Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/05/2002 RDecember 5, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 5, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abernathy Mark Strain David Wolfley Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Dwight Richardson Paul Midney Russell Budd (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant Attorney Fred Reischl, Principal Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Serv, Dept. Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Serv. Don Scott, Transportation Planning Norm Feder, Transportation Administrator Stan Litsinger, Planner Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Planning Services Page 1 CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 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 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 I0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 19, 2002 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (LUNCH 12:00 P.M.- 1:00 P.M) A. LDC Amendment Cycle Division 3.15 Transportation Planning. Bo BD-2002-AR-2948, Michael Hawkins of Turrell and Associates, representing Ward Stmble, requesting a 10 foot boat dock extension to allow a 30 foot boat dock for property located at 175 Topanga Drive, further described as Lot 85, Unit One, Southport on the Bay, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Co BD-2002-AR-3019, Ben Nelson, Jr., of Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., representing John & Brunilda Collins, requesting a boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 47 feet into the waterway for property located at 291 3rd Street West, further described as Lot 6, Block F, Little Hickory Shores Unit Three Replat, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) 10. Do Eo I'II VA-2002-AR-2389, Linda B. Berthelsen and Smart 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 home; 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) · VA-2002-AR-2446, Anne D'Agostino, representing Mayfield Rd. Inc., DBA Perk-ina Restaurant, requesting an after- the-fact 12-foot variance for the height of a flagpole from the required 50 feet to 62 feet for property located at 3585 Gateway Lane, further described as Naples Gateway, Phase I, Lot 3, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) VA-2002-AR-2848, Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette Coleman & Johnson, P.A., representing M.L.S. of Naples, Inc., requesting a 6.1 foot variance from the required 10 feet to 3.9 feet for an existing sign, and a 2.2 foot variance from the required 5 feet to 2.8 feet for an existing flagpole for property located at 1455 Pine Ridge Road located in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUDZ-2002-AR-2517, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, 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 maximum of 112 multi-family dwelling units as a permitted me and increasing the maximmn 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, consisting of 8.664- acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) (Continued from 11/21/02 to 12/5/02) PUDA-2002-AR-2702, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. 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 Master Plan to reflect current 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 262.94- acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (Continued from 11/21/02 to 12/5/02) CU-02-AR-2476, Tim Maloney, Maloney & Sons Equipment, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "7" of the "E" Estates District for earthnninlng on property located on 46*~ Street N.E., Golden Gate Estates, Unit 45, Tract 119, Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 6.00 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) (Continued from 11/21/02 to 12/5/02) CU-2002-AR-3278, Richard G. Lewis, P.E., of Anchor Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Collier County Government, requesting a Conditional Use for an expansion of the Collier County library that is zoned RSF-3 and is located at 417 North First Street, Immokalee, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2.21+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: D 7iscuss upcoming workshops with the CCPC Board PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 12/5/02 CCPC AGENDA/SM/LO 2 December 5, 2002 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Abernathy at 8:35 AM. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Before the Roll was called, Mr. Abemathy wanted the public to know if they wish to speak on an item to fill out the proper form and submit it to Staff. He also wanted to make sure all lobbyists have registered with the Clerk of Courts. It is a misdemeanor if not properly registered. A lobbyist is defined as someone speaking on another person's behalf for a fee. Mr. Abemathy may ask in each case if the lobbyist has registered if their name is not on the list he has. 2. Roll call was taken - a quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - Item 8F (MLS Variance) is continued until January 2® by mutual consent. Item 8G (Cocohatchee River) continued until December 19th at the petitioner's request. Mr. Abernathy asked about Item G, how many continuances a person can have. He wondered if they can deny the request. Fred Reischl - Planning - he called as many people as he could that a continuance was going to be requested. The duration of advertising is 5 weeks, so will not need to be advertised again. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney stated neither the LDC nor any other Code of Laws applicable to the Commission has any provisions relating to how a continuance should be handled other than that relating to advertising. He is not aware of anything that could be established today as a practice in allowing or not allowing it. It is a matter of right by the applicant, but a regulation could be established to make clear what the responsibilities for both the County and the applicants for the number of continuances, length of time between them and what the criteria would be for granting them. Mr. Richardson mentioned he is concerned about a pattern evolving on changes that could take place and then not being reviewed by the proper agencies. Fred Reischl stated the Petitioner has not made any changes to them since the re-submittal. Ray Bellows- Planning - the County does have a process when the petitioner has made significant changes in the middle of a review. They are required a re-review. Mr. Strain was concerned about a particular incidence (property on Goodlette, near the Post Office) where the Planning Commission voted to deny a request. He was wondering why staff re-reviewed that item, made changes and then submitted it to the BCC without coming back to the Planning Commission. It was presented to the BCC totally different than when the Planning Commission looked at it. They never had a chance to comment on it at that time. He was wondering at what level they determine certain changes are made. It may not have been turned Page 2 December 5, 2002 down, if they were made aware of those changes. Changes are made to the BCC without going back to the CCPC. Patrick White told Mr. Strain it is within the scope of the authority of the BCC as well as the staff. It is a valid concern thinking someone may have put a different analysis into the staff report, but more in the scope of review in going to the Board of County Commissioners. If they feel they have not received an appropriate level of review from their staff based on changes from the prior committee, it would be appropriate for them to remand it for their review along with the staff review. He said they have to look to see if they are getting significant changes in the staff reports and whether there are changes in the recommendations from the staff either in the recommending body or the approving body. Ray Bellows noted that the recommendation from the Planning Committee is carded to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion of denial was transmitted to the Board and the reasons for it. The applicant has a right to continue to the Board and fall back to a lesser intensity if they feel they need to. None of the changes affected the overall environmental issues, the Growth Management Plan or traffic. It was smaller in size and lower in height. He withdrew the variances completely and went with a "bare bones" petition where the BCC felt they could approve it without sending it back to the PCC. They did have the option. It was clear to the BCC of the denial by the CCPC and they were aware of the changes. Mr. Abernathy was approached by a Commissioner asking if it should have come back to the PCC so they could have had the benefit of their analysis - being that it was essentially a new petition. Mr. Abemathy stated if it goes to the Commission, have a heating and have them remand it - another several months are added plus more advertising. Ray said staff doesn't have the authority to remand it back to the Planning Commission, it is a Board decision. A criteria could be established. Mr. Richardson would like staff help put some language in the LDC that would address this issue. The BCC makes the final decision and does place a value on the Planning Commissions recommendations and reviews. Joe Schmitt - Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services - he cautions the Commission on hearing testimony, that later, the facts have changed, and them making a decision on what they originally heard. He questions whether that petition should come back for the CCPC to hear again. He asks if it should go to staff or the Board. Before going to the LDC with changes, there are thresholds that have to be met with legal tests and he would have to check with the County Attorney. Page 3 December 5, 2002 Mr. Midney moved to continue Items 8F and 8G. Seconded Mr. Strain. Carried 6-1 - Mr. Richardson voting no. e Approval of Minutes - November 7, 2002 Page 13 should read "Mr. Richardson & Mr. Midney favored the 12 months and Mr. Strain & Mr. Adelstein favored the 10 months". Page 7, Disclosures should read - Mr. Strain sits on a committee where the applicant and he spoke about the setbacks on VA-2002-AR-2617. Mr. Richardson moved for approval with the above corrections. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried Unanimously 7-0. 5. Planning Commission Absences - Mr. Richardson will be absent on Dec. 19th. 6. BCC Recaps - The Board approved the Mission Square PUD zoning with a maximum of 100,000 square feet. They continued the Pelican Marsh PUD Amendment until Dec. 17th. It will allow the petitioner to work out some agreements with the tenants on parking. Founders Plaza was continued to allow the petitioner to meet with the Golden Gate Civic Organization to discuss overnight storage of commercial vehicles on site. 7. Chairman's Report - Mr. Abemathy reported that he was pleased the Heating Examiner program was canceled. 8. Advertised Public Hearings: A. LDC Amendment Cycle Transportation Planning - Norm Feder - He referred to the Handout. This is a follow up with modifications that have been made to the Growth Management Plan both the Transportation Element and the Capitol Improvement Element. They have been submitted to the State, with comments back concerning data, past and present. Based on Board direction and the PCC, they are now modifying and submitting to Tallahassee the LDC 3.15 changes. In the next 6 months they will do an extensive review of what is out there and what is vested. They will then come back with further issues. Mr. Strain asked about disclosures. Mr. White stated it is a legislative matter and one important area to discuss is the Sunshine Law. There is a concern about the use of E-mail that could be a potential violation of the Sunshine Law. There could be an expression of an opinion between one member and another. Whether to one or all members or through staffand then forwarded is a major concern with their office. The utilization of E-mail for the purpose of communicating opinions having a discussion or deliberation, such as the communication that is not one way - but a two way - in a legislative context it is strongly discouraged. It is appropriate to communicate with the staff for information required, and it's not a technical violation of the Sunshine Law, but a practice both the Attorney General, the Ethics Commission and their office takes a dim view of. It could put a Commissioner in a position not Page 4 December 5, 2002 being entitled to any representation from their office. There are penalties. A concern would be that one or more of the Commissioners would express their opinion and predecided the matter prior to having a full evaluation by the petitioner, the staff or any members of the public. He felt all members should be aware of these matters. Mr. White felt the Sunshine Law had not been violated in this situation. Mr. Abemathy commented that perhaps communication through E-mail with the staff, being it is then a public record, and could be redistributed, should not take place. He has the communication in front of him and it did not call for a response. Mr. Feder proceeded with highlights of his presentation. The 3.15 LDC Amendments are being presented to the Planning Commission today and then before the BCC to public meetings before adoption. He started with page 7 - touched on the service volumes and peak hour calculated on the 100th highest hours based on a 10 month period. Page 17 - modifications on Growth Management and Land Development changes, AUIR (Annual Update and Inventory Report), annual monitoring of concurrency and the roll of the UIR for Transportation. Page 18 - addresses the issue of constrained facilities - deficient segments. Page 19 - Deficient Roadway segment related to the AUIR and development of significant in points. Changed the old process. Page 28 - This addressed the Impact fees for Transportation paid earlier in the process to allow the ability to provide for the replacement capacity needs in a timely manner. If adequate facilities for public Transportation, and then ready to issue the development order, the developer has within 90 days to pick up the order and pay 50% of the impact fees based on the impact fees paid at the time they get the approval. When picked up and 50% of the impact fees that is the certificate of vesting for the total final development order that has been pulled. That will last for 3 years. At the end of 3 years they have to pay the other 50% estimated fees, or they surrender the certificate at that time and then get a reimbursement of unused impact fees or transfer the fees, but not vesting. This gets the fees in earlier. They actually pay the actual fee. That's why estimated to 50% initially and then 50% by 3 years. Initially they had it all up front at 100%, and he feels this provides some relief to the smaller developer. Page 29 - Impact fees - estimated payments - as stated above. They are making it clear what they are throughout. Page 30 - Impact fees - Repayment provided - providing for an analysis and annual update relative to the build out. Developing a data base for evaluation. They will go into a Real Time rather than Annual. They will work with each development that has vesting and evaluate where they are in the developing process and ask they provide a monitoring of it rather than trends. Page 5 December 5, 2002 Mr. Wolfley asked if there will be an increase in staff for all the monitoring. Mr. Feder answered "no" - it has already been budgeted and planned. But "yes" there will be an increase, but in this fiscal years budget. Four persons have been authorized coming out of Development Services. Ms. Young asked about Section 3.15.6.4 - Page 18 - the wording was a bit confusing and Norm said they are working on it. They addressed constrained facilities being designated. Mr. Strain - page 4 - section 3.15.3.12.1 - discussion of limitation of maximum 3 lane standard being no greater than 6 through lanes. Would it become constrained at that point and no longer expanded? Answer was "yes". Going from 2-4 they double capacity of a roadway - 4-6 you add about 50% more from 6-8 you lose capacity. There will be more safety problems because of weaving motions for an arterial. They discussed Pine Ridge and Goodlette as examples. Don Scott - Transportations Planning - he discussed "C-D & E" roadways being the same level of service or capacity because its the signals that control the capacity of that particular segment. They would be looking at operational improvements. Mr. Richardson would like to see the language modified that if 10% goes from "E" to "F" then the 10% isn't the right number. Norm said at some point it goes into deficient even if it is a designated constrained either by policy or physical. They will look at it. Mr. Strain - Page 19 - 3.15.6.5 - talks about ASI's - the Community Development & Environmental Services Division and Transportation Administrator may propose to establish one or more areas ofASI - next page seems to put the authority in the hands of the BCC. The final decision is to the BCC. Page 21 - talks about removing an ASI - Has to go through a Public Hearing process - updating the AUIR as written today. Has to be evaluated to see if there truly is a deficiency and designated through the public process. Stan Litsinger - Planning Services - answered and discussed the AUIR and the ASI (area of significant influence). The ASI is established at a public hearing by ordinance. Patrick White stated the distinction is between the processes versus the timing of the process. Mr. Richardson stated the AUIR is a dying process relating to roads. Norm answered they are trying to move to a Real Time Concurrency Management, but reminds everyone that they did not have the data to do it. They discussed the 5 year work program. Mr. Richardson's problem is general statements that say one thing and a process that leads to a different conclusion. Mr. Feder didn't feel that way; they are making changes to the Growth Management Plan that has already been submitted and reviewed etc. and following through with those changes with the modifications to the LDC. The only thing they are doing now - AUIR is the current process, they are clarifying how they are going to look at the ASI rather than have a general 3 mile Page 6 December 5, 2002 radius that doesn't necessarily relate to how a development may impact that deficient roadway segments. Mr. Strain - Page 28 - 3.15.7.3.1.5 - 50% impact fee payment is non-refundable. But Page 30 says "refund of impact fees will be subject to the provisions of the Consolidated Impact Fee Trust Fund Ordinance". Mr. Feder stated they are not refundable. Mr. Strain then stated on Page 28 they are allowed to be transferred to another approved project. On Page 29 it stated "they shall be assigned but within the corresponding land etc .............. in one case it says they may be transferred in the other case there are conditions and no ability to transfer. Mr. Feder went back to Page 28 stating they are transferable when and if surrendered. He gave examples and more discussion was held on vesting. Vesting is not transferable and runs with the land. Mr. Strain -Page 33 - there was some typos that needed to be changed. Mr. Strain talked about the peak hour's calculation and Level of Service being more intense and making the LOS more deficient. His question was; do impact fees become applicable to fix this deficiency, or is the deficiency something that will be paid for by the taxpayers and property owners of Collier County. Patrick White answered its how a person looks at the intensity and whether that is growth or not. Mr. Strain - If a formula changes the intensity, then it becomes past deficiency because of a formula change, he wonders who ends up paying for it. Mr. White - Growth still has the impact and still intended that the impact fees are intended to that increased growth whether by a change in methodology or otherwise. Mr. Feder stated the impact fees can be used as appropriate. Today they are using the 12 month - 100 highest hours - they are proposing to go to a 10 month basic peak determination. February and March, the highest months of the tourist season, should not be the months to plan the roads around. This was previously submitted and is in the transmittal to Community Affairs. The roadways are designed for the 30th highest hour. Mr. Strain wants to get a clear understanding of the impact fees being used for deficiencies created by a change in methodology. Mr. White stated it is the "use of words". (Increased deficiencies) Rules are the rules and if they change, it doesn't alter the fundamental concept that is applicable. Being growth related it is still appropriate to utilize impact fees for that purpose. Mr. Richardson said with the changes Mr. Feder is suggesting, is making it much easier and fewer deficient roadway segments by going to 10 months instead of 12 months. Mr. Strain wants to make sure they don't get into a worse situation and force more on the property owners of Collier County and less on impact fees. Page 7 December 5, 2002 Mr. Midney - Page 8 - when discussing Levels of Service for Immokalee at the last meeting, he was wondering why Immokalee hasn't been put in the Amendment - they are there for Everglade City, Naples, and Goodland and was wondering why Immokalee is not included. Stan Litsinger stated it was discussed and determined that the Immokalee Water & Sewer District is an independent district. If an independent District, they do not regulate the LOS standards and is done through the 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code. The Board opted not to adopt a LOS standard in the Comp Plan. The Utilities Commission regulates independent districts. After some discussion, Mr. White stated they are blurting distinctions between private and public and independent districts and dependant districts. Dependant is under the control of the Board of County Commissioners. The independent is not under their control, so consequently it is not under the Counties Comprehensive Plan. The State Statues require concurrency compliance as part of the Growth Management Plan, and Land Development Regulations are applicable to that independent district. Mr. Feder referred to Page 27 - this is a big part of the LDC, getting the data base that is needed to go from an Annual Certification to the Real Time Concurrency. They will look at all projects and evaluate the build out schedules. He referred to the monitoring reports and not losing their vesting. Previously vested projects were covered. If they opt into the new system, he talked about the 3 year certificates and trust accounts. Mr. Strain - Page 12 - reference to the Solid Waste Disposal - he is wondering if passing this means they have 10 years old permitted landfill capacity somewhere in the County - Golden Gate - he wonders if the landfill is going to be there for another 10 years. Stan answered the reason for changing the LOD is to reflect the change in the standard to reflect the two year disposal rate and the availability of 10 years of permitted landfill either in Collier County or through a contract with Waste Management at the Okeechobee landfill. Stan discussed the levels of service according to the 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code discussed earlier. Mr. Richardson is looking for some kind of linkage between our standards and what would be required to be provided by the independent authority. Mr. White talked about the Statutes, Chapter 9J-5 and the dependent and independent districts being different. The capacity will be available at the point the development occurs. They are linked and have to be in compliant through the statute and rules, saying they have to have the capacity. Mr. Richardson stated he is concerned with the change in methodology to lower the traffic standards measurements in determining what the Level of Service is. He stated he wrote his points of view down, submitted to staff, Joe Schmitt, and in return he submitted it to the Planning Commission members and also to Don Scott. Don was aware of his concerns. He wanted to know whether Don believed moving from the 12 months of measurement to the 10 months is appropriate from traffic engineering standards. Page 8 December 5, 2002 Don answered "yes". He also stated if Mr. Richardson was asking the question in the sense that he was still designing projects for 250th hour, then he would say "no". But since designing it for the 30th highest hour, he is comfortable with it. He is more concerned they are designing to meet the capacity needs. They are talking about the 30th highest hour in a 10 month calendar rather than the 12 month calendar. Don said it would be 30th highest hour for a 12 month period for "design". They do not talk about designing roadways anywhere in the document, just when they will implement projects. Mr. Richardson felt there was an implication. Norm Feder stated it is how they are going to calculate an issue of deficiency, not how to design a roadway. They can add something to the document that clarifies this. Mr. Strain reminded Mr. Richardson that this will be rewritten and readdressed if proven not to work and Joe reminded everyone that in 12 months they will come back again with another addition to the Growth Management Plan Amendment and the Amendment to the LDC. Mr. Richardson still did not feel comfortable about the 10 months LOS being based upon and feels it is relaxing the standard and going for the 250th hour of the 12 month period instead of the 100th hour of the 12 month period. They are effectively excluding, for determination of deficiency and constraint, 249 of the peak hour measurements, some which fall in February/March and not all. He feels they are excluding a significant number of hours that the public has a right to know concerning the LOS based on totality of traffic measurements and not a convenience of taking out traffic months that are high. Joe said they are improving what they have now. Mr. Feder said Mr. Richardson is correct in his statements. Other processes are used through out Florida. But to try and design for the two months of influx of traffic is realistically very cost prohibitive to the Community. Discussion followed on the different levels of service "D" and "E" roadways. Mr. Richardson felt they should say that the 12 months should be left in and be designing for the 250th peak hour. He would like it written so it is understandable to everyone. Page 3 - 3.15.3.3 put back in. Page 5 & 6 - 3.15.3.14.1 - he would like # 4 to read similar to #3. Don responded that the development that gets approved doesn't come on immediately. Page 12 & 13 - he didn't know why those particular pages are struck. It refers to the Level of Service. He would like to see the definitions put back in. Stan answered they are referenced in the Transportation Element and the definitions and standard may change for the LOS and felt they were redundant. Mr. Richardson asked how the ! 2 months could be put back into the system and an explanation of the hour used for traffic measurements for the LOS. Joe Schmitt proposed to go as written, take his recommendation to the BCC, then let the Board direct staff to what they want written in. It should be made as a motion in forwarding it to the BCC. It will have to be consistent. Page 9 December 5, 2002 Page 17 - the different levels of service was discussed. 10:30 AM - Break 10:45 AM - Reconvened Don Scott informed the Commission that they could add in language that this translates to the 250th highest hour to define specifically what they are talking about. Mr. Abemathy apologized for not having the LDC Amendments heard later and given the other Hearings that would have been disposed of sooner. He felt it wasn't fair to the public that had been sitting there all morning. He suggested the LDC Amendments be heard at 1:00. SPEAKERS: David Ellis - Collier Building Industry - He feels the product continues to improve. They are trying to develop a system where the money is available to be used for an industry that needs roads and make sure the money is there. He felt if they pay for them, they aught to be vested. Issues he addressed: - Timing of certificate issuance - he would like to apply for his certificate up front and get a conditional certificate that he could pay for. (Pending approval of the SDP) Transition from the old system - many prepay - trust fund - the language needs to be tweaked. Prepay Transportation Impact fees up front - those that have the means, not difficult. 50% is better than all up front. No way in the process phasing of the certificates could be done. He doesn't feel it makes sense to prepay and have the money fully invested up front and non- refundable if there are changes. To pay for the highest available use and highest classification would not get the money back and would tie their money up. He is not sure the way the Code is written right now that it addresses this issue with flexibility. Dwight Nadeau - Planning Manager for RWA - he stated there is a substantial investment related to the impact fees. There is an interim period and links into today's scenario. They do need the opportunity to pay for their certificates in advance so they are assured their monies are used after the SDP approval. The phasing is very important and critical. He gave examples. Page 27 - 3.15.7.3.1.2.1 - addresses the annual mid- year monitoring report for people who have been issued certificates. This could be a duplicating process. There is a PUD process now, if it were modified with certificates issued; they would identify the monitoring requested for the certificates. Stan agreed they can make a provision where there is no PUD it would be a separate report. Mr. Strain asked about how the STP's and the SDP's kick in with regards to what they are talking about today. Mr. White said for establishing prepays, estimates for the SDP's or the FSP, they need a data base. He summarized the process they would go through when requiring to pay the transportation fees. Not all the remainder fees would be paid which is the present until the interim results go into effect. Page 10 December 5, 2002 He believes with the system as proposed, with the options available for the developer, in order to do their vertical construction they have to get an STP. The balancing of risk, versus flexibility, is appropriate with the regulation as existed. He gave examples on platting etc. Mr. Strain asked if anyone is grand fathered in under the old system if they are applying before this is passed, but will pick up in January. Yes - they would go under the old rules. General rule is the rule in effect that the date the application was deemed sufficient is the one that is applied. Dwight Nadeau disagreed with Attorney Whites opinion - the County would prefer to have the developers take the risk of having roadway capacity or not and they understand during the final local development order of approval, that if they have 100, it is cheaper to plat all 100, sometimes doubling the cost, two 50 lot phases to avoid having to pay for all 100 transportation certificates. Phasing is vital. He stated to let them take the risk. Joe Schmitt thought they had this issue on risk resolved with the language that was written. After a lengthy discussion it was decided to clarify the language to adjust the risk issues and make sure it doesn't compromise other language in the Document. Reed Jarvi - Transportation Civil Engineer - he has been involved with this for many months, worked well with staff, feels they are coming to some agreement, but not there yet. Page 2 - he referred to a section that needed to be changed to be consistent. Page 15- 3.15.6.4.3 -talked about significance being changed. Do the 3-3-5%. He would like it moved to Standards for Review of an Application for Certificate of Adequate Facility. Discussion followed. He talked about the Area of Significant Influence (ASI). He addressed "where the Certificate should be"....if it is at the end of the process, they need to have the capacity certificate earlier in the process before they go through a huge amount of dollars of getting the plans etc. done; only to find out they don't have any. Joe said Mr. Jarvi wants them to make another change. The discussion is about timing in regards to when they are vested, when only 50% vested, at the time application is made. They are talking about tracking submittals and applications of STP's & FTP's. Taking business risks are part of the process. The application, issuance of certificates and collecting fees at issuance was discussed at length. Reed suggested language was provided staff and felt it should be changed. Page 26- 3.15.7.3.1.1 - it was discussed that fees could be transferable and written in. Mr. Strain stated there has been a lot of input on the same subject and after two months why these issues couldn't have come up at a meeting and been resolved. To resolve today is very burdensome and complicated. These issues could have been addressed earlier to accommodate everyone. Mr. Abemathy stated the Planning Commission seems to be presiding over a Workshop and very impatient, and can not continue as it has been going. He is willing to work through the lunch hour to accommodate everyone. It was a consensus to work through the lunch hour. Mr. Abernathy is limiting the speakers to 5 minutes. Page 11 December 5, 2002 Mr. Jarvi stated he hit the points he wanted to discuss and as the system is evolving, as it has over the past several months, issues still continue to be discussed and will continue to evolve. Mr. Litsinger addressed on being in a "Workshop". For several months they have been in workshops and have agreed to disagree on how they want to manage the whole process of Concurrency, facilities and when they collect impact fees and use them. Al Zichella - WCI Communities and CBIA- he wanted everyone to know they have evolved successfully, even though not where they should be yet, but his is a very complicated and very important issue to the Community. They have spent many hours and feel they have been beneficial. Mr. Adelstein asked staff if they expected the Planning Commission to vote on this issue today without seeing the changes or modifications discussed and without seeing what the final issues are. He can not vote unless he sees what he is voting on. It was stated the BCC has their first LDC hearing or the second cyle next Wednesday night - these need to go out tonight. The final adoption hearing is scheduled for January 8th. Mr. Wolfley was concerned about the final outcome also and the BCC voting on something the Planning Commission may have approved or disapproved. After discussion it was decided to have staff put together a short summary of the changes that came out of the meeting and present them as the last item of discussion after they have heard the other hearings. Lora Jean Young moved to continue the LDC Cycle Amendments until the end of today's agenda with staff summarizing the changes that were discussed at the meeting earlier. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. The question was called. Carried unanimous 7-0. BD-2002-AR-2948 - Struble Boat Dock Extension- requesting a 10 foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which allows construction of docking facility protruding 30 feet. Property is located at 175 Topanga Drive. Those testifying were swom in by Mr. Abemathy. Ross Gochenaur stated this petition meets all criteria with no objections and staff recommends approval. Mr. Richardson asked about the new manatee protection impact rules. Ross said it doesn't affect Collier County because they have a manatee protection plan. Page 12 December 5, 2002 Mr. Strain asked what the minimum width for a navigable waterway for this magnitude is. Ross said 50% maintained. They would still require the 50% width be maintained for the new dock in order to pass the criteria. The Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain moved to approve BD-2002-AR-2948. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried Unanimously 7-0. Disclosures - None C. BD-2002-AR-3019 - Ben Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction Inc. - representing John & Brunilda Collins. Requesting a 27 foot dock extension for the maximum protrusion of 20 feet for the waterways greater than 100 feet in width. This allows construction of a docking facility protruding a total of 27 feet. Located at 291 3rd Street West. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Disclosures - None Ross Gochenaur stated this petition also meets all criteria, no objections and staff recommends approval. Mr. Adelstein asked the combined length of the two boats - Ross stated two vessels - one 25 feet the second 15 feet. The width of the lot is 80 feet. Heating was closed. Mr. Strain moved to approve BD-2002-AR-3019. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 7-0. De VA-2002-AR-12389 -Linda Berthelsen and Stuart McDaniel requesting a variance in the RSF-3 zoning district from a 30-foot front setback along Piper Blvd. to allow a 25 foot setback for an existing house and a proposed pool screen enclosure. Located at 571 Piper Blvd. The variance requested is 5 feet. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Disclosures - None Kay Deselem - Principal Planner with Current Planning - they re recommending approval with conditions set forth in the Document. There are no oppositions. Page 13 December 5, 2002 Mr. Adelstein asked whether there was an improper permit stating 25 feet instead of 30 feet? The answer was "yes". If it was issued properly, it would not have to have this come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Abemathy had no problem with the house, but wondered why the pool needed a variance. Kay stated the applicant wants to align it with the house. There are side setbacks as far as streets- a comer lot, no backyard. Kay showed an aerial map of the area. The applicants' father is here to answer questions. SPEAKER Tom McDaniel - applicants' father - visualizing the house being rectangular with a comer cut out away from the intersection is where they are constructing the pool. Kay showed a map colored in so they could see the screen enclosure. Mr. McDaniel stated they were not the original owners and knew nothing about this until they decided to build a swimming pool. A slab was noticed on the map which is a lanai Kay said it is the screen enclosure that has to meet the setback, not the pool. Ray Bellows pointed out the house was built not meeting the proper setbacks at the time there was a mistake on the building permit application, and not being a legal and non-conforming structure. If it was a legal non-conforming structure, the variance requested would have been an administrative variance and does not require it to go before the Planning Commission or the Board. The hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mrs. Young moved to forward petition VA- 2002-AR-2389 to the Board of Zoning with a recommendation of approval with conditions. Seconded Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 7-0. te VA-2002-AR-2446 - Anne D'Agostino, representing Mayfield Road Inc. DBA Perkins Restaurant requesting an after-the-fact 12 foot variance for the height of a flagpole from the required 50 feet to 62 feet located at 3585 Gateway Lane. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Disclosures - None. Mr. Fred Reischl - Planning Services - requests a variance for a maximum height of a flagpole of 50 feet. The original application was for 62 feet, after the County surveyed it, found it to be 73 feet. The PUD doesn't have any requirement for a maximum flagpole height, therefore reverting to the Land Development Code which states a 50 foot maximum. The location was shown on the site development plan. The contractor did not pull a building permit for it when Code Enforcement notified them they have to have a building permit but was not issued because it was taller than the maximum height in the Page 14 December 5, 2002 LDC. The fact that it is not permitted, and the variance is approved, it will allow them to get a building permit which would relieve any health and safety concerns. County surveyor says it is 73 feet. Mr. Strain said the Board approved a 120 height flag pole in a residential area. Discussion followed on Code Enforcement, specific criteria, and recommending denial. Fred stated he gave the petitioner another option which was to have a PUD Amendment to allow flagpoles up to the height of this flagpole. All letters and signatures received were in support. Land Development Code says 50 feet - other option is to change the Code. Ray Bellows addressed Section 2.7.5 LDC -provides the authority of the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances -and provide the criteria in the staff report, but also says these are general guidelines to assist the Commission in making a decision. Don't need a unanimous finding of each of the criteria to recommend approval over staffs' recommendation of denial. Mr. Abernathy said he could describe this as "a squirting match between two skunks" and to deny a flagpole at this point the County would look stupid. Mr. Schmitt stated an article in the Naples Daily News was an attack on an employee doing his job and wasn't anything to do with the flag pole. There is a requirement as part of the franchise agreement with Perkins to have a flagpole and a specific size. To fly that size flag may require the flagpole that was constructed. Had there been a permit applied for, it would have been pointed out the pole exceeded the height and would have then legitimately asked if the pole was part of the franchise agreement that Perkins requires to fly. It was constructed disregarding the rules in the LDC and now asking for forgiveness after the fact. They need to focus on the flagpole and not the flag flying. Mr. Wolfley- If a pole is a certain height- is the foundation for that particular pole. If there is a northeast wind, is there the proper amount of distance as not to hit the building. Being no permitted application those things are not known. The assigned sealed drawings that should accompany a permit would have addressed the health and safety issues. The code only addresses setbacks for flagpoles which is 5 feet from the property line, so does not address fall distances. Mr. Adelstein was told another Perkins flagpole is 50 feet. It was noted on the agenda the old language says 62 feet but all the advertising was correct. Petitioner - John D'Agostino - speaking for his sister Anne - he is a partner and Vice President in the corporation. The East trail flag is approx. 70 feet. He did not install the pole and had no clues on putting up a pole. As far as he knew it was permitted because it was in the plans. His job is running the restaurant. Mr. Adelstein asked if there was a requirement for Perkins to have a particular height. Mr. D'Agostino did not know. The flag and pole comes in a standard package which was turned over to the Contractor. The Hearing is closed and open for discussion and motion. Page 15 December 5, 2002 Mr. Strain moved to recommend for approval petition VA-2002-AR-2446. Seconded Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Richardson was not in favor of the motion. He doesn't think there is a basis in the LDC for granting this. Mr. Wolfley will vote for approval but wondered what they do now with the Land Development Code. Mr. Adelstein says they are talking about a structure going up 72 feet in an area that is permitted to go to 50 feet. They are not dealing with a flag issue, it's a pole. He feels they should stick to the Code. They are always dealing with issues and variances where Contractors have not done the proper work. The Contractor is never there. The applicant is not to blame. Question was raised as to who bears the cost if this is denied and has to be taken down. The Contractor would be responsible. Mr. Strain feels it strongly meets the criteria for a variance. The question was called. Carried 4-3. Those voting "no" were Mr. Midney, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Adelstein. CU-2002-AR-3278 - Richard G. Lewis of Anchor Engineering Consultants, representing Collier County Government, requesting a Conditional Use for an expansion of the Collier County library that is zoned RSF-3 and located at 417 North First Street, lmmokalee. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - None. Ray Bellows - Asking for a Conditional Use in an RSF Zoning to allow for an expansion on an existing Collier County Library in Immokalee. He displayed the subject site on the visualizer. It is proposed to be enlarged for a total of 8,035 square feet. It is a center that has other County facilities. Staff has not received any letters for or against. It would be found compatible for the other uses and blend in with the adjacent units. It is ranch type structure. Mr. Midney felt it was time to enlarge it. Mr. Abemathy stated in the 3 plus years he has been on the Planning Commission he has never seen a variance on a house in Immokalee. He is wondering if they are all building exactly where they belong and no encroachments. Fred responded he had someone recently that decided to remove the encroachment than go through the variance. Hearing is closed and open for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain moved the recommend approval CU-2002-AR-3278. Seconded Mrs. Young. Carried 7-0. Page 16 December 5, 2002 12:40 - Recessed for Lunch 1:40 - Reconvened CU-02-AR-2476 - Tim Maloney, Maloney & Sons Equipment Inc., requesting Conditional Use "7" of the "E" Estates District for earth mining located on 46th Street N.E., Golden Gate Estates. Site consists of approx. 5.89 acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Disclosures - None. Fred Reischl - Planning Services - There were two excavation permits issued adjacent of each other in the Estates prior to the change in the Code that required a Conditional Use. When the Code changed the fees for the extension of the excavation permit were paid on one, not the other. The wrong lot was excavated. No residents in the vicinity. Engineering services decided they would not issue the final excavation order for the lot he had a permit for until the new process was gone through for the lot that was previously excavated. Mr. Strain arrived a few minutes later and gave his disclosure. He spoke with two people representing the applicant during one of the morning breaks. Both excavation permits were issued prior to the change in the code so both were legal - just excavated for the one he didn't pay for and continued paying his renewal fees. Mr. Adelstein asked how they could say "no" when the job is already done. Stan Kraznowski - Engineering Services - he stated the end result is something was done wrong. PETITIONER - Tim Maloney - he had both tracts permitted prior to the conditional use process when paying the impact fees and putting up the bond for tract 118. He was told since both were permitted together, found out initiating one tract would keep both permits alive and found out a year and a half later 119 had expired. He wasn't sure of the shelf life, not taking on both at the same time he initiated one at a time, thinking initiating the one would keep the shelf life going when ready to do it. The hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain recommend for approval CU-02-AR-2476. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Carried Unanimously 7-0. H. PUDA-2002-AR-2702 - Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing Emerald Lakes Joint Venture requesting an amendment to the Lands End Preserve PUD. Bring it up to current development standards. Requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD". Modifying the PUD Master Plan to reflect current wetlands to residential Page 17 December 5, 2002 development tracts, decreasing total dwelling units from 786 to a maximum of 725, and increase the maximum height of the multi-family dwellings allowing 20 stories over two levels of parking for the west side of Barefoot Williams Road and North of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Strain had a telephone conversation with Rich Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold involving the height issue. Also spoke with Tad from Rookery Bay and thought he had a conversation with the Conservancy a while back. Mr. Wolfley had a discussion with Rich Yovanovich. Ray Bellows - Petitioner is requesting a rezone for a PUD to a PUD for purpose of amending the Lands End PUD. It will reduce the number of units from 786 to 725 and adding 3.3 acres to be used for a neighborhood center and increasing the maximum height of the multi-family to 75 feet over one level of parking. The Conservancy is in favor of the height. An aerial was shown. The petition went to the EAC yesterday and received an approval of 5-1 vote. One vote was concerned about the 75 foot height abutting Rookery Bay and the view. Staff did receive a few letters of concern about the two levels of parking. They were from the Conservancy and in the members' packets. Mr. Strain stated this project has been going for 10 years and one of the issues back then was the widening of Tower Road and having right of way access and that it went through private property. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - looking at the existing right of way they haven't determined the standard and the cross section and what it will eventually be, but will have it worked out soon. There will be some improvements to Tower Road; reverse curve and design of handling 30 MPH. Alternative modes of transportation are being talked about for Tower and Barefoot and price. Price is causing constraint issues and is still working on it. They do not have the room providing for the 8 foot shared use pathway on one side and still meeting the slope on the backside. It should be worked out before going before the BCC. Mr. Richardson had concerns about some inconsistencies. Staff was prepared to recommend approval for 140 feet, because of the isolated location of the PUD. In other parts of the report it stated the parcel will not result in an isolated district. Ray Bellows stated it was related to the actual PUD district boundaries in its relationship to other PUD's in the future land use map. If adversely stated they would be creating a zoning district that would not be consistent with Growth Management Plant and consistent & compatible with the LDC. The criteria has all been met and not creating a district that's not compatible with the GMP or Future Land Use Element. Mr. Adelstein asked how many buildings will be built. Ray answered - five buildings with setback requirements to keep them further away from the boundaries of the project. They do not have to specify the number of buildings. Their Master Plan will need to be updated. He discussed the Master Plan issue and stated the base height doesn't change any of the review comments with staff. Page 18 December 5, 2002 Mr. Richardson is disappointed there aren't more criteria in the staff reviews that would help support consideration of building heights. If he has a problem with the 90 feet it didn't look like he would get support from the staff. Ray said the petitioner will address the LDC already specifying the PUD 75 feet over one level of parking not to exceed a certain height limit 80 some feet. The LDC dictates how that height is measured and can't be exceeded. There is a cap on it and the LDC addresses these requirements. The PUD doesn't address it because the LDC addresses it. They did not give that information to staff but will address that at this time. Mr. Abemathy is concerned about the things being negotiating and wonders what is going to happen to iron out all these last minute difficulties. The question of the number of continuances was discussed and felt with the uncertainties it would have been in order to continue this item again. Mrs. Young is concerned about the increase in building height. This is not an area of tower buildings, adjacent to Rookery Bay and Eagle Creek which are low rise buildings. She is wondering why they are allowing it to 140 feet. Ray said either the Future Land Use Element and The Growth Management Plan doesn't have any height restrictions based on location to Rookery Bay or any other preserve area, nor does the Land Development Code have any restrictions for maximum height. Mrs. Young is worried if they pass it - it will create a breakthrough in the excepted 50 foot height limit. There is not set criteria or standard that it exceeds a code requirement or doesn't - it is a subjective matter. Eagle Creek has no complaints and the Conservancy has agreed to a height they would be comfortable with. Petitioner - Wayne Arnold - Grady Minor Engineering - he introduced his team. They have been working on this for approx. 8 months and aware of its location and to keep in mind they are asking for a PUD Amendment from an existing zoned property that was zoned in 1994. A lot of LDC changes have been made with a lot of citations so essentially they have a new Document. In the beginning they proposed a 20 tower plan. They knew it would be an issue and held several meetings with Rookery Bay, Eagle Creek and the Conservancy. No one really wanted 20 story buildings. They found 140 feet would become invisible from the neighboring properties and Rookery Bay. After running financial numbers 75 feet over one level of parking was the height that everyone could live with. He covered the issue of how the height is measured. These were discussed with the Eagle Creek neighbors, Rookery Bay and the Conservancy and all agreed on the height. They are withdrawing the alternative to being a high rise. They do not know how many buildings they will build at that level or any other level. An aerial map was displayed on the visualizer. Anything over 35 feet would be at least 200 feet from the right of way of Barefoot Williams Road. Measuring is from the first finished floor elevation. 86 feet above FEMA is the ultimate maximum. He also addressed a Recreational Center. They plan to be consistent with the Land Development Code provisions for neighborhood village centers. The PUD does address it. Page 19 December 5, 2002 Traffic was covered. A main concern is Price Street. They may be looking at a pathway or a sidewalk fund. Tower Road will be the primary ingress and egress road which will remain a 2 lane road. They plan on adding improved shoulders, rebuilding the surface to design standards and adding an 8 foot wide pathway to Tower Road. There is a concern for traffic tie-ups. Greg Garcia - they will go to the shopping center alleviating some traffic going to Tower Road or Marco Island. They can also go through the trailer park to the north out to Hwy 41. There will be a pathway on the South side which will help get bicyclists to 951. Wayne said they are reducing the density by 61 total units on the project from 786 to 725. Wayne touched on the environmental issues of Brazilian Pepper the lakes and preserve areas. He displayed a map. In discussions with Rookery Bay they asked to provide a way to get water back into their system to the West to re-hydrate some of the wetlands on their system. It will act as a conveyance of water to flow back into their system. That would become a 61/2 buffer that wasn't on the original PUD. Mr. Abemathy stated it will be a 75 foot building with mechanicals on top of that would be approx. 100 foot visual impact. His point is what can actually be seen from Rookery Bay. Reed Jarvi - Transportation Engineer - 725 units are scheduled in the PUD, and not decided if single family, multifamily, high income, low income or whatever. They figured single family would be about 7,200 Daily trips and if multi-family about 3,500 daily trips. It will be a mix in between. The County allows a 4-1 ratio. When multiplying it out it works out to a residential condominium. Mr. Strain asked about the AFL units and 25% density to create them. The PUD addressed when they will start improvements to Barefoot Williams Road and stated when hitting 4,000 average daily trips. The intent is to use Tower Road as the main entrance until Tower Road could not accommodate the trips any longer. Greg Garcia stated they are still working out some of these points as far as phasing. The 4,000 is not definitive. Reed said they have agreed on the concept of phasing. He is basing his reasoning on the Land Development Code. Ray Bellows answered some questions on traffic that at the time of SDP there is a requirement for traffic analysis which would dictate the number of units at that time. They are all working on the language and agreed to look at more numbers. Asphalt depth and standards that they want to see met. They want to see something in place for the pedestrian in the beginning of the project and when it is built out. Mr. Strain pointed out that the PUD provided addresses the thickness of the asphalt which is five times higher then what was started out on the project and also the TIS provided was a TIS done by Grady Minor and not by Reed. Only dwelling units for residential condominiums don't address other issues. Page20 December 5, 2002 They are looking for initially 2,000 being the trigger on the early phases to make sure improvements are in place with the early phases of the projects. The asphalt could possibly be a typo. They will make sure the standards are met for the asphalt and cross sections of final product. They would like to see 2000 for the triggering mechanism for the phase. Mr. Richardson asked about the building setback. They will be changed. Staff will control it. Speakers - Nicole Ryan - on behalf of the Conservancy - they continue to be concerned about potential incompatibility issues with projects adjacent to Rookery Bay. That's why they continue to be opposed to the Estuary Bay - Rookery Bay project and concerned about Lands End Bay when they wanted to build 260 foot towers. Currently they are not supporting but not opposed to the proposal to build 75 foot buildings over one level of parking. There are differences with the Estuary Bay project and the Lands End as they are asking for a rezone which will decrease density which they feel is positive. Also a site highly impacted due to the agricultural and mining activities in the past. With site drawings we are assured the 75 foot buildings will not be seen from key points in the Rookery Bay, land and water. They believe when a high rise is so close to the Rookery Bay it is an environmental issue. The taxpayers deserve the preserve they have paid for in preserving the nature area. They would like to see a maximum limit height for these properties and a higher level of scrutiny. Mr. Richardson asked if she would support the 75 feet height highest point. She stated they would, and again are not supporting the project, but not opposed to it. Nicole stated they did not get an idea of how many buildings were going to be built, but that they favored more lower ones, rather than the 5 -260 foot towers. Mr. Abernathy asked if they didn't know how many, how would they establish the site lines. She answered it was her understanding you go to key points and do a site line drawing, and if not seeing a 100 foot building from a specific point, it doesn't make any difference where they put it. Ted Bartaredu - Employee at Dept. of Environmental Protection at Rookery Bay - he concurred with Nicole. They are not in support of but do not object to the 75 feet above one story level of parking negotiated. There were a number of points taken for a visual site line. He referenced the map. He talked about the height and how they came to the number of feet. Anthony Pires - Woodward, Pires and Lombardo - representing Eagle Creek Homeowners Assn. and Golf & County Club - there are still items that need clarification with regards to some issues. Any of the agreements and revisions should be placed as written stipulations as part of the PUD Document. Issues addressed: for its entire length would have a hard surface constructed and installed prior to any construction commencing so that the construction vehicles don't generate excessive noise or dust or dirt that can have an adverse effect on Eagle Creek. - What visual impact would be created in any building heights? - Discussed having an area of 200 feet from right-of-way line from Barefoot Williams Road where no structure over 35 feet could be built. (Acceptable) - Original PUD table had maximum accessory buildings of 20 feet - - In table 1 footnote - high rises - need to be deleted in entirety Page21 December 5, 2002 - Height - Section 2.1 OD - not intended - Mr. Pires quoted the section Commercial component - regards to the Commercial center - RC Tract (gated community) no language restricting the commercial center - Section 4.3B (neighborhood center) He noted they have had meetings and addressed their concerns. Mr. Strain asked if he was aware of the PUD in 1994 which several paragraphs were added addressing salt water and chloride intrusion into the area. The prior developer was supposed to put $80,000 in a fund for a standby letter of credit and assure if salt water intrusion would occur a water main would be brought down to the residents, Until then fresh water would be provided. He asked if that was still a need or issue. Mr. Pires knew nothing about it. Mr. Strain is wondering who can address the above issue. Mike Minor - Civil Engineer with Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. - he is not familiar with the stipulation Mr. Strain mentioned in the existing PUD, since approval of that PUD he knows there have been public water mains extended along Price and Barefoot Williams and also along Tower Road. Most of those residents are not on wells. They have a pre-application meeting with South Water Management District and there will be no dewatering allowed during construction and no water withdraws for irrigation use. He does not anticipate any chloride levels to increase due to the project. Mr. Wolfley asked Mr. Garcia to review the traffic situation again. He has concerns about adding 200 trips a day from the Rookery Bays new development and asked how many trips will generate after this project. Mr. Garcia answered 7,000 depending on how much is single-family or multi-family. Mr. Wolfley can't see how they will support 7,200 trips a day with a two lane road. Reed Jarvi reminded them 7,200 trips is the maximum of the development - they wouldn't all go on Tower Road. Discussion followed. Hearing is closed and open for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain moved to forward PUDA-02-AR-2702 for recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: Restrict the height 86 feet above FEMA Within 200 feet of Barefoot Road, no product over 35 feet Language added to the Master Plan and neighborhood village center designations within the PUD referencing the appropriate section or the LDC Accessory structures will be limited to 30 feet Maximum ADT trigger for improvements to roads will be 2,000 but subject to staff refining it, and the only refinement will be less than that and not greater than that Unpaved portions of Barefoot Williams Road will be paved before any construction with a single layer of asphalt followed by final air when project is completed. Section 2.10.D needs clarification to heights as to what will be a typical height for a gatehouse and walls. Page 22 December 5, 2002 - Section 4.3.D - limit of internal utilization for project. - Aggregate amount of fill that can be removed from site would be 25 foot cubic yards. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. The construction of the asphalt needs to be as per County standards. Mr. Strain is saying they are allowing 25 feet additional in height, subject to the same restrictions the prior PUD was subject to. Mr. Richardson would like to see 75 feet instead of 86 feet. He does not want to give them the extra 25 feet. He would like to see something lower. Mr. Strain said PUD's are for differences in zoning. Mr. Abernathy stated he is comfortable with the Conservancy agreeing with the height and he would have agreed with Mr. Richardson in preferring the 50 feet. He is concerned about not knowing the number of buildings. Mr. Yovanovich stated in the worse case scenario there would not be more than a total of 12 buildings on the 269 acres. Discussion followed. Mr. Schmitt wanted everyone to remember they already have an approved PUD - when restricting height you increase a desire for a greater density and increase the cost of properties. Ray Bellows said there currently is no restriction on the number of 50 foot buildings that could be built. Discussion followed on traffic, the height, and parking. Motion carried 5-2 - those voting "no" Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Richardson. A break was taken 3:40 PM meeting reconvened Rich Yovanovich - he arrived earlier in the day when they discussed the Cocohatchee PUD should be continued or not continued. He wanted to assure the Commission there was a valid reason for the request. The original submittal is going to be modified based upon the meeting they had with the community. They thought it would be inappropriate and unfair to the community to make a change at the Planning Commission meeting. They preferred to get them information, let them react to it, and then continue the dialogue. He hoped the Commission can appreciate the reasoning for the continuance. They do their best to reach a consensus with their neighbors. He was distressed to find there were letters written to staff and Planning Commission without copying him, Mr. Mulhere or his client. He hoped the Commission would encourage dialogue be a two street and be provided information. Information will be given back to the Civic Organizations and will make things come closer together. Item 8A Page 23 December 5, 2002 Norman Feder - Transportation Administrator - he provided a set of revised provisions on 3.15 with changes based on discussions earlier in the day. The Commission was given a handout with gray shading that Norm responded to such as: Page 2 - removal "in the next Annual Budget" Page 3 - 3.15.3.3 - discussed peak hour calculated on the 100th highest hour being based on a 10 month period. For design of roadway will retain level service D. Page 6 - added "except as otherwise provided by law." Page 7 - language pertaining to the 10 month. Page 13 - again "30th highest hour" Page 18 - change from "existing" to "adopted" level of service Page 19 - changes concerning the roadway segments & rewording if sentences - the definition of the word "de minimus" meaning "minimal" and less than 1% was discussed. The word needs to be defined in the beginning. Page 21 - word "needed" was inserted. Page Page Page Page Page Page Page 26 - talked about the estimate of impact fees - it was an omission 27 - making the sentences clearer about vesting and certification 28 - traffic monitoring report - made clearer 29 - addressed the 50% of the estimated payment - made clearer 31 - will make change to read "shall" on the bottom of the page 34 - language added in under "Approval of Certificate". 36 - clarification of the Transportation Impact Statement Mr. Wolfley has a problem with the smaller developer - Mr. Feder addressed the issue with discussion. Patrick White wanted the Commissioners to know they will see minor modifications to the text because the attorneys haven't seen it yet, but the concepts they have today and the ideas are the ones they are asking them to make a finding with consistency to the Comprehensive Plan. The finding they are making today is in respect to the "adopted" and not "effective" provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of the LDC Amendment Cycle Division 3.15 Transportation Planning and find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is both effective and adopted by the Board and yet not effective. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. The Public Hearing is closed. Mr. Richardson is concerned about changing the level of service standard. He would like to alert everyone that this can be revisited in the context of the next Growth Management Plan Amendment. See how much change in the number of segments and what has really happened with the traffic measurements and also helpful information on how they are going to engineer future networks in terms of 30th hour. Mr. Midney agreed with Mr. Richardson on his last comment - he talked about the congestion on 951. He feels the courtesy of the driver is affected; people are pushy when being squeezed for time, Page24 December 5, 2002 and more people running red lights and changing lanes. He feels it isn't accurate using the 10 months and would rather see staying with the year round standards. This is a political decision and knows the BCC will have to make a decision on it. He feels it would be better to hold a higher standard for roads if only to slightly slow down the headlong rush they are in towards a megalopolis of their metropolitan area. Mr. Adelstein stated they would never build roads up north when people are coming or going to work - it would create a traffic jam. If they try to build roads for rush hours, it would be nothing but concrete. The rush hour down here is 2 months, up north it is 12 months. It isn't corrected up north and no one will find a way to correct it here neither. After giving several examples Mr. Abemethy felt they should stay with the 12 months. A lengthy discussion was held concerning several issues with the main issue being the 12 month versus the 10 month. The question was called. Mr. Feder reminded them they need a period of time yet to do the collection of data and analysis not pull away from the 10 month, that's why it's in there now. Mr. Abernathy stated they should approve as is and hoping they can move to 12 from 10 when legally permissible. Joe Schmitt would make the Commissions thoughts known to the BCC concerning the 10 and 12 month issue with their desires to go back to the 12 months. Mr. Strain amends his motion to include they wish to express their concerns to the BCC of going back to the 12 month when legally permissible. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Carried unanimously 7-0. 9. Old Business-None 10. New Business Discuss upcoming workshops with the CCPC Board Mr. Schmitt asked what the topics were would like to address at a workshop. He will e-mail them for their ideas. 11. Public Comment Items - None 12. Discussion of Addenda - None 13. Being no further business to come before the Planning Commission the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 PM. Page 25 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January9,2003 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Turrell & Associates Michael Hawkins 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B Naples, Fl. 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-2948, Ward Struble Dear Mr. Hawkins: On Thursday, December 5, 2002, the Collier County Planning approved Petition No. BD-2002-AR-2948. A copy of Resolution No. 02-08 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincer/~ Ross Gochena~r Planner Commission heard and RG/sp Enclosure CC: Ward Struble 356 Cromwell Ct. Naples, FI. 34108 ~/~lind Dept. Property Appraiser nutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File Phone (941) 403-2400 Fax (941)643-6968 www. cotliergov, net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 02- 08 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2002-AR-2948 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 heating and considered the advisability of a 10-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 30-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21 .; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: Petition Number BD-2002-AR-2948, filed on behalf of Ward Stmble by Michael Hawkins of Turrell & Associates, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 85, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, 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 1 O-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 30-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Before Collier County will issue a permit to construct the approved extension, corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department ot Environmental Protection must be provided. 2. Prior to final approval of this dock extension, reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway. 3. In order to protect manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required certificate of completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission ant filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ~/~ day of ~~~ ,2002. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORII)A KENNET~H L~HY~.,~CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ~seO~.ceU~n~seltrOaPtorn;nt and Enviromental C'3rl~oved as to Form anal Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney BD-2002-AR-2948/RG/sp