the Agenda - Item 8B will be continued. Items 8F & 81 are companion items. Mr. Richardson moved to approve the continuation of Item 8B. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously. Mr. Strain commented about the Jail Center packet and felt it was important to review the DRI and the TIS and wondered if staff would supply a copy to the members during the noon hour for their review. Ray Bellows stated he would get copies for the members. Mr. Richardson asked about traffic information on Item H. Ray Bellows will coordinate the specific information with Fred Reischel. Mr. Richardson also expressed his concerns about some erroneous information given to the Commissioners at their last meeting on the PUD change in Pelican Marsh with the status of amount of commercial medical office space that had already been spoken for in the complex. They were assured by the applicant that they had not exceeded the limit of 9,000 square feet in the PUD. He received information directly from other renters in the complex. Several other members acknowledged they received same information. The persons felt the information was not factual. Mr. Richardson stated he felt they were deceived and wondered if the information can be reviewed in their decision making. Mr. Abernathy mentioned it was the October 3rd meeting - not their last meeting. What they heard was sworn testimony and what they have now is an unswom statement. Marjorie Student reviewed Roberts Rules of Order with Mr. Wiegel and the Rules state the matter can be considered at the same meeting or the next day. Since there was an intervening meeting, the Secretary of the Planning Commission can convey or directly send a representative to the BCC meeting to let them know the situation or direct staff to do it. She also stated this was a PUD to PUD rezone as well as an Amendment to a DRI development order that reflected the changes in square footage - not a variance. Mr. Adelstein expressed that anyone voting "for" a particular issue can bring it back to the floor and no intervening meeting situation in Roberts Rules in that particular instance. He states those that voted "for" it can bring it back to the floor. 2 November 7,2002 Marjorie again reiterated that the Rules say "that meeting or the next day". Mr. Richardson stated they are not happy with the decision. Mr. Adelstein wondered if it could be removed from the BCC's Agenda. Joe Schmitt pointed out some facts which was the issue of square footage of medical, evidence in testimony and all being irrelevant to the issue. One fact was a witness going to give a presentation and the Chairman ruled it was not germane to the issue. Following the issue, Mr. Mulhere learned and realized of what he had said was in error. Joe thought he had sent a memo to the Chairman stating that particular fact. Joe and Susan Murray were copied in that memo. Mr. Abernathy did not receive a memo from Mr. Mulhere. The issue was whether to amend the increase in square footage and realizing there are still problems that need to come back to the Committee in the future on the parking issue. There is a court case pending with the individual against the developer or agent and not sure the Planning Commission wants to get involved in this situation. Discussion followed on the truth, the whole PUD monitoring process, and accuracy of information being presented. Mr. Abernathy stated they are an Advisory Board, make recommendations and feels it would take an extraordinary situation for them to call an item back for reconsideration on a non-germane issue. Marjorie stated another concern she has is that the public hearing was closed and then information came outside the hearing and was not open for the Commission to receive additional information. Mr. Abernathy stated the speaker tried to bring it to the Commission with asking questions and was not something he felt was appropriate at the time. Mr. Midney felt badly about the situation with one tenant stating his business would be hurt because of the parking situation and misrepresentations made to the Commission. It was for lack of information, but he has a lot of trust in the staff and the Board of County Commissioners. If staff reviews the facts and trusts those to go to the BCC and gives correct information, that is sufficient enough for him. The rest of the Commissioners supported Mr. Midney's remarks. It was recommended that Staff be directed to give all pertinent facts to the BCC that has been uncovered. Mr. Schmitt produced the note from Mr. Mulhere which stated he was incorrect - there was 4,000 feet in excess of the 9,000 feet ...... their concerns were not what was rented, but if approved they would have to provide the additional parking spaces. This will all be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bellows mentioned Item H will be discussing the Traffic Impact in detail and the applicant will provide the Traffic Impact statement. This can be discussed or continued. It was decided it will be examined while hearing the matter. November 7, 2002 e 0 Approval of Minutes - October 3, 2002 Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 2002. Seconded by Mrs. Young. Carried unanimously. Planning Commission Absences: Russell Budd out 21st of November Mr. Midney and Mrs. Young will not be at the November 21st meeting. Mr. Adelstein will not be at the November 13th meeting. The Commissioners will have a quorum for the January 2, 2003 meeting. BCC Reports-Recaps-October 8, 2002 - The Pelican Strand Amendment to swap the Hotel option with a residential option was approved - Board approved but withdrew the Hotel option, it will only be office retail for residential. The East Veteran's Park Commercial Center is continued until the second meeting in December. Mr. Adelstein brought up a point of information that if a meeting is passed, there should be public notice when the meeting is rescheduled so those persons can attend at that particular meeting. Mr. Bellows stated when an item is advertised and continued during the Planning Commission hearing, the date of the new hearing is stated for the record. The Land Development Code says that if it goes past 5 weeks they have to readvertise as if it was a new meeting. Mr. Adelstein felt if a meeting is to be continued, and it doesn't stipulate that it is not going to be at the next Planning Commission meeting then it should be advertised for the public's knowledge. Mr. Schmitt said it is the lead time for the Naples Daily News. They will look at the situation as a future requirement of the LDC but wanted the members to know that it is also due diligence on the part of the public, if interested, to make themselves aware of the meeting dates. 7. Chairman's Report- None 8.. Advertised Public Hearings: Before the hearings started Mr. Midney talked about not having bulk petroleum in the middle of the Farmers Market with food items. In looking at the Land Development Code, it looks as if it went through. He asked if the BCC overrode their recommendation. Mr. Schrnidt stated it passed the BCC, but will check the records and let him know later under Old Business. November 7, 2002 Ao BD-2002-AR-2918 - Ben Nelson Jr., of Nelson Construction. Paul & Linda McCullough requesting an extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding 50 feet into the waterway for property located at 197 San Mateo Drive. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - none. Ross Gocheanauer gave the purpose and description of the request. The extension of 37 feet was approved for the existing dock and the petitioner is requesting an additional 13 foot extension for a total of 50 feet. No additional deck area is requested. There were no letters from abutting property owners. Two letters were received from two condominium owners stating it would impact navigation. Ross showed some overhead photography taken and feels this may be a misunderstanding for them. He doesn't feel the extension would have any impact on navigation at all. The project meets all criteria. Ross showed a photograph and the reason for the extension showing it accommodating a lift and additional boat. Ben Nelson (applicant) - he stated the main reason for the extension is the water depth being too shallow and would rather put the larger boat on the outside. Mark Carlosi - 4975 Bonita Beach Road - condominium owner across the bay. He feels if the extension comes out 50 feet, it will create an eyesore. IfMcCullough's want to have two boats he feels they should turn the slip so the boat would align north/south. It would involve some new construction. He thinks they should park the boat nose in. Discussion followed on the width of the bay. The commissioners informed Mr. Carlosi that the total distance is 50 feet with the extension only being an additional 14 feet. He stated this is approx. 40-45 feet. The Public Hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain moved to forward BD-2002-AR-2918 with recommendation for approval with staff stipulations, to the Board of County Commissioners for their final decision. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried Unanimously. Ce VA-2002-AR-2431 - Tina Levan -requesting a 6.5 foot variance for a pool screen enclosure in the RSF-I zoning district from the 30 foot side yard setback - to allow a 23.5 foot setback, pursuant to Land Development Code Sections 2.2.4.4.4 and 2.6.2.1.4 on 250 Carica Road. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - None November 7, 2002 Kay Deselem - Planning Services - Kay recommended approval with two conditions. She portrayed an overhead of the site and location of Carica Road. It showed the home and pool in back. Mr. Adelstein asked if it could be solved with a variance by putting up a fence. Kay answered - "yes". The applicant is asking for a variance as it is her choice to construct a screen enclosure. Meeting the requirements to have the pool protected could be done with a fence. Mr. Wolfley asked about the well and whether it is an existing survey. Kay stated it is an existing survey and referred to Exhibit "A" of the handout. There is a deck, a spa, and a pool on the property. The pool is now a conforming structure and meets the setback requirements. Kay has not received calls from any neighbors. Mr. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - He addressed the issue of a fence alone being sufficient or not to comply with the existing pool code provisions. He wanted to make sure the Commissioners did not base their decision one way or another on a statement made by staff that a fence alone would be sufficient to "enclose and lawfully allow the pool to exist." He does not have an answer to that issue being the fence alone may not be sufficient. Mr. Adelstein again expressed his thoughts that if a fence alone can be built and a variance is not needed, he will not vote for the extension wanted. Mr. White stated there is a potential for violation of the code. He has no factual information of any other means of protection. Kay stated there is already a code violation on the site due to no protection, and was her understanding the fence would comply and defers to the County attorneys opinion on the legal status. Mr. White stated that past practice has been that the fence would be sufficient, but permitting had a question whether it would be sufficient. The pool code has changed drastically with the Florida Building Code that went into effect in March. Joe Schmitt said there is nothing that can be put on the record but there is a choice of enclosing the pool either with a fence or a screen enclosure as far as the Florida Building Code now exits. There are additional safety concerns that a fence alone typically isn't sufficiently provided for. Petitioner - Tina Levan - Tina has 2 small children with concerns for them. The pool company that built the pool originally has gone out of business. She had been basing all her information on the original permit she has. It shows a 20 foot setback not a 30 foot setback and did not realize this was going to cause a problem. The deck was added on at a later date. She gave a summary of how poorly built it was and the configuration of the pool and spa area and how the screen can be built. Tina gave the original permit to staff. She is not in favor of a fence due to the fact she would like to use the pool in the evening hours for her and her family. She needs the enclosure and does not use it at night at this time. 6 November 7, 2002 A diagram was shown on the overhead and discussed. She has spoken with her neighbors with no opposition and they feel it would look better left as is with a safer environment. Discussion pursued concerning the codes, permitting, and the required distance for safety reasons. Kay stated this is not a PUD but an RSF-I-zoning setback requirement. The Public Hearing is closed and open for discussion and motion. Mr. Richardson supports the staff's recommendation to approve the variance. Mr. Abernathy stated he supports staff also. Lora Jean Young moved to forward Petition VA-2002-AR-2431 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with recommendation of approval with conditions. Seconded Mr. Abernathy. Carried Unanimously. VA-2002-AR-2617 - Mario Valle, of creative Homes of SW Florida representing Lloyd E. Wynn. The petitioner is requesting two after-the- fact variances. The first is from the required 30-foot setback, to allow a 14.4 side setback, the second from the 75 foot yard setback to allow a 70.1 front yard setback for an existing single family home. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mark Strain sat on a committee with this issue being mentioned concerning the setbacks only. Kay Deselem - Planning Services - She noted the house has not been constructed and showed a map on the overhead with the Canal on the East. She said this is a conforming lot and unique because of the Canal. They discussed the mapping and the lots in this area being conforming or non-conforming. It was noted a permit was issued for the slab which was poured incorrectly. It was poured at 78.0 rather than 70.8 as it should have been. That is why they need the setback requirement. Staff recommends approval with conditions being to identify the site plan provided and secondly if anything happens to the structure they would need to comply. At this time Mr. Abernathy asked Kay to check the map on the last petition and check a particular area (Pelican Marsh) before forwarding to the BCC. Petitioner - Mario Valle - Creative Homes - he stated the property is quite unique as when the excavation was done, rocks were taken out from the canal when originally dug with some being 12 feet in height. Some of the rock flowed onto the neighbor's lot line. The slab may have been poured incorrectly due to stakes being mistaken for survey markers. The well is in, septic is dug out and they feel they are making it a taxable property. 7 November 7, 2002 The Public Heating is closed for discussions and motion. Mr. Strain moved to move forward Petition VA-2002-AR-2617 subject to conditions itemized by staff. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried Unanimously. 10:07 AM- Break Meeting reconvened at 10:29 AM. Ray Bellows informed the Commissioners the Traffic Impact Study has been delivered to them for the Jail Center extension. H. PUDZ-2002-AR-2200- Rich Yovanovich, Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing First Baptist Church of Naples, requesting a rezone from "C-I" to "PUD" known as Mission Square PUD for property at 1595 Pine Ridge Road. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Disclosures - Mr. Richardson had conversations with members of the First Baptist Church expressing their interest in approval and his concerns of traffic impacts. Fred Reischl - Planning Services - this is a rezone from C-I" to a "PUD". The parcel is split by the access road up to Pine Ridge Middle School. He displayed a map on the overhead. The school district owns the private road with letters on record. There were certain requirements they were requesting of the petitioner. Anyone seeking access to a private road needs to get permission for an easement. Staff feels it meets the criteria for office and commercial. It is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The PUD to the East contains mini-storage, fire station to the west, the school to the north zoned agriculture, and the single family neighborhood to the south. The proposal is for a maximum of 148,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, and medical and professional office. The public information meeting was held with no objections made. No phone calls or letters for or against with only the letters from the school district that has been addressed by the petitioner were received. Staff recommends approval. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - has been reviewed with agreements that improvements made to the intersection as part of the development. (Pine Ridge Intersection) Certain median openings are being closed in the area, Goodlette and Pine Ridge is being improved with different turn lanes and other commercial properties coming in that area. Road way is approved for Level of service "D" and now operating at Level "E". (Decrease in peak hour) This is approved for "C-I" (140,000 feet) and they want to go to "C-3". Analysis of data provided indicates fewer trips during the peak hour. Overall daily there will be approx. 1,200 more trips distributed throughout the day. Mr. Richardson has concerns with this being a problem with coming in with something less, which is more intense, a traffic roadway at Level "E" and putting more traffic on it. November 7, 2002 A lengthy discussion followed conceming the intensity of the roadway, traffic analysis and other projects in the area. Questions were asked about the effect on the checkbook concurrency. Mrs. Young understands this triples traffic, at Level "E" already and wondered if it is precipitous to change to a heavier use? Ray Bellows explained typically when a rezone petition is gotten, the traffic study shows the amount of projected increase of the roadway traffic and based on historical growth and approved zoning, which is part of the background build-out date of that project. The TIS adds project traffic for uses permitted, and if it doesn't exceed 5% design volume of the roadway - then it isn't deemed as a significant impact. If it did exceed, staff would have to phase the project, or recommend denial of the petition. They are not exceeding the 5% standard. Mr. Richardson said Pine Ridge is in trouble and they have a health, safety and welfare issue. Petitioner - Rich Yovanovich - Representing the First Baptist Church - he wanted everyone to know that GED of Southwest Florida is no longer the purchaser, the purchaser is Mission Square LLC. The principals are William Riling, Gene Fry, Daniel Commers and Steve Hoblen. They have gone through an intensive review and analysis of the PUD with School Board staff and the School Board. Being a private road they obtained an irrevocable license agreement for use, and to what uses would be used on the property in order to get permission for access to the roadway. The changes requested from the School Board staff are: - Stock piling of fill will be at 15 feet Set back from school board road to be increased from 15 feet to 25 feet. West side of property be limited to two stories in height The agreement with the School Board is forever as long as they are in compliance with the PUD document. A long list of uses was deleted in the negotiations with the School Board. TheY went through a lengthy discussion of the uses working with the School Board staff. Mr. Strain addressed 2.16 #A - the architectural and style. This is conceptual only and has not been through the approval process with the County. It is not a record of what may be built. Mr. Strain also asked about the heights being 50 feet above flood elevation. He addressed parking. Anita Jenkins talked about the buffers and detention areas. It was put on the overhead. Mr. Strain asked if the petitioner would refrain from development until Service Level "D" is established. Jeff Parry - Transportation Planner/Wilson Miller - he answered that is what the Concurrency Management system is supposed to do. It is in place today and in this particular instance could argue the Level of Service "E", but does not need a debate. He does not feel it is appropriate that they should restrict themselves to what the County November 7, 2002 applies to other properties. Another Commercial property down the road has to comply with the same rules and regulations as they do. The impact of traffic on Pine Ridge Road and the peak hours of the day were discussed at length by Mr. Strain and Mr. Parry. A different set of standards was a concern of the petitioner. Mrs. Young left at 11:07 AM. Mr. Abernathy reiterated what Mr. Strain was saying, ifa project is coming along soon and it bankrupts the road, the project should wait. The Commissioners wanted Mr. Parry to know they are not picking on him but would feel the same regardless who was asking. Mr. Parry stated they have no problem living with the code or concurrency. Mr. Bellows asked if they could insert unto the PUD Document language that would require the developer, at the time of site development plan approval, that there is no capacity problems on Pine Ridge Road. The commissioners are telling the petitioner they're not so concerned about peak hours but the fact that Pine Ridge Road has a lot of traffic and this is a health and safety issue. Rich is proposing a phasing of the project. When Pine Ridge Road is Level of Service "D" they can move forward to another phase. Mr. Richardson stated he would like to see some type of language to this phasing today. Mr. Strain suggested limiting it to 70,000 square feet now and get the additional 70,000 on the retail when they get to Level of Service "D". Mr. Parry stated the first phase will be retail. Mr. Strain said that is the highest intensity. Mr. Garcia stated he can bring language that indicates that concurrency be amended at such time as they move forward. He can do this later in the day for the Commission. Mr. Strain summed it up that if they want to phase it, d the general medical first, then the balance when the Level of Service "D" is reached on Pine Ridge Road or subject the whole project until Level of Service "D" is reached. Mr. Richardson moved to continue PUDZ-2002-AR-2200 until after lunch. Seconded Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously. PDI-2002-AR-2562 - D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. Representing B. II Development an insubstantial change determination to the Eboli PUD revising the Master Plan to establish a specific development plan identifying building placement, on site vehicular access and wetland identification. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - none. Fred Reischl - Planning Services - he stated this is an insubstantial change to the PUD and showed the area on the overhead. A public information meeting was held with no objections. The only calls he had were from Carleton Lakes persons wanting to know 10 November 7, 2002 what the changes were. It is a change in the location of the preserve area because what the environmental specialists identified as wetland turned out it was not jurisdictional wetlands under State and Federal rules. They were on site but not where they thought they were. This meets the criteria for an insubstantial PUD and staff recommends it. A lengthy discussion followed on the STP's and now PUD's in reference to wetlands. Mr. Richardson asked if there should possibly be other interconnects. Marjorie wanted to point out that this is a Master Plan change, not a PUD amendment and would be concerned about putting an interconnect point on a conceptual Master Plan without accompanying text. Her concern is the enforceability if just on a Master Plan. Mr. Wayne Arnold - Engineering - the interconnect on the project shown to the east reflects the location shown on the original master plan and coordinated with staff. This is a very specific Master Plan for a PUD. This project will be known as Bermuda Palms two story condominiums. He was hoping it was useful for the Planning commission to see where the preserves are located. He feels the mix in this area is very compatible. Mr. Richardson has no problem with the project, just wonders how it will interact with the undeveloped area to the east. Discussion followed concerning other projects in the surrounding area. Mr. Strain referenced specific items in the PUD Documents - Items #6, 7, & 8 of Page 9. The Public Heating is closed and open for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of PDI-2002-AR-2562 subject to the insubstantial change to the conceptual Master Plan conditions as listed by staff, and change the wording of the Master Plan to encompass those definitions. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 6-0. Adjourn for lunch 11:50 AM. Meeting continued at 1:00 PM. Ow Old Business: Second 2002 Growth MANAGEMNT Plan Amendment Cycle Use including amendments to the Transportation Element, Capital Improvement Element and the Future Land Element (Continued from 10-17-02). Stan Litzinger - Comprehensive Planning - this public hearing is the second cycle comprehensive plan amendment for 2002 - adoption hearing to make recommendations to the BCC for Amendments that were transmitted June 25th. There have been some substantial changes as a result of the BCC workshop in Sept. concerning the Transportation concurrency and the way they treat concurrency in the County concerning the comp plan amendments and have responded to DCA objections and recommendations report. These amendments were substantially changed from the 11 November 7, 2002 amendments that were transmitted. The Board of County Commissioners has decided to go forward with a current system of concurrency and to delay checkbook concurrency for sometime. The BCC wanted to implement some changes in the way they measure transportation and concurrency when applied to the system and when the impacts are collected for various developments. He had a handout of changes with modifications and clarifications. Changes to the Capitol Improvements were discussed according to the handout. Norm Feeder- Transportation Administrator - he stated when looking at a development in a PUD, they don't say it has a significant impact on the transportation or other systems unless it is going to generate 5% of either population in the other systems and transportation 5% traffic impact. Many developments were coming through which were not found significant and the Board said they had to look at something different. In discussions before transmittal, interest was expressed in 1%. The Planning Commission's recommendation was 3% and when back to the board in transmittal it was noted that was so small. 3% was more appropriate. Mr. Strain wondered if the County has considered the manpower it's going to take for monitoring purposes reconciling when the building contractor comes in for building permits. Stan said there are positions advertised and being budgeted for next year. A big part of it is to collect monies to build roads quicker and earlier and not bond as much. In case of Transportation it is approx. 7 years to deliver the replacement capacity that geTM consumed. They are working diligently to catch up from the past of non- construction. They are looking at not only collecting the fees but possibly having those fees be at risk and not refundable, or allow a phasing if the whole project isn't vested at that time. Mr. Strain stated it will be a severe impact on the business community. He is wondering if the public at large is aware of all this information. When paying impact fees for these magnitudes on bulk pieces of land, any chunk could contain from 10-100 units typically. The amount of money prior to funding the project and then carded until the parcels are sold off, is a very heavy impact and eliminating a lot of small business people in the community. The big developments won't have a concern, but the small persons will suffer. Norm Feeder stated he wants the full industry, small, medium and big - be addressed. Their concerns are a level of being assured. They need to address both needs, how to deliver the service if the process is down close to the impact realized, and not depriving the that replacement capacity for the next person in the door. On the other side of the coin, for the industry itself, whether large or small, if it is going to continue an investment in a project, then it can go forward. So if they pay their fees, and it is in a timely enough basis for them to have a level of ability to provide a replacement capacity as they develop, then they can be assured and the system won't suffer from the 12 November 7, 2002 removal of the capacity close to the last of it's availability with no replacement capacity coming forward to a number of years. The DSAC asked for language for a possible phasing. Norm gave examples. Stan mentioned the next major change is on Page 15 under Concurrency Policy - AUIR termination for transportation concurrency with the use of ASI's. They are maintaining standards for the time being. Page 49 - Capitol Improvements - updated to increase impact fees and revenues associated with it. Projects included in schedule of Capitol Improvements. The sanitary sewer system was discussed to why Immokalee wasn't included or is private. It needs to be clarified and updated. Do.n Scott - Transportation Planning - sheets were handed out with wording changes. He covered the different pages with the changes. One change was added language on revenues, changes on the traffic circulation maps, and the different amendments. Some of the road improvements were discussed as some have not gone to the public yet. Changes to the checkbook system were mentioned. The comprehensive plan was discussed with landscaping, lighting, sidewalks, bike paths, buying right-of-way and raised design project by project. It was mentioned they have a commitment to have real time checkbook accounting in place within one year. Scott addressed the difference between the ten and twelve months and the 100th highest hour. Mr. Richardson feels the twelve months should be used and not the ten. Mr. Wolfley has a problem with the ten months also - he feels if you take out the high peaks you take out the low peaks also. Norm Feeder explained when they stack up all the hours of the year, the process used is 100th highest hour annual average daily traffic. Stack up every single hour throughout the' year then eliminate the top 100 - not a high and a low - because there may be accidents, special events or something unusual and a spiking occurs. Then take those out with the 100th hour being more typical, not the high and the low. He continued to explain the percentages. Mr. Midney felt they should let the Commissioners know they are in favor of the 12 months. Mr. Strain stated he could not support that. Discussion followed concerning the subject of the ten and twelve months and the traffic impact. As a consensus taken, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Midney favored the 10 months, Mr. Strain and Mr. Adelstein the 12 months. Mr. Wolfley was not sure. Concerns of Pine Ridge and Vanderbilt Beach Roads were discussed as constrained roadways. 13 November 7, 2002 Scott continued with the changes. Stan mentioned the other change was the modification to the language to a couple of policies in the Future Land Use Element to accommodate the elimination ofASI's - since it is not going to be eliminate them, they are recommending not adopt the changes to the Future Land Use Element. Public Speaker: David Ellis - He appreciated the Commission's consideration of the issues and will talk about the vesting issues next week. Al Zickella - WCI - complimented staff for keeping him and the industry up to date on the issues and the cooperation they have received. The Public Heating is closed and open for motion and discussion. Mr. Adelstein moved to recommend the amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with adoption, with the exclusion of the flue amendment, with the 4 page changes to the Transportation Element as passed out, with clarification on the issue of Immokalee water and sewer level of service standard. Seconded Mr. Strain. Carried 5-1 - Mr. Richardson voting No. Recessed at 2:00 PM Reconvened at 2:05 PM Revisiting Item 8. H - Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - the prior discussion was to work up language and incorporate it into the PUD to address concerns of phasing the project. The property is already approved for C 1 zoning and could move forward with 140,000 square feet under the current zoning and still do medical, dental etc. Phase 1 - the development project site will then be limited to traffic impact equivalent to it's current, and if approved, its previous C 1 zoning. Phase 2 - until such time additional improvements are made within the year of impact and it has been demonstrated by general excepted transportation practices the said improvements have sufficiently increased the Level Of Service of Pine Ridge Road to an acceptable Level Of Service so as to accommodate all or part of the opposed site impacts. Phase 3 - if someone comes in and the road impact ends up being excessive, they would wait until ultimate build out of their site until such time as the improvements were made such as to Golden Gate Interchange which would provide some relief to Pine Ridge Road. 14 November 7, 2002 Mr. Strain stated his thoughts were that they build out under Phase 1, the general office, medical/dental, and the retail in the project would wait until the road Level Of Service is "D" or equivalent. Mr. Garcia asked if they limited the square footage of retail, so it was no greater than what it would have been for medical/dental for the same square footage. Mr. Richardson is asking about constrained roadway. Mr. Feeder replied there is really only one roadway that is specifically on the basis of policy, which is a section of Vanderbilt Beach Road to Gulfshore Drive. Mr. Richardson is looking for a fail safe plan, so whenever they come in for a project and the roadway can't handle it, they should have some mechanism under health, safety and welfare saying not to put that much traffic on the roadway. Discussion followed on the future of other roadway improvements. Mr. Strains phasing is: one phase of 70,000 square feet, the second phase of 70,000 square feet doesn't get built until the road Level Of Service is "D" or approved Level Of Service at the time. Again discussion followed conceming the square footage and what they can build and when. Rich Yovanovich - would like to propose using the number of daily trips in the category of 3,656 daily trips and let that be the measuring stick. It could be a combination of office or retail but less than what they are proposing, under the current zoning, less than what they can do under the existing zoning, and have brought the number down by 1,000 trips per day. Mr. Richardson and Mr. Strain felt they have more control if they can do the square footage. Mr. Abemathy stated if an agreement can't be made a motion should be made. Rich felt he would like to continue to the November 21st meeting. Mr. Adelstein moved to continue the PDI-3003-AR-2562 until the November 21st meeting. Seconded Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Abernathy gave some ground rules for any speakers speaking on the next subject. There will be no dialogue, only information wanting to be relayed to the Commission. Those wishing to speak have 5 minutes unless they are speaking for a group of people- they then have 10 minutes if the others are not speaking. Don Schneider - Principal Planning - Collier Planning Services - Petition AR 2759 - Conditional Use for the Jail Center. 15 November 7, 2002 Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Disclosures - Mr. Adelstein met with JeffNunner and Ed Kent. The Petitioner is seeking to obtain approval for a Conditional Use 3, detention facilities and jails and public use district P in order to construct an addition to the Naples Jail Center. He showed the location of the facility on the overhead. The petitioner wants to construct a 3 story 140,079 foot addition to the center. The expansion has been covered in total by the DRI. It was approved by the BCC in 2000 for the entire project. It will take care of inmate processing and housing that will accommodate 512 additional inmate facilities. The Growth Management Plan consistency has been determined it is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Collier County GMP. It will not increase traffic. Visitation of inmates will take place off site. No traffic impact. The parking garage has been moved away from neighbors, no change in ingress and egress, and no effect on neighboring properties. Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward this to the BCC for approval. Mr. Strain asked about the phasing for the building J-3. Phase one for 40,000 square feet is going in and wondered how that falls into the DRI. Skip Kamp - Facilities Dept. -3 parts to the building has been approved - one already done - one on hold, the third being petitioned for today. Mr. Strain asked several questions concerning the documents and papers he read today being inconsistent with previous documents and getting approval if it is not necessary to get the approval. Skip stated if for some reason it could not be placed where it is, it would have to be disPlaced and moved elsewhere. It is a recognized Conditional Use in the zoning district. Ray Bellows- If this was a PUD it wouldn't have to go through a Conditional Use or any variances. Don talked about the height issue. A map was shown and Don said the County needs to think about this issue. Mr. Adelstein stated the County's height is 35 feet and that's what it should stay at and why is the jail at a higher standard. He feels there is room of approx 60-75 feet spreading out. If they can't build it properly and legally under the existing code, then it should be moved elsewhere. Give it a footprint that will allow it to go 35 feet high and accomplish the job. Don mentioned the criteria that jails are built by, (state and federal) is almost impossible to meet those height requirements. Mr. Adelstein felt they could put the two floors out, with a bigger footprint they would get the same capacity with two stories. Mr. Abemathy asked if the County Courthouse was prior to 1991. This is a building internal to a campus and not near a highway. Goodlette Road was discussed and he 16 November 7, 2002 didn't feel the case of the jail height and the height of building on Goodlette was similar. Ray Bellows stated the County has approved many height variances, through PUD amendments or variances with land related issues. This is such a diverse use within the Govemment Center complex needing space that each individual variance request needs to be looked at as it is presented. If they could go wider they would, but other issues are involved such as water, parking, and landscaping. There have been different zoning over the years with different heights. Discussion followed on the criteria, other areas shown on the map, history of zoning, and permitted heights. Mr. Richardson asked if there are other structures they should be aware of with the different heights. Building "L" - 94 feet and Building "F" - 96 feet. Mr. Adelstein asked if any buildings have been built after October 1991 over 35 feet high. The answer was "no". He stated it had been changed to 35 feet then; we have lived with it since then, and had no variances. Joe Schmitt stated Skip will to give a briefing on the entire Master Plan for the facility for the next 25 years. Need to see the bigger picture as Collier County is growing, and they are discussing what they can put there now or they will have to relocate the site at a larger cost to the taxpayers. This is to accommodate for future growth in the current Government Center. Haven't needed a variance since 1991 - that is why variances are done. Economically this needs to be in one location. The next item is 2909 - Parking Garage - request for 34 foot variance with height of 69 feet, for a 5 story parking garage. Marjorie wanted to make sure everyone knew the disclosures were for all 3 related items. Don stated it was advertised as 110 feet in height and given opposition voiced; the applicant dropped it to the 5 story which accommodates the current needs. Current requirements will be met. The 110 feet is in the future. Discussion followed on the cars per floor, and the space on Horseshoe Drive. Chief Greg Smith-Collier County Sheriffs Office - They are currently renting their building and as long as the sheriff has resided in the court house complex, they have stored evidence in the yard. Sometimes evidence has to be gotten on short notice for court appearances. It is very convenient for the judicial system to have it as close to the 17 November 7, 2002 courts as possible. They store cars, boats and other things in the compound that need to be placed as strategically to their citadel as possible. The offices off Horseshoe Drive are not manned properly. Mr. Adelstein discussed the parking garage and evidence storage for the Sheriffs office. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the storage area, parking, consolidation, and numbers for the amount of space for essential items versus ones that could be impounded elsewhere. Chief Smith stated he could provide some numbers for them. Mr. Adelstein was also concerned about safety and talked about having an access to the area and transportation taking a look into the roadways and turn lanes. Skip addressed the different phases of the Master Plan. A presentation was done on the overhead. He showed the members what it will look like 20-30 years from now. The traffic situation was addressed with the turning lanes and protecting the rights of the people with congestion. Applicant - Mr. Jeff Nunner - AEC National-representing the petitioner - addressing the parking garage he stated they are requesting a 69 foot high building. He stated there will be approx.100 cars per floor with the first floor for evidence for the sheriff's office. The height is being kept as low as possible for the Glades residents and any other property owners plus a cost and economical factor. The four floors housing the cars are 20 feet high each. The first floor will be approx. 16 feet with 22 feet at its highest peak. He talked about the dorm housing and the different heights of the other floors. Mr. Richardson questioned his concem for the first floor for evidence. The open space on the lots adjacent on Horseshoe is open and three times the size of the building on each side. Putting evidence on that piece of property was not explored. It is very important to have the evidence stay under the watchful eye of the sheriff and the Chief said this is the best place for it to be. When no longer needed it is disposed of. Mr. Adelstein felt they could lower the height of the first floor by 10 feet. Mr. Abemathy stated when the building is built another 10 feet will not be noticed. He felt they should accommodate the sheriff and not have to have the sheriff's department track evidence back and forth to Horseshoe Drive. The area on the fifth floor of the parking garage is a stair tower on two comers and an elevator. If a hydraulic elevator -the projection is about 15 feet above the fifth floor, if a traction elevator is used - it adds another 10-12 feet. They have not made a final decision at this time. Skip mentioned the elevator towers are exempt from the height requirements. Speakers: 18 November 7, 2002 Ted Beisler - President Coalition of Homeowners Assn. - many of his questions were answered but one of his comments was that he is pleased with thc County putting in some of their services in other parts of the County. He feels it will help a lot and keep many of the people out of that area because them would be more traffic to add to the congestion already there. Many in the area are very concerned with the impact it will bring by the expansion for thc Government Center. They realize the DRI is already in place. Hc discussed thc right in and right out tums and signalization. Hc doesn't feel that signalization is a good idea. If thc parking garage was moved closer to thc church some of thc traffic would be removed. Ken Drum - President of East Naples Civic Assoc. - He addressed the effect on neighborhoods and felt they should make every effort to lessen impacts on the local neighborhoods. He knows the jail facility is needed and discussed the variance. The standard is not being looked at, in favor of the variances. He stated it remains to be seen as far as thc traffic impacts with thc jail expansion. He feels the County should explore mom of thc traffic situation. He has sccn increases of taxes, and paying for increase of services or facilities. He would like the Commission to consider the neighborhoods and the impact they have with thc impact on thc taxpayers. Just because the money is available, doesn't mean it has to be spent. Hc would like to see a reduction in thc taxes. Jim Whalen - He stated many issues he had have been discussed. He feels the variance should be rejected. If opening the door by approving the variance for the public section how can they justify closing it to the private sector. When a request exceeds 100%, are there any standards from the beginning? If approved, there will be a heated confrontation between the public and private sector and the growth sector. This can be avoided by more thoughtful and courageous planning. Mr. Wolfley answered that the Commission hears about variances every two weeks for various issues, and they do not shut the door to the private sector. They try to keep a balance. Elizabeth Roll - Glades Country Club - there has been a great deal of discussion with their owners and reiterate about the entrance and exit with restrictions. The Government Center is their neighbor and appreciates them heating their concerns. Don Schneider remarked they look at each variance independently and the applicant has to show hardship or reason that would request a variance. They are all treated the SalTle. It was asked if the first floor could be reduced and stated it could be a health and welfare issue. Also asked about the jail facilities in Immokalee and possibly using the center there. There will be an expansion in that facility and the breakdown of various classes of prisoners. 19 November 7, 2002 Chief Greg Smith stated 80% of prisoners are pretrial attained with immediate need access to the courts and 20% sentenced inmates. Of the 20% they house about 80% of those at the Immokalee facility and the new facility there will increase the capacity by 100 or more inmates. These whole issues have been studied since 1989, with this being their third workup for strategic planning and feel they are addressing their concerns to accomplish those concerns immediately. The Public Heating is closed for motion and discussion. Marjorie suggested the order to follow should be the Garage Variance first or the Conditional Use for the jail expansion and then the Variance for the jail second and third or an alternative being the Jail Expansion Conditional Use first followed by the Jail Variance and the Garage Variance. Mr. Abernathy felt they should do the Conditional Use Variance first, then the Jail Variance and then the Garage. Mr. Midney can understand the neighbors not wanting to have high rises in their back yards but the jail and parking both need to be there because of the court house and parking because more traffic will be made on the roads diving around looking for a parking place. Other County services as expanding may look at relocating. But he feels the parking and jail need to be there. He also stated he has a son in the jail facility and has expressed his concern for the overcrowding. Many are sleeping on the floors and in tents. Palm Drive is a concern and gets backed up but stated other routes can be taken. Mr. Strain is dissatisfied with the Federal Regulations they are required on building to certain heights. Mr. Strain moved recommendation of approval for petition CU-2002-AR-2759 with the stipulation of entering and exiting onto Palm Drive being a right in - right out only. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Strain moved recommendation of approval for Petition VA-2002-AR-2908 Naples Jail Center Expansion. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried 5-1 - with Mr. Adelstein abstaining. Marjorie stated Mr. Adelstein (under Florida Law) cannot abstain unless there is a voting conflict or an appearance of an impropriety a Commissioner cannot abstain. Her office has consulted on the issue and finds no voting conflict of interest, but also an alternative of an impropriety in case Mr. Adelstein felt it was an appearance of an impropriety. Mr. Abernathy stated Mr. Adelstein lives in that area but Mr. Adelstein stated he will vote "yes:" 20 November 7, 2002 The above motion carries unanimously with a 6-0 vote. Mr. Strain moved recommendation of approval for Petition VA-2002-AR-2909 Collier County Government Center Parking Garage Companion Item. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Schmitt commented that in reference to the LDC - the Planning Commission approved 8-0 to make it a Conditional Use and the Board approved it as a "Permitted Use". Language was included to say "buying in bulk in selling to farmers in wholesale only" and listed stipulations. It would have to come back through the Planning process again if someone wants to ask for a Permitted Use. This was the Immokalee fuel bulk storage issue. Mr. Richardson stated the Naples Park Community Planning effort is launching a kick-off on November 15th at the Naples Park Elementary School at 7:00 PM followed with other activities. He encourages the involvement of the community for the redevelopment of Naples Park. 10. 11. 12. 13. New Business - none Public Comment Items - none Discussion of Addenda Mr. Richardson asked about setting up a discussion on a Hearing Officer on the next agenda. They have some concerns about the process. Mr. Schmitt will put on the Agenda and feels the Planning Commission should express their concerns in a memorandum with some sort of format to the BCC. Adjournment: Being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting adjourned at 4:00PM. 21 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION November 15, 2002 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 NELSON MARINE CONSTRUCTION BEN NELSON 10530 WILSON ST. BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-2918, MCCULLOUGH, PAUL Dear Mr. Nelson: On Thursday, November 7, 2002, the Collier County Planning approved Petition No. BD-2002-AR-2918. A copy of Resolution No. 02-09 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerely~ Ross Gochenaur Planner RG/Io Enclosure CC: PAUL D & LINDA E MC CULLOUGH 197 San Mateo Dr., Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) ~ Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File Commission heard and Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. colliergov, net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 02-09 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2002-AR-2918 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 30-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 50-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for th~ property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement haw been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21.; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given ali interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered al matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collie County, Florida, that: Petition Number BD-2002-AR-2918, filed on behalf of Paul D. and Linda E. McCullough by Nelso Marine Construction, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 32, Southport on the Bay Unit i, as described in Plat Book 15, Pages 51-53, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 30-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwi,, allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 50-toot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein sai property is located, subject to the following conditions: Before Collier County will issue a permit to construct the approved extension, corresponding permits,, letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department, Environmental Protection must be provided. Prior to tinal approval of this dock extension, reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (. inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring piling whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway. 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. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required certificate of completion and t 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 ~' ff~ day of ~¥"~ , 2002. ATTEST: G/ ,rTicm U n , m ie IrOaPtTnt and Environmental COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA KENNETH L. ABERNATI4Y, Chairman (~~, to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney