Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/21/2002 RNovember 21, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 21, 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 Lindy Adelstein Dwight Richardson David Wolfley Mark Strain Russell Budd Paul Midney (Excused) Lora Jean Young (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Fred Reischl, Principal Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Marjorie Student, Assistant Attorney Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Serv. Greg Garcia, Transportation AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2002, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FL 2. 3. 4. 5. o NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CC'PC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSUR~ 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 17, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: PAUL MIDNEY, & LORA JEAN YOUNG OUT 11/21/02, FRANK FRY and RUSSELL BUDD OUT 11/07/02 BCC REPORT- RECAPS - OCTOBER 22, 2002 & NOVEMBER 5, 2002 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (LUNCH 12:00 P.M.- 1:00 P.1V0 A. VA-2002-AR-2615, Daniel Lyons, of McWard Architects, Inc., representing Max and Valerie Duarte, requesting a 9- foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 16 feet in order to enclose existing lanai for property is located at 1171 Imperial Drive, further described as Lot 50, Park Place West, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) VA-2002-AR-2705, Steven Jacobs, of Tristar Development of Naples, LLC, requesting n 10-foot variance from the required 20-foot front yard setback to 10 feet and a 5 foot variance from the required 20 foot minirtlllm separation between structures to 15 feet. Property is located at 4800 Yacht Harbor Drive, further described as Lot 1.1, Tract M, Windstar Subdivision, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred ReiscM) 10. 12. PUDA-2002-AR-251'/, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of R WA, Inc., representing The Ronto Group, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD which acts as an amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD by deleting hotel, motel and transient lodgings as a permitted use and adding a maxinmm of 112 multi-family dwelling units as a p~o,ltted use and increasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 180 feet for property located on the north side of Walkerbilt Road and on the west side of Tamiami Trail North, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Do PUDA-2002-AR-2736, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Gary A. Link; Tadpole Holdings LLC, requesting an amendment to The Falls of Naples PUD by amending language to the PUD document to establish a mini~lum building setback for accessory structures such as awnings, screen enclosures and the like for property located on the southwest comer of Pine Ridge Road and Ah-pon-Pulling Road, in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Colher County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDA-2002-AR-2702, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, representing Emerald Lakes Joint Venture, Westbury Properties, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Lands End Preserve PUD having the effect of revising the entire PUD document to bring it up to current development standards, modifying the PUD Ma~ter Plan to reflect cun'ent wetland jurisdictional determinations and refinements to the residential development tracts, decreasing the total number of dwelling units from 786 to a maximum of 725, and increasing the maximum height limit of the multi-family structures to allow 20 stories over two levels of parking for property located in Sections 4 and 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 262.9~ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDZ-2001-AR-l?49, William L. Hoover, of Hoover planning & Development, Inc., representing Mark L. Lindner, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Ag/cultural and "PUD" Planned Unit Development to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a commercial shopping center for property located at the northwest comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 33.454- acres. (Coordinator:. Ray Bellows) PUDZ-2002-AR-2200, Rich Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman and $ohnson, representing First Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., requesting a rezone from "C-I" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as lVIi~ion Square PUD for property located at 1595 Pine Ridge Road, in Section 10, Township ,;9 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.5~ acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) H. CU-02-AR-2476, Tim Maloney, Maloney & Sons Equipment, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "7" of the "E" Estates [ earthmining on property located on 46t~ Street N.E., Golden Gate Estates, Unit 45, Tract 119, Section 4, Township 48 South, East, consisting of 6.00 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) OLD BUSINESS: Discussion of Hearing Examiner NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 11/21/02 CCPC AGENDA/SM/LO November 21, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kenneth Abernathy at 8:30 AM. Before the Pledge of Allegiance was recited, Chairman Abernathy made the following statement: "At the conclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance, I ask that you remain standing for a moment in honor of our respected and cherished colleague, Frank J. Fry, who served with great distinction as a member of the Commission for the past year. Mr. Fry passed away last Saturday, November 16th, after a brief illness." Roll call was taken - a quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - Item 8A, Variance VA-2002-AR-2615 has been continued indefinitely. Item 8C, PUD-2002-AR-2517 continued to December 5th, 2002. Item 8E, PUDA-2002-AR-2702 continued to December 5th, 2002. Item 8G, PUDZ-2002-AR-2200 would like to have it moved to the front of the Agenda. Mr. Budd moved to delay Item 8A indefinitely, reschedule 8C & 8E for the December 5th meeting. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Strain asked staff that before they hear Item 8E, they could have a strike-thru of the old PUD to the new, a traffic impact statement, and a copy of the environmental impact statement. Mr. Bellows will have it for them before they hear it. Carried 6-0. Mr. Budd moved to have Item 8G moved to the first Item of the hearings. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried 6-0. Approval of Minutes- October 17th, 2002 Mr. Budd moved to approve the minutes of October 17th, 2002. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried 6-0. Planning Commission Absences: Mr. Richardson will be absent for the November 19th meeting. BCC Report-Recaps-October 22, 2002 & November 5, 2002 Mr. Bellows stated last Tuesday the CCB heard the Founders Plaza Petition by James O'Gara to amend the PUD to allow specialty uses. The issue of overnight storage of parking commercial vehicles could not be resolved, so being continued until the next meeting in Dec. The Pelican Marsh PUD to increase the medical office square footage limitations was to be worked out with the tenants prior to the next meeting. There were concerns about inadequate parking. 2 November 21, 2002 The variance for the Manatee Two Towers was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. They gave staff direction to explore some easements because of some density issues. 7. Chairman's Report- none 8. Advertised Public Hearings: G. PUDX-2002-AR-2200 - Rich Yovanovich representing First Baptist Church requesting a rezone from "C-1 to "PUD", known as Mission Square PUD for 1595 Pine Ridge Road. Disclosures - Mr. Richardson had a meeting with the members of the First Baptist Church, Deacon, Pastor, Associate Pastor of Business Administrator and Realtor of L.I. Buddy Smith. Discussions were about the concems of the project and possible changes that will be brought out today. Mr. Strain. Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Adelstein either met with or talked with Mr. Yovanovich. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Fred Reischl- Planning Services - stated he did not have a formal presentation but Mr. Parry had worked out a traffic analysis study and will present to the Committee. Petitioner - Mr. Yovanovich - a traffic analysis was handed to all members. At the last meeting there was a question of phasing the project due to concerns of traffic on Pine Ridge road. They have considered alternatives and made a proposal. The original petition was for 140,000 square feet of retail and or office space. They are proposing to revise the PUD to cap the project intensity of 100,000 square feet in lieu of the 140,000 square feet. Then further cap how the 140,000 square feet can be allocated. Capped at a "maximum" of 85,000 square feet being retail and "minimum" of 15,000 square feet would be office if the entire project is developed. They all feel this addresses the concerns of traffic on Pine Ridge Road. They have done a trip generated rate to show the impact. The total cap is 100,000 square feet regardless of the uses. Jeff Parry - Wilson Miller - he told the Committee they used Medical/Office for the data on the trip generation. The total of the commercial they are proposing generates less traffic than that developed with a mix of office. Mr. Strain felt it was a fair compromise. Mr. Richardson asked Greg Garcia at what point would the concurrency further assist in handling the traffic. Greg stated Norm Feder is working on what gets approved. All three projects will impact traffic patterns on Pine Ridge Road and will benefit or come under the new concurrency procedures. Mr. Abernathy stated that the compromise was to satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission - he wanted to know if this was the same plan they will take to the BCC. Mr. Yovanovich said it will be the same as what is being presented today. November 21, 2002 The Public Hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to forward Petition RZ-2002-AR-2200 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the revisions presented. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 6-0. Be VA-2002-AR-2705 - Steven Jacobs, Tristar Development of Naples, requesting a variance for the required 20-foot front yard setback to 10 feet, and a 5-foot variance from the required 20-foot minimum separation between structures to 15 feet. Property is at 4800 Yacht Harbor Drive. Disclosures - None Those testifying were swom in by Mr. Abemathy. Fred Reischl - the petitioner came in with a site plan within the Windstar Sub- division. Fred showed the map on the overhead. The Homeowners Association had concerns of being too close to the golf course. They received a letter from the Master Association that they would support the variance. Recently in the week a lady stated she was going to attend this meeting. The Association saw no public concerns or neighborhood problems, but if there are some concerns brought up today, they may revise the recommendation. There was discussion concerning oncoming traffic coming around the comer. There are individual driveways across the street and the aerial map was again looked at carefully. It was mentioned the speed limit is 20 MPH. Mr. Strain asked about the side yard variance and Fred said it was no longer necessary. The road in front of the property is a public road. Mr. Strain talked about the stacking in front of the garage. They did show that a car 18 feet would protrude into the right-of-way but not into the travel lane. Stacking is allowed protruding into the Right of way. The size and number of units has been addressed. The utilities are being vacated. Mr. Richardson is concerned about the right-of-way and making exceptions. Fred stated the Developer is working with the Homeowners Assn. and both sides felt the application was a good compromise. He didn't want a precedent to be set. Ray Bellows mentioned they have amended the LDC to be more stringent with the vehicle overhang, or overhang over sidewalks. Because it is a private road and not a public road it is unique. Petitioner - Mike Whalen - Tristar - Mike mentioned they have submitted everything and been approved by the County. They have had meetings with the Master Assn. of Windstar, the Homeowners Assn. of Windward Cay and the Golf Club. He displayed a diagram. He stated when they move the building, it will cause a hardship on the developer (Tristar) but are doing it to keep peace and harmony. November 21, 2002 One building is half finished, starting building number two and building three on hold regarding today's outcome. He feels there has been a good repoire and harmony among all involved. SPEAKERS: Warren Mattiello - President of the Leeward Homeowners Assn. - his association is directory across the street. They have 16 units in their association and is representing 15 of them. The other person is the Realtor selling the units. He stated they were not aware of the approval process and neither he nor his neighbors received any notification. They are opposed to any variance that would bring the buildings closer to the road. He was wondering why the neighbors were not contacted. He feels this would be an eyesore with the type of buildings being built. He thinks it is a safety concern coming out of the driveways. Mr. Wolfley stated Mr. Mattiello knew there would be some buildings there when he bought and also noticed that his building is turned and wondered if Mr. Mattiello knew why. He did not. He stated he did not know there were going to be that many with the density. Notification is done with notices being sent along with a sign in that area. They have a right to build 18 units and this is the spot that is available. Mr. Abernathy summed it up that one of the set back buildings is going to be 10 feet closer to the street than it would have been otherwise. The committee referred to the map quite regularly. The 10 feet was discussed at length. Debra Bruner - Windstar Master Assn. - Mr. Abemathy asked if they were agreeable to the zero setbacks the petitioner was originally going to do. She said they have kept them apprised of everything they planned, so "yes" they were agreeable. They were concerned that the tract they are on - which was proposed for 48 units and 30 are already built - and with 18 more coming in, they wanted to be good neighbors and consider the golf course members as well as the members of Windstar. Numerous meetings were held in working together and they felt they tried to accommodate everyone. Mike Whalen - the Real Estate Agent lives in Leeward Cay and received a notification through the mail. He was shocked hearing no one was notified. Michael Gracie - General Manager Windstar - the club members go on record of supporting the project. Mike Spence -he mentioned he received a letter of notification on November 1 st. He was notified last year there would be two buildings. He is concerned about the 10 foot setback with regards to safety, esthetics and property values. His building showed a 20 foot setback and not within the setback. November 21, 2002 Mr. Richardson wondered if a 5 foot variance would be feasible. The building would be 5 foot closer yet 5 feet further away from the road. Instead of 10 feet in the front - go to 15 feet which gives it a 5 foot variance instead of a 10 foot variance. The Petitioner said they would have to change their drawings, reroute utilities and drainage, and with the resubmitting and cost of construction, it would be very costly to change the variance from the 10 to the 5 feet. They have had many meetings and conversations and have been working together in a positive way. There is a time element involved, being that they would like to go into construction during the season. He would like to stick with the 10 feet. Mr. Adelstein mentioned the 5 feet wouldn't be enough for the golfers - he feels they should leave it as is or make it 10 feet. He is not in favor of the 5 feet. The Public Heating was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to forward Petition VA-2002-AR-2705 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with recommendation of approval. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried Unanimously 6-0. De PUDA-2002-AR-2736 - D. Wayne Arnold of Grady Minor & Assoc. representing Emerald Lakes Joint Venture, Westbury Properties requesting an amendment to the Lands End Preserve PUD. They want to bring it up to current development standards in modifying the Master Plan to reflect current wetland jurisdictional determination and refinements to the residential development. They are decreasing the number of dwelling units from 786 to a maximum of 725 and increase the maximum height of multi- family to allow 20 stories over two levels of parking for the property. Disclosures - none. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Mr. Ray Bellows - Planning - the petitioner wishes to amend The Falls of Naples PUD documents to establish minimum yard requirements from Airport Pulling road right of way for accessory structures. The PUD currently requires a setback of 50 feet. They are requesting to reduce the minimum setback from 50 to 25 feet from CR-31. Ray used the overhead visulizer to show the area. MacArthur's is South and Arbys North of the interior road. Staff has reviewed the compatibility issues and determined it would not affect the landscape buffer or problems with reducing the setback for the PUD for accessory structures and recommend approval. Mr. Strain asked who the screen enclosure is for - Ray noted MacArthur's primarily, but not subject to only that building but all structures. November 2 t, 2002 Mr. Abernathy felt the wording could be more specific and wondered if they could say "Accessory Structures shall "be limited to" - screen enclosures, canopies, awnings and similar structures." If they wish to do something different, they should state so at this time. Ray agreed. Mr. Strain stated in the memorandum under "Requested Action", it states they are "repealing" the Falls of Naples PUD, yet the text of the application states they are amending it - he wonders which it is. Ray States it is an Amendment. Marjorie Student - Assistant Attorney - agrees. She stated the document she reviewed was an Amendment which showed strike through and underline. She did not review any repeal. She did not know what staff advertised it for, and the title she looked at for Board of County Commission advertising did not say repeal. Ray mentioned that the PUD document attached has the revised page - the PUD to PUD repealing the previous ordinance and he will submit this to Marjorie Student that reflects the PUD to PUD. There was some confusion as to what they are doing on this amendment and wanted to make sure it was not an appeal. Ray said the PUD has the revised language in it. Marjorie again stated she reviewed an Amendment and not a PUD to PUD and what has been advertised to the Board. She worked on a strike through Amendment and not a PUD to PUD. Ray agreed and will correct the problem. Marjorie will discuss it with staff and make sure it stays as an Amendment for the BCC. Mr. Strain mentioned the 280,000 square feet developed and asked if they are putting any more square footage in the accessory structures. No tables, no seats, nothing else? Ray said they can have outdoor seating and if already there, already counts for the square footage. They wish to put a roof over it. Discussion followed on adding square footage in which Ray stated his understanding is that placing a screen enclosure will not change the square footage. Mr. Strain addressed some transportation issues in which seemed to be some inconsistencies with the setbacks. He asked if they need to modify them. Ray stated it will be clarified with some language changes to the "related structures". Marjorie said this may be a conflict but it was advertised as an Amendment and can't do a PUD to PUD when an Amendment is what she reviewed. It has been signed and she will make sure there is not an inconsistency in the PUD Document. Mr. Strain quoted from page 4-5 Item "G" and page 4-7, #3. It discusses the setbacks and footage for the landscape buffer strips along Pine Ridge Road and Airport Pulling Road. It the setbacks are reduced for the accessory structure at 25 feet and they enact Item 3 -it would only leave 13 feet. He is wondering if that is correct under this PUD. Ray said he would have to study that issue. 7 November 21, 2002 Petitioner - Wayne Arnold - Grady Minor Engineering - representing Tadpole Holdings - owners of MacArthur's Chop & Crab House - he states this affects MacArthurs and Arbys to the north with the intent to put a permanent cover over the outdoor seating for MacArthurs. He displayed aerials of the area to obtain a setback for accessory structures. The PUD references only a 50 foot set-back for all buildings. They are trying to be consistent with the Carillon. Addressing the transportation issue he stated all the commitments have been made. The County could always come back and acquire additional right of way regardless of its setback. The right of way needs have been met; a 25 foot mature landscape buffer in place and the existing small retaining wall outdoors is approx. 26 feet from the property line. This is where they intend to put a roof structure. He was not sure what the ad read, but if there is other language that needs to be changed or added for consistency now is the time to do it. He has no problem with Mr. Abernathys suggested language change. Mr. Richardson discussed the understanding of limiting it to the MacArthurs Chop & Crab House. Mr. Arnold stated he is not being paid by Arbys to be there and he would not have an objection to limiting it to MacArthurs property. Mr. Adelstein had a problem with adding square footage to the building because of the screen enclosure and being built out to the last requirement plus extending it beyond the capacity that it is approved for. Mr. Arnold told the committee there is 270,812 square feet developed in the Center, with approx. 9,000 square feet left to be developed under that PUD. The Public Heating was closed for discussion and motion. It was noted the motion should have language suggested by Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Richardson and the inconsistencies be consistent. Mr. Russell Budd moved to forward the recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the PUD limited to the MacArthurs restaurant property, that the appropriate advertisement for the BCC to hear this be properly modified and clarified with the County Attorneys office (whether it's an Amendment or repealed the PUD to PUD), and to substitute "be limited "to" instead of "include". Seconded Mr. Richardson. Carried unanimously 6-0. 10:00 AM -Break 10:10 AM - Reconvened F. PUDZ-2001-AR-1749 - William Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development representing Mark Lindner Trustee, requesting a rezone from 8 November 21, 2002 "A" Rural Agriculture & PUD to PUD for a commercial shopping center for property located at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Blvd (C.R.951) consisting of 33.45 plus acres. Disclosures - Mr. Wolfley spoke with a developer nearby. Mr. Strain spoke with Richard Yovanovich at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Richardson also spoke with him. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Ray Bellows - Planning - the petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject site from Agriculture and the Golden Pond PUD to a new PUD to be known as the Mission Hills PUD. He showed on the visulizer the location being on the NW comer of Collier Blvd. and Vanderbilt Beach Road. It is intended for convenient shopping and personal service facilities limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. He showed the Future Land Use map. The site was designated for the Comprehensive Planning process to allow for these types of uses. The Comprehensive Planning Dept. had reviewed the PUD for consistency and the petitioner has revised their list of permitted uses to be consistent with the neighborhood commercial type uses. There will be approx. 6,280 week day trips that would result in 142 peak hour trips in the morning and 585 PM peak hour trips. Trip assignments and proposed improvements of the roadways indicate the project would not impact traffic flow in the area. The purpose creating the project is to prevent longer distance trips by the residents in the area to find the same types of services by providing them in a neighborhood setting. Environmental review showed staff recommended approval and when reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council approved it with a 7-0 vote. There was a stipulation that a minimum of 4.25 acres of native vegetation be preserved on site. He showed an aerial photograph of the agricultural land for the different areas and their uses. Staff has not received any letters or correspondence to the petition and petitioner has held meetings on their own with residents of the local areas. There was a question concerning the exact total acreages - Ray will go over the information to make sure it is accurate. Mr. Strain referred to Page 4 concerning the Environmental section with the preserve figures and open space. Page 9 of the PUD - he asked if the side yards are such as the wedding cake design, if so, then there were problems within the LDC. They may want to consider looking into this. Greg Garcia - Transportation - he told the committee they have projects moving forward on both roadways because Mr. Strain was concerned with traffic. The discrepancy with numbers is because of right of ways. There are indications now of 6 laning instead of 4 laning as they move forward with the widening of 951 north. Mr. Strain asked if he would recommend that this project not move forward until the 6 laning is complete. Mr. Garcia felt they are coordinating it with the roadway completion. Utility issues also need to be addressed. November 21, 2002 Mr. Strain asked about the wording in the PUD stating the applicant and the neighboring property owners shall be responsible for the cost of the traffic signal system. He asked how the applicant can commit to the property owners to pay for the cost. Greg answered that the County use to participate in their fair share, and feel traffic lights impact the level of service and are triggered by the secondary. Because of that the secondary should pay for them. Future PUD's will find this same language. The applicant can negotiate among themselves and the County doesn't have to be in the middle nor a party being responsible for the initial cost. When the signal is in place, the County takes it over and maintains it. Greg mentioned they are giving Loop Road to the County as long as it meets County standards etc. It provides the area to the Northwest and North getting to the Loop Road without getting out on 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. A private school is coming on the West side of Wolf Road and another one the North side and east of 951 off Tree Farm Road. This will provide a shopping center so the public does not have to go all the way on Immokalee, West or South. Mr. Strain asked Ray Bellows about the Golden Pond PUD being removed and this one taking it over. The Golden Pond PUD, had quite an amount of wetland preserves set aside, but looking at the PUD as he sees it today, there is no wetland preserves being preserved. He is wondering how wetlands can be preserved in one PUD and then they vanish after another PUD is taken over. Ray felt the Petitioner can answer that question. Mr. Richardson noticed on the Master Plan there is a connection going to the North, but not proposed to the Western properties. Greg stated during time of STP they would look more closely at the situation. The drawings are preliminary at this time and staff will work with the properties to make sure the access benefits them as well as the public. Mr. Richardson also asked if they are taking into account, concerning the traffic counts and volume, the background traffic from other projects from Vanderbilt Road and 951. Greg said they are still working with the consultants. Some of the studies were old and the data was older than some of the other projects as they came forward. Other PUD's coming on line need to address those counts and volumes. Mr. Richardson isn't quite sure how the other traffic is going to fit into this project and retain an adequate level of service. If it is going to be phased into the timing of the road completions with the 6 laning, it would be beneficial. He does not quite see that they are speaking to this issue. Greg stated it will be phased, but need to clarify the language as to how it will be phased. Mr. Strain asked about the advertisement, how the ad read and if those ads could be put into their packets. He wondered if the ad referenced the types of commercial uses. Joe Schmitt - Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services - he stated they have made progress in the public meeting announcements, but this is the 10 November 21, 2002 public hearing and they have worked out language and are pursuing the changes to make it a little more user friendly. Mr. Abernathy wanted to state for the record that the Clerk of Courts stated a number of people are acting as lobbyist and need to be registered with the Clerk. Many have not done so. Mr. Brock's opinion is that the County Commissioners may be committing a crime by not inquiring and therefore facilitating it as a crime by the lobbyists. The County Attorneys office representative feels it applies to the Planning Commission as well. Starting with the December meetings he will ask each lobbyist if they are registered in accordance with the Ordinance. They are all under oath when speaking. Petitioner - Rich Yovonavich - representing the petitioner - According to the Comprehensive Plan they are in the Vanderbilt Beach Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub- District. They had the property designated two years ago for commercial uses. The model for the project was the Pelican Strand Commercial provisions. Every one of the uses is consistent with the Pelican Strand PUD except for Hotel/Motels. A public meeting was held with Vanderbilt Country Club and were no concerns regarding the types of uses, being primarily a grocery store anchored shopping center. Some of the uses beyond "C3" were reviewed by long range planning and eliminated the uses that were questionable. The Master Plan was intended to show opportunities for interconnection. The opportunity is provided for any future developments. They are intending to do 150,000 square feet first and the remaining 50,000 square feet at a later time. They realize they are subject to concurrency like any other project. They have the Loop Road and are setting aside right of ways so there are no issues or problems. They are working with staff coordinating the transportation. They are willing to phase the project as stated earlier. Mr. Strain said they wouldn't request any CO's until at least a minimum of 4 laning was done on Vanderbilt Road and 951. Mr. Yovanovich did not state that. Widening of the roads is the only thing that will take traffic off the roads in that area. Ray Bellows felt there were other issues that will make this work and the project would be under the road expansion in regards to getting a CO until the utilities are done. Discussion followed on the traffic concerns and when the project will be completed. Discussion followed on the issue of this project being like the Pelican Strand Shopping area. Several uses were discussed. Mr. Yovanovich stated there is an agreement with the adjacent property owners for the construction of the loop road. He also stated they will put in language that is found in the Code that addresses the "C3" and "C4" districts on how to measure the setbacks. Bob Mulhere - RWA Consulting Inc. - on behalf of the petitioner - he has a copy of the list of approved uses for the Pelican Strand from 1997 for the Commission. He 11 November 21, 2002 outlined they had gone over the list with planning staff and eliminated all the uses they felt were objectionable. He displayed a map of the center and covered several items with the Commission. He did state that the Environmental staff reviewed the petition and the conditions and stipulations that they are adhering to. They are consistent with the newly adopted urban wetland standards that the Commission has heard and endorsed. They will provide a Type D 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the arterial system and also plant the buffer with enhanced landscaping with some native vegetation requirements. Again the different uses were discussed and mentioned. Mr. Mulhere does not object to removing some of the uses, but before they do, they want the Commissioners to know they have a commitment from Albertsons, and a drug store and it will be a neighborhood type shopping center. It will not be a regional shopping center. That's what is in the public record. Their intent is to allow a variety or mixture of uses that will allow the shopping center to provide services to the residents. If there is something objectionable, they can eliminate them. He read several uses that had been eliminated. Ray Bellows wanted to make the point that the zoning today has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended at the time of two years ago for this particular sub-district. It doesn't say it has to be the same as the Pelican Strand Commercial Shopping Center just similar to a neighborhood commercial. Staff has spent many months concerning the uses that are acceptable. There is always room for finer tuning and everyone may look at different ideas of what is compatible. But he feels it is irrelevant to compare it with the Pelican Strand. It would probably have been better if Pelican Strand was never mentioned. The Board had said they liked Pelican Strand, they want it to look like Pelican Strand, and will limit it to 200,000 square feet just like Pelican Strand is. Discussion followed between Mr. Strain and Mr. Mulhere concerning the uses. Mr. Strain was concerned about bowling allies and drive-in theatres. Mr. Mulhere has no objection to the elimination of the two mentioned uses and stated his intent is neighborhood or community commercial uses, and thought that is what they achieved. He mentioned the different uses they intent to use. Mr. Weeks asked that smaller restrictions be recommended. It did not come out in the final document. Ray said it didn't come out because it was part of ongoing negotiations because the Comprehensive Plan was approved prior to the LDC Amendment that placed the maximum square footage on some of the uses. Mr. Mulhere felt they have addressed a number of concerns. Jeremy Sterk - Baylan Environmental - the wetlands on Golden Pond is a similar case as to the Eboli PUB identifying wetlands and environmental assessments that were not validated by jurisdictional now in place. There were no concerns of the wetlands shown on Golden Pond. They are non-wetlands. 12 November 21, 2002 Mr. Richardson felt the main issue is the timing of traffic from the project and other projects onto a 2 lane roadway. Staff doesn't think it will be a problem because of the timing of utilities, the 4 laning of the roadway and the timing of getting the project off the ground. If that is all true, and the timing is accurate, it may not be a problem. Greg Garcia wanted to clarify that the roadway will be 4 to 6 lanes. Mr. Wolfley lives off 951 shopping at Publix and this would him help in going only half as far as he does now. Ray Bellows mentioned the Traffic Impact Roadway Study does not show a level of deficiency. It may come together with the timing, but he is not guaranteeing it. Mr. Wolfley does agree that this will take traffic off certain roads and relive traffic. Greg stated with the improvement of Vanderbilt and the intersection the improvement of 951 as discussed will be along the frontage of their property of 951. The widening will already be in place as part of the project. It should tie in with the construction plans. The widening will be in place on 951 in front of the shopping center. The applicant will have to comply with the concurrency amendment when they apply for the SDP. Greg stated they can incorporate some language relevant to the concurrency in the PUD language. The Public Hearing was closed and opens for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain feels adding additional square footage is going to add traffic. It will impact the area. He is concerned about 951 to Immokalee being 4 laned or better. Mr. Richardson feels uncomfortable of having policy positions by staff and Commissioners to allow certain leeways to occur. He is concerned about the safety and welfare of the public. He would not like to see this project introduce traffic onto 951 until the 4 laning is completed up to Immokalee Road. Mr. Strain agreed. Mr. Budd agreed there is questionable policy in place but the BCC, as an elected body, does set policy and if anyone else chooses to set policy they can run for the Board. The Planning Commissions roll is to make their opinion based upon competent and credible testimony as to whether the petitions brought before them are in compliance with policy and code. Mr. Yovanovich stated they are in compliance with the existing policies and laws adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. He has no idea of the timing on the road by the County, it could be delayed at some point and feels the Planning Commission has to do what Mr. Budd said. Mr. Budd moved to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff's stipulations. Also to 13 November 21, 2002 clarify the correction of Item 30 be reworded to close the loop hole for additional uses and eliminate bowling alleys and drive-in theatre uses. The 150,000 square feet is committed in Phase 1 and 50,000 square feet Phase 2. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Abernathy stated Pine Ridge Road does not need another business section but agrees with Mr. Budd's analysis and is in favor of the motion. Discussion followed on putting a stipulation on the project to coincide with the timing of the 4-6 laning of the roadway. Mr. Wolfley called the question. Ray Bellows stated for the record that the applicant will be revising some of the transportation language to be consistent with the transportations departments' policy in dealing with the phasing. Motion carries 4-2 - those voting against were Mr. Strain and Mr. Richardson. G. CU-2002-AR-2476 - request for Conditional Use on 46th Street, Golden Gate Estates for earth mining. Disclosures - none. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. The applicant was not present. Mr. Budd moved to continue the above item on a date to be determined by staff. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 6-0. Discussion followed on the different information supplied for the Commissioners packets. 9. Old Business: Discussion of Hearing Examiner The Board of County Commissioners needs a formal request from the Planning Commission to reconsider the Hearing Officers position. Mr. Strain recommends they formally request the BCC to reconsider the position of a Hearing Officer. Mr. Schmitt stated there has been a final candidate selected. He is not aware of an offer made and would have to defer that to the County Manager. 14 November 21, 2002 Mr. Adelstein told the Commissioners them has been 3 applicants decided upon. The discussion now is whether the County Commissioners actually want to hire one. The only way to determine this is to have a motion and discuss this issue. It will be an item of discussion at the next BCC meeting. The intent of the Hearing Examiner was to deal with variances only. Rezoning would still have to go before the BCC. The Commission stated they are handling them now and why would they want to waste additional monies. It was a previous Planning Commission who heard the arguments and recommended to the Board that they proceed with an Examiner. Mr. Abemathy mentioned it was told to the Planning Commissioners and they could tweak what was being presented by Patrick White. They never recommended it, if there was going to be a Heating Examiner, they just sent the Ordinance forward. The Board will ask staff for their guidance at their next meeting and the County Manager will need to know whether to proceed or not. Mr. Schmitt will give them a summary of where it all started and how to proceed from here. He is putting an Executive Summary together. The Planning Commission needs to give Mr. Schmitt their thoughts so they can be put into the Summary. To get an issue on the BCC's Agenda Marjorie suggested writing a letter to be part of their package and have the Chairman attend the meeting to address the issue. Mr. Strain has written an article addressing this issue and will E-mail it to Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Abernathy would like the members to address their concerns and thoughts, E- mail them to Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Schmitt will send to Mr. Abernathy to assemble. The County Manager is carrying out a direction given him from the past County Manager. Mr. Adelstein said he did a magnificent job in the selection process. Mr. Adelstein also commented that if they are not doing a quality job as a County Planning Commission then there is a way to replace them. At the present time they are talking about $165,000 at the first level and within a year closer to $250,000. He or she would have to have the staff to do the job properly. He feels they could find a better way to spend the money. If the Planning Commission is doing the job and doing it properly, why spend that much money to replace them. Discussion followed on the financial aspect of a Heating Officer. Mr. Schmitt expressed his appreciation of the Planning Commission and the process they follow. He feels there is a definite value added to having this Commission. He feels they do an excellent job in what they are there for and fulfilling their responsibilities. He has stated that publicly and will state it when asked. Mr. Strain moved to recommend to the BCC to remove the position of a Hearing Officer. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried Unanimously 6-0. 15 November 21, 2002 Mr. Budd would like to revisit the proposed resolution that came before the Planning Commission questioning a certain amount of lead time before information goes to the Commission. He heard it was continued because he had to leave early, and then he heard staff would handle it without processing the resolution. Ray Bellows told him that the discussion was that staffwould commit to having the Planning Commission packets, even though not complete, mailed out on the time necessary to get them in plenty of time with late submissions being couriered over. Ten days was the number of days decided upon that the packets would be mailed. Mr. Budd stated a problem they encountered on a meeting in which they heard amendments on the LDC that had been written that day and not seen by anyone in advance. There was no opportunity to consider it and had to continue. They should never have seen it. It was asked to be continued because of changing verbiage, intent and wording. Details needed to be worked out. The Commissioners have not received their packets 10 days in advance of the meetings to date. Ray will double check on the mailing process. 10. New Business - None 11. Public Comment Items - None 12. Discussion of Addenda- None 13. Adjourn - Being no other business to come before the meeting, it was adjourned at 12:00 Noon. 16