Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/02/2003 RJanuary2,2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 2, 2003 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 Paul Midney Russell Budd Dwight Richardson ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Services Dept. Marjorie Student, Assistant Attorney Fred Reischl, Principal Planner, Planning Services Dept. Don Schneider, Principal Planner, Planning Serv. Dept. Greg Garcia, Transportation AGENDA COL~ COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SANUARY 2, 2003 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COU1VrY GOVERN/vI~qT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINI. ri'ES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLO'ITED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGI~Z~D BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE wRrrrEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST StJBMIT 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 AVArLABLE 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS- DECEMBER 11, 2002 AND DECEMBER 17, 2002 7. CHAIKMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao VA=2002-AR-2848, Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette Coleman 8: 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. (Coordinntor: Fred Reischl) (Continued from 12/5/02 meeting) Co VA-2002-AR-3332, Vincent A. Cautero, MC'P, representing Wesfforth Conwactiag, Inc., requesting a foot var/ance from the required 10-foot side yard setback to 8.5 feet for property located at 6962 Cn~,ntree Drive, Pelican Bay Unit 13, Lot 14, Section 4, Townskip 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.40 acre~. (Coor,~inntor: Don Schneider) (Continued from 12/19/02 meeting) PUDZ-2002-AR-2517, Robert $. Mulhere, MC'P, of RWA, Inc., representing The Ronto Group, request/n~ 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 dweil/~g units as a permitted use and iacreasing the maximum building height from 50 feet to 8 habitable storie~ over 1 floor of parking with a ma~mum height of 86 feet for property located on the north side of Wa]kerbflt Road and on the west side of Tamiami Trail North, ia Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consistinE of 8.66~: acres. (Coordinato~. Fred Reischl) (Continued from 12/19/02 meetin~ PUDA-2002-AR-2803, Karen Bishop of PMS Inc., of Naples, representing Walnut Lakes LLC, requesting an amendment to the Walnut Lakes PUD having the effect of modifying development standards in Table I to provide for a revision to yard requirements, specifically to reduce the 10-ft. side-yard setback for single- family detached dwelling units to $ feet for one-story homes and 7.5 feet for 2-story homes; and to revise the Master Plan to elirn/nnte the site specific nature of a potential Assisted Living Facility, for property located on 18063 to 18071 East Tsmismi Trail North on the east side of East Tamiami Trail approximately 2.5 miles east of Colller Boulevard opposite Creative Drive and Irr~. erial Wilderness R.V. Subdivision, ia Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 200~ acres. (Coordinator. Don Schneider) (Continued from 12/19/02 meeting) 9. 10. ll. 12. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 01/02/03/CCPC A(3ENDA/SM/sp 2 January2,2003 Pledge of Allegiance was recited with Chairman Abernathy calling the meeting to order at 8:30 AM. Mr. Abernathy reminded those in the audience if they wish to speak to fill out a form found on the table in the hallway. Collier County Ordinance 99-22 requires all lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities, including, but not limited to addressing the County Board of Commissioners, register with the Clerk of Courts. Those being paid to speak on someone's behalf is a lobbyist. Roll call was taken - a quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - None Approval of Minutes - December 5, 2002 Mr. Richardson moved to approve the minutes of December 5, 2002. Mrs. Young seconded. Carried 7-0. 5. Planning Commission Absences for January 16th, 2003 - None e e Mr. Midney arrived at 8:33AM. BCC Board - Recaps - December 11, 2002 and December 17th, 2002 - None Mr. Richardson had a question on the Pelican Marsh PUD concerning the medical space. He asked about the stipulations. Mr. Bellows stated it was subject to the developer submitting within 30 days a site development plan to provide additional parking spaces, with 90 days to provide the parking. The landscaping would be consistent or better than it is now when the parking spaces are installed. Mr. Richardson mentioned press reports suggested the applicant will not meet those requirements and the County stating those stipulations is not enforceable by the County. Ray said they are enforceable as they were included into the PUD Documents. It would be a code violation if not enforced. Landscaping was not part of the stipulation, just the parking concerns. The Landscaping could be higher than what is in the current standards. It is part of the PUD. Chairman's Report - None Advertised Public Hearings: A. VA-2002-AR-2848 - Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette Coleman Johnson P.A. representing MLS of Naples, Inc. He is 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 located at 1455 Pine Ridge Road in Collier County, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Strain had conversation with Mr. Yovanovich before the meeting if there were any issues. Fred Reischl - Planning Services - this is a request for a variance for an existing monument sign and flagpole at the Board of Realtors building on Pine Ridge Road. He January2,2003 referred to the map on the location of the property. A Right-of-Way was taken on Pine Ridge Road by the County of a few feet along the property line. The sign will become nonconforming and need to be changed. The same request is being asked for the flagpole as it is considered a sign, under the provisions of the sign ordinance. Mr. Richardson brought up the reading of the Purchase Agreement being fascinating. The County paid $3,555 for the property. They grant the applicant $10,000 to get the variance, and if they don't get the variance they will pay them up to $100,000 in damages. Mr. Reischl was at a meeting when it was discussed but will have Mr. Yovanovich address the subject. Marjorie Student - Assistant Attorney - awarding the cost of a variance and having the applicant go through the variance procedure is legally acceptable where there is a nonconformance created by a Right-of-Way taking. It is signed by the Board of County Commissioners and she reminds the Planning Commission that the consideration is for the granting of the variance established in the Land Code. Legally the Board has to consider the criteria. Ray Bellows - Planning - Transportation felt the approval of the variance would not create a traffic or safety hazard. This was created by a government action. Marjorie said the paragraph states "not to exceed $100,000 ...... Mr. Strain didn't feel they have a problem with a liability issue involving the $100,000 if the sign, as it is today, is approved to stay there. It's the variance for future use that is the question. PETITIONER Rich Yovanovich - stated the intent of the agreement was to save the taxpayers money. Once the taking (eminent domain) occurs, they need to relocate the sign. They will do that on the Counties dollars. The County pays for the damages occurred by the property owner. They tried to reduce the amount of money the County would pay due to the eminent domain action and if denied the County will pay more money. If there is a good reason to deny the variance they will go forward and assess the amount of damages. The reason this is being addressed is when the sign face is changed they will not have to relocate the sign. Otherwise they will pick it up and move it. They didn't want the cost of changing or relocating it. Mr. Abemathy asked if the flagpole will be a traffic hazard. It is 2.8 feet closer to the lane. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - staff looked at the site and the sign is behind what will be the sidewalk and not create a visual obstruction of the west bound move of traffic. The flagpole is adjacent to the sign. The sidewalk is 5-6 feet wide, and would be 2.8 feet from there. 3 January 2, 2003 Mr. Strain asked if they would have any objection if they added a stipulation (if this was approved), that would require the variance to be null and void should the existing structure be demolished or renovated beyond 50% of its current use. Mr. Yovanovich wants to be able to keep their sign in its place as if the County never took any of the property. If the County hadn't taken part of their property, if they demolished the building, the sign would be legal and they wouldn't have to replace it. But now that the County has taken the property, and if they demolish it, they have to replace the sign. They have lost the right to keep the sign because of the Counties eminent domain action. They want to keep the sign. Mrs. Young asked if they approved the variance for the flagpole, it would be 2.8 feet from the road plus a 5 foot sidewalk - is there more ground from the sidewalk to the road. Answer was 8 feet from the actual roadway. Speakers - none. The hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to forward VA-2002-AR-2848 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. Seconded Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Richardson stated being this is not a safety issue and the sign and flag pole is in the right place and should be left there from now on - he will be in favor of the motion. Carried 8-0. B. VA-2002-AR-3332 - Vincent Cautero - representing Westforth Contracting Inc. Requesting a 1.5 foot variance from the required 10 foot setback to 8.5 feet located at 6962 Greentree Dr., Pelican Bay, Unit #13. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Budd discussed the issue with Mr. Cautero. Don Schneider - Planning Services - This is a "before the fact" variance. It has not taken place. Map was shown on the visualizer. The request is for a second story addition to the single family residence. The second story setback is 10 feet and the proposed addition would encroach in the comer of the property by 1 ½ feet by a triangle of 11 feet long. It's a small encroachment on the side of the home. He has received letters from the Pelican Bay Foundation and the Pelican Bay Homeowners Association of which object to the variance. The Planning staff has recommended denial in which it does not meet the criteria to justify the variance. Mr. Budd asked - being only two floors, the area zoning requires the stair step increase setback with the height and if it would have started out with a two story it would have been better. Mrs. Young asked why when designing the second story they couldn't have done a 1 ½ foot setback. 4 January 2, 2003 Mr. Schneider did not know other than that the contractor and owner designed it to not be a setback. It could be designed to conform if it was an engineering and owners desire. Mr. Strain asked about the Wedding Cake style. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - the language that allowed that type of measurement was removed. She deferred to staff if on a two story structure it can be called a two story residential being a Wedding Cake. The term Wedding Cake wasn't eliminated; it was the language in the code in the districts that allowed setbacks in the relationship of the exterior wall. Ray Bellows stated the definition of the setback is defined in the PUD document - not the criteria in the LDC. If the language says the setback for two stories is 10 feet, then the entire structure would have to keep the 10 foot setback - not just measured to the wall, so not a Wedding Cake setback. The variance is for the entire structure. Petitioner - Vincent Cautero - representing Henry Westforth, Westforth Contracting - issue on the 10 foot and the variance being granted for the entire structure - there is no non-conformance. The variance request is only for the portion Mr. Schneider addressed. There are irregular shaped lots in the sub-division. An aerial was presented on the visualizer. The property owners purchased the home - they did not build it. He made reference to the map with details of the design. It yields redesign of the first structural wall. There is no change in the PUD document if the variance was granted. He spoke with several residents of the Pelican Bay Foundation and Association and is not asking for a change in the PUD Document. The configuration of the lot line and the configuration of the house on the lot is the problem. When bringing a second story straight up, moving 1 ½ feet can not be done without changing a wall and the whole elevation of the first story wall will have to be changed. He feels that would cause a disturbance in the neighborhood more so than placing a second story addition on. No one would be losing their view or their access to any feature in the sub-division. Mr. Cautero stated it is 21 ½ feet between wall to wall for next door. Mr. Adelstein is concerned about the Pelican Bay Foundation not approving the variance. Mr. Strain felt there was a doable fix in which Mr. Cautero said it is being considered. Henry Westforth - in conversations with homeowners he wanted to point out that they want to maintain conformity and actually do something architecturally appealing to the community. Mr. Westforth will register as a lobbyist after the meeting. He showed a graphic of the design straight up, attractive and explained the appearance of the design chosen architecturally. Considered slicing off the second floor area, but with the roof line, didn't feel it was an attractive approach. The house is not parallel to the property line. Being it is over the garage they felt this was the best way to go. Speakers - Bill Walters - Pelican Bay Foundation - the issue with the setback is not unique. WCI turned over Architectural Review a year ago to the Foundation. Seven to eight requests have been received and the foundation does not give variances. There are deed restrictions on property in Pelican Bay in addition to what is noted in the PUD. The deed restrictions are stricter than what is in the PUD. Each association has their own January2,2003 deed restrictions. Never been a case that he is aware of that an individual has gone directly to the County for a request for a variance to the PUD without going to WCI and then going to the Foundation. It has normally stopped at the Foundation or WCI level. He realizes people want to upgrade and improve. Many have built in Pelican Bay because of what they see. This neighborhood has very few 2 story homes. (Barrington) They do not want to see changes made on improvements on property than what is already there. How do you stop one and approve another. The simple thing to do is to stop the variance and go according to the PUD. When putting this second story on, it will block the sunlight into the guest bedroom for the neighbor. The Foundations position is that no variance be given, no variance be made to the PUD and no variance to the deed restrictions. They are requesting to keep the PUD the way it was designed 25 years ago and make no changes now or in the future. Richard Laughlin - President Pelican Bay Property Owners Association - over 3,100 families belong to the Association which would represent 6-7,000 people in Pelican Bay. It is a planned community with certain setback and side yard requirements. The Association feels there is no reason why the requirements should be changed for any purpose at all. It has a domino effect for the entire community. They do not want to see a hodge-podge of homes with different characteristics. He does not understand why the Planning Commission has any jurisdiction because of the deed restrictions. Mr. Abernathy responded that the petitioner can proceed through the channels ignoring the deed restrictions and could be taken to court. Mr. Laughlin thinks it could be argued because of the deed restrictions. In closing he would like to keep Pelican Bay the way it is. The hearing is closed for discussion and m/>tion. Mrs. Young moved the Planning Commission forward Petition VA-2002- AR-3332 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the recommendation of denial. Seconded Mr. Midney. Mr. Richardson stated adding another floor doesn't seem like a bad arrangement but need to keep the rules in place because of impacts on other areas. It does leave the applicant in a position not being able to proceed with construction and supports the motion. Mr. Strain feels they have two options to proceed: 1- Modify the property line to give them the 10 feet. 2- Pulling the building back in on the first floor level and going with two stories as the PUD allows. Mr. Abemathy commented that he is persuaded by the neighborhood associations. Motion carries for denial - 8-0. 9:40 AM Break 9:50 AM Reconvened 6 January 2, 2003 Ce PUDZ-2002-AR-2517 - Robert Mulhere - representing The Ronto Group, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD acting as an amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD by deleting hotel, motel and transient lodging as a permitted use and adding a maximum of 112 multi-family dwelling units as a permitted use. Increases the maximum building height from 50 feet to 8 habitable stories over 1 floor of parking with a maximum feet of 86 for property located on the north side of Walkerbilt Road and west side of Tamiami Trail. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Strain has had discussions on height, docks, and traffic with Mr. Yovanovich and representatives of the applicant. He has had e-mails with other parties in general concerning height issues. Mr. Wolfley has spoken with Mr. Farar, Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Yovanovich and Ms. Ryan at the Conservancy. Mr. Richardson has had conversations with various members of the community. Mr. Budd has spoken with Mr. Yovanovich and a representative of the petitioner. Fred Reischl - Planning Services - request for a PUD Amendment - handling it as a PUD to a PUD Rezone. The Committees packet is the strike through version. A map was displayed as to direction and surrounding area. It is currently being reviewed by the County Attorney for language and Transportations review showed a reduction in traffic impacts. The PUD contains a provision for a hotel/motel. The Petitioner is proposing removal and converting it to residential with 112 dwelling units. The hotel/motel was permitted to remain as a permitted use in the PUD. The hotel/motel is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. In conversion of the commercial portion of the GMP, conversion of commercial properties outside an activity center is encouraged, by a density bonus, and be converted to residential use. The petitioner also proposes the building height of what was the hotel/motel being capped at 50 feet but to increase the height from 50 feet from the hotel/motel to 86 feet above flood for residential use. The analysis shows the hotel/motel showing 160 units vs. the 112 unit residential reducing traffic impact to the site. Numerous letters have been received objecting to the height. The original petition was for two 180 foot towers. Staff had recommended denial of the height. The petitioner has reduced the height request from 180 to 86 feet above flood with flood being at 11 feet. Staff feels it is compatible with the surrounding area. The LDC says that the PUD zoning district may depart from the strict application of standards, such as building heights. According to planning principals height is not always a bad thing. At 11 feet higher than a possible neighor, staff feels it is compatible with surrounding properties and recommending approval of the 86 foot height. Mr. Adelstein summarized his thoughts stating he doesn't see the logic in the plans. There is a 50 foot height, knew it when they bought the land, knew it when they planned their hotel and now it is more profitable because of the extra units. They need to go up to get the maximum use. January 2, 2003 Mr. Abernathy stated this is what many people don't like about County Planning. Any doubt is resolved in a liberal way possible, rather than what exists. 75 feet is what the County Planning has recommended in the past. Just because the petitioner is very persuasive, it is changed to 86 feet. He is afraid someone else will want more feet than that next time something is brought before Planning. He used the Fifth Third Bank as an example of being a very tall building, making it a monstrosity. Ray Bellows stated the Fifth Third Bank is under the old C4 district and is over 100 feet. They had a legal right to apply because the C4 district allowed for it. Mr. Abemathy commented they didn't give them 125 feet. Mr. Reischl stated that Staff is guided by the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan which does not put a height limit on PUD and can be exempted from the height limitations. The GMP encourages conversion of commercial. Under an old project a few months ago the Planning Commission asked to convert residential to commercial. Staff didn't feel it was the intent of the GMP and they recommended denial. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to convert the residential property to commercial. Mr. Bellows gave a clarification of looking at a sight by sight basis and noted when height increases, the Board and Planning Commission has recommended approval of building increased heights and also denial at times. This is always looked at a case by case basis - good planning is not dictated by height restriction universally because it is such a diverse county. The County needs to do good planning based on the laws and ordinances. Mr. Abernathy stated in six weeks it grew by 11 feet. Mr. Strain commented staff is saying the criteria given for evaluation meets those criteria. The Planning Commission has the obligation to review it, agree or disagree, clean it up and recommend it to the BCC. He feels what staff is presenting is within the criteria. Staff looks at it from a factual viewpoint of the LDC and GMP. Mrs. Young is concerned about the height and wondered if there would be an objection to maintaining the height to a maximum of 50 feet as most of the buildings are in that particular area. Steps should be taken to stop building towers in Collier County. Fred. Reischl stated any of those height limitations would be acceptable to staff. The mangrove wetlands were discussed. This has not gone to the EAC and Mr. Richardson felt it should go to the committee for their review. Mr. Reischl called Kim Hadley finding out the current preserve is based on current jurisdictional lines by South Florida Water Management District. The other concern was the eagle nest with the site being outside of the secondary zone of the closest nest. No other listed species were found on site. Mr. Richardson talked about the density bonus - being that the process lets density bonus be applied when the history of the project actually wanted it to be commercial and now changing it plus wanting a bonus out of it. It does not make sense to him. January 2, 2003 Ray Bellows mention the language is intended to be an incentive to reduce the amount of commercial zoning and something that Would encourage property owners to convert from Commercial to residential. The issue is how much and how high to build - not whether commercial or residential. Allowing building credits is odd for land that is under water. Mr. Richardson asked about letters from the neighbors such as the Bay House. He wonders about the change in use from Commercial to residential which was stated in Mr. Jennings letter. The one developed portion of the PUD cannot hold the undeveloped portion "hostage". Marjorie Student said they can raise objections. But to get all property owners to change a portion of a PUD would be difficult. The unified control is for the initial development of a PUD. A lengthy discussion followed on the language and understanding of unified control being the assemblage of land to form a PUD. The PUD's typically sell off tracts to other developers with interests changing. Mr. Strain disclosed his recollection of having discussions with Mr. Jennings several months ago as a result of a letter hr wrote. His concern was more of the residential will have more of impact than the commercial. Mr. Strain has several questions: - 5.10 Future Land Use - wondered if this is an inappropriate reference as it is applied to what it "was" rather than to what it "will be". Marjorie Student stated it be put in for explanatory purposes and show the history of the project. This is something she can look at. - 4.2 Under Traffic - he discussed the access points - fight in - fight out - and asked about the requirement for the restaurant to utilize them. If this were to be residential with a condominium association, could they prohibit the restaurant from using the access to 41 Greg Garcia -Transportation - stated the ingress and egress is off Walkerbilt. An aerial map was shown. The ingress and egress to 41 would be for emergency vehicles only. A gate would be in place. - Section 4 - discussed the main entrance being Walkerbilt. Still working with the applicant on the transportation language. Corrections will be made. A sidewalk will be provided on the north side of Walkerbilt. - Page 4 - 7 &8 - utilities -discussed existing water and force main sizes. - Page 4A - Number of parking spaces - would not increase the total height of the building. PETITIONER - Rich Yovanovich - Representing the Petitioner - the comprehensive plan encourage the conversion of commercial property to residential when not in an activity center. What is currently approved is a Hotel and could be built there sometime in the future. His question was "what is better for the community"? Tarpon Cove is similar and 180 feet in height. Tarpon Cove in within the two nautical miles. They had numerous meetings with the neighbors. He feels this is what is needed. There is a risk and a reward. It will be 8 residential floors over one of parking, 86 feet over FEMA. The building from existing grade will be 91 feet. Code allows parking to become part of the building up to two stories. (Could go to 97 feet) His remarks were: 9 January2,2003 - Go forward asking for 86 feet above FEMA - Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan - Met with Conservancy when talking about the 180 feet project - environmentally pleased with what they were doing. - Eliminate Boat Slips - Traffic Reduction for converting from Commercial to Residential - 11 feet over permitted use - Project as a whole - not asking for anything code doesn't state. - Urban sprawl - keeping urban area more intact. Mr. Strain addressed open space and compatibility criteria. He also asked about the smoke issue being a possible problem. If the project goes foreword Mr. Strain would like to ad a stipulation in the PUD protecting Mr. Jennings rights on his property. Mr. Richardson said they would be the tallest buildings in that area going to the 91 feet. Mr. Yovanovich talked about the compatibility issue and traffic being reduced as being positive. Bob Mulhere - the density is calculated, not including the 1.5 acre commercial tract. He displayed a map and discussed compatibility and height. Height in itself does not result in incompatibility. The question is how close they are to other adjacent properties and situation to be more compatible. In meetings it was stated not so much the height but other elements such as how close to the arterial roadway. They are setback 300 feet. -There are significant mangroves. -Can request parking under the building. -Neighbors to the north are the Cocohatchee Nature Center in which they have had conversations with. Meandering sidewalks have been discussed. -Light and air is not being blocked by the two 86 feet proposed buildings. - More than 500 feet from the tower to the mobile home park. -Construct sidewalk along Walkerbilt. -The residents may not be seasonal residents. -In meetings height was of concern - so reduced it from 180 feet to 86 feet. -Eliminated boat docks. Speakers - Dianne Shanley - concerned resident in Colliers Reserve Community - Dianne stated there arc zoning laws in place and do not deny thc petitioner the right to build. 60% reduction in traffic she noted was discussed earlier and felt there would be more traffic in a residential ama than if it wcrc commercial. She felt developers like to "threat"....they my have something else in mind, but she is an environmentalist and concerned about the sort of community they may have in thc future. Doug Fee - President of North Bay Civic Association and resident of Tarpon Cove - Hc hopes thc Planning Commission has read all the letters from all the Associations. There arc a lot of issues involved that need to bc looked at including the neighborhoods. This property is surrounded by commercial and creating a "pocket". Most letters state they want it to remain at 50 ' height, want hotel usage, compatible with thc restaurant, thc hotel across thc street and docs not fccl it is compatible when you put a residential surrounding commercial. 10 January2,2003 Mr. Wolfley asked if he prefers a 160 room motel rather than 112 units of residential. The answer was "yes". Mr. Wolfley stated it sounded like the petitioner was trying to appease the neighbors and work things out the best they could, hence the many meetings and conversations. Discussion took place on the letters in the packets and being opposed from rezone from commercial to residential. Normally people object to Commercial rather than residential. It was asked if they were opposed to the height or the residential. Mr. Fee again referred to the letters written. Donna Reed Caron - resident of North Bay - height is an issue with her. There are height limits; she encourages thc Commission to stick by them. If the hotel would be at 50 feet, they would favor thc Hotel, but adamantly against anything higher than thc 50 feet. Robert McConnell - President of Colliers Reserve Association - submitted 192 signatures on a petition objecting to the project. The Homeowners Board is also opposed to the project. It is not compatible with the community. They learned today it is now 91 feet rather than 180 feet but doesn't change the facts. It is in an environmentally pristine sensitive area. Will stand up like a sore thumb in a low profile community. He discussed the acreage for conservation. He discussed the visual effects of the skyline, the privacy of the neighborhood, conflict with low rise ambiance of the area. Also discussed the traffic issues feeling there would be more traffic with residential and concerned about the emergency routes. He feels the developer is not being responsible. Residential heights need a cap. He requests the Planning Commission to stand by the current zoning and deny this request. Mr. Wolfley wanted Mr. McConnell to realize the 192 signatures on the petition were based on the 180 foot tower. Mr. McConnell stated it would not make a difference and the people would still object. Richard Glowacki - Colliers Reserve - Retired from Real Estate for 45 years. This is called pop-up zoning. A financial benefit accrues to the developer. There is a lessening of value in the entire impact area. This is transferring economic values from homeowners to developers. Sally Barker - Chairman of Property Owners Assn. North Collier County - Sally prefers the PUD remain as is without conversion to residential. They have a problem with height and compatibility. The residents want to maintain the "old Florida feel" low rise style. They compare the high rises with the East Coast. The County responded by lowering the C4 building height from 100 feet to 75 feet, keeping with the character the people were wanting. She discussed the density bonus plan. It does say the project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. She has 10 years on the MPO and is a strong proponent of checkbook concurrency. She doesn't feel traffic impact really matter. Whether a motel or a high rise every projection she has seen US 41 is going to fail regardless what is done. Bonita Springs is growing so fast that US 41 will fail. The argument from converting from a hotel/motel to a residential unit will reduce the traffic impact isn't factual. She feels nothing will help that issue. 11 January 2, 2003 Mr. Strain stated he had letters in his packet from Nov 11, 2002, of which he takes very seriously, and none say anything about objecting to the conversion to residential. Sally stated they didn't know what they were objecting to but the existing hotel use at 50 feet was acceptable. Anything beyond that would probably not be acceptable. The letter should probably have been updated. Tom Jennings - Bayhouse Restaurant Owner - an aerial was shown. They were obligated to build a decelerated turn lane from 41 unto the subject property (Clear Bay Road). Some of the dynamics of the restaurant haven't been taken into consideration. Certain realities and facts of operating of a restaurant will conflict with residential. He is not opposed to the residential on the site. Mixed use is very popular today. Blending has pleasing results. There is a water detention area. Some points he addressed were: Traffic being an issue - right hand turn of Walkerbilt is possible - there is room for three lanes - he discussed the various ideas of what transportation could do for access lanes and major buffering. - Ingress & Egress - recommend possibility of Ingress only from Walkerbilt Road. - Section 3.5 In PUD Amendment - minimum setbacks - suggesting a minimum 50 foot setback for the restaurant. - Section 3.5C - talked about half the height of the building or minimum o 50 feet or whichever is greater. - Section 3.6 - maximum height of structures - any change should be made as a wholesale change - should be made across the board for the whole PUD and limited to 50 feet. - Generally not opposed to being a good neighbor and being residential - the developer isn't going to be the neighbor but the residents of the development will be. - Some dynamics can lead to conflicts - he mentioned the exhaust fans and parking lots within 30 feet within the residential may be a problem. Mr. Strain asked if the developer has met with him about his main concerns being the smoke and odors and other issues that may be a problem. They have spoken and suggested solutions. The solution he feels lies in height and setbacks. When the large hood fans are in operation, they will cause odors. Marc Lister - North Naples - he discussed the character of the community. Since seeing the notice for the PUD and in talking with several County residents, he finds many are against the rezoning. They moved to Naples and Collier County for a lot of reasons but the main reason is the small town feel. All of Naples and Collier County has that feel. The low rise buildings give its character. Changing from 180 feet to $6 feet doesn't make any difference. He feels it is in violation of the public trust that they put in the hands of the Boards. If this is approved a new standard will be established for building heights and have high residences up and down Tamiami Trail in the future. Zoning is put in place to protect neighboring properties and consistent use in the area. The current zoning of 50 feet is consistent with the area and stay that way. Only change zoning if it is a compelling reason to make it. An increased profit is not a compelling reason. Reject the request and retain the character of the community. Donald Swanson - President of Palm River Mobile Homeowners Association - He pointed out the change would be worse than the present zoning, severe traffic problems, 12 January2,2003 current PUD of 50 feet should be adhered to and it would be an isolated and undesirable district. They do not want a change in zoning and feel residential would be an isolated district. He discussed the bonus density and converting commercial property. If this type of zoning is approved, they will have another Fifth Third Bank. William Ebben - Colliers Reserve - Is urging the Planning Commission to deny the applicants petition. The 192 signatures are from September/October. If they were returned in two weeks he stated there would not only be 192 signatures abut 292 signatures. Mr. Wolfley stated in looking at the signature addresses are from 4000 block Gulf Shore Blvd. North and Pelican Bay Blvd etc. and felt he could probably get 500 signatures. Mr. Ebben thought those signatures were gathered from Collier Reserve County Club not necessarily the residents. There are 224 units in Colliers Reserve and 400 members of the County Club. Mr. Mulhere - in response he discussed the traffic impact statement with it being prepared by a professional transportation engineer. Based on the studies done - the actual number of trips for a 160 room hotel was calculated 1,425 daily and for residential 645. This is more than 60% reduction in traffic. The access to 41 with the turn lane was done by the State. For safety considerations they agreed to make it an emergency access only. Buffering and landscaping was discussed as he showed a more detailed exhibit map with a landscaping plan showing the revised access from Walkerbilt. Rich Yovanovich - this was the first time he had ever heard that it is more intense of being residential than as commercial. He did not one of the speakers to think of anything as a threat - either they will convert to residential or it will be a Hotel. He did not want it to come across as threat. Everyone needs to listen to the facts and creditable testimony. The Comprehensive Plan does say they can convert up to 16 units per acre. He asked that the Commission forward the petition to the BCC of 86 feet over FEMA vs. 75 feet with 16 units per acre. If there was a motion for less height such as 50 feet, Mr. Yovanovich started it would not work. Greg Garcia - Transportation - Greg said there were remarks made of changes the Commission has not seen yet - some are the sidewalk along Walkerbilt, which will be in the language, and a boardwalk that will go from the property because of a shared parking agreement with the Environmental facility across the way. The hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd had to disagree with testimony that residential is less intensive than commercial and agrees with Mr. Yovanovich in not seeing the logic. Mr. Jennings changed his mind on the project and feels residential is not compatible with the restaurant operation and did not have a problem with height, although a hotel use would be more appropriate. 13 January 2, 2003 Mr. Budd moved to forward to the Board of Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Seconded Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson read a memorandum of April 4, 2001 authored by Mr. Bob Mulhere quotes a book entitled "A Public Involvement Manuel" by James Creighton. The final measure of the effectiveness of public involvement program is not just that the public has been informed but the public comment has been solicited in a manner in such that it has contributed in making a decision that is technically and economically feasible, environmentally sound and supported by a large segment of the public." He felt this article gives the Commission additional support. Mr. Yovanovich stated the petitioner is withdrawing the petition. Mr. Budd withdrew his motion. Mr. Budd commented on the general procedural of presentation of materials and getting things to the Planning Commissioners in a reasonable amount of time. In the last item when information isn't available to the public, it's not available to the Commissioners. Mr. Budd felt information shouldn't be provided to them at all if it is not presented or in their packets just because they don't like to receive information at the last minute. In this case it was additional sidewalks, boardwalks and/or other transportation issues. There is something fundamentally wrong with the process when the public, staff, the Planning Commission and ultimately the petitioner doesn't have the same documents. They all need to be on the same page so they can talk intelligently and make proper decisions about the growth of the county. Mr. Bellows stated the procedures in place are intended to not allow a petition to come before the Commission until all the reviewing agents have signed off. When items have a tremendous amount of rewrite with anticipation of them being done by a certain time, staff schedules them in hopes they will be ready. That's why items that are continued, when the information is not ready in the perceived timeline. But they are presented when ironing a few minor details. Te sidewalks deemed not to be substantial change to the impact of the development. They will do better at making the timelines. Mr. Budd responded by saying if slowing things down is the solution of getting everyone on the same page, so be it and it would be in the better interest of Collier County. Ray said they will do better to slow things down. Mr. Strain has a conflict with the next Agenda Item and has submitted his paperwork. Mr. Strain left at 12:33. PUDA-2002-AR-2803 - petitioner is requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD for the purposes of amending the Walnut Lakes PUD (Ordinance Number 01-70). Located on 18063 to 18071 E. Tamiami Trail North on the East side of East Tamiami Trail Approx. 2.5 miles East of Collier Blvd. opposite Creative Drive & Imperial Wilderness RV Subdivision in Collier county, FL. 14 January 2, 2003 Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abemathy. Don Schneider -Planning Services - this is an Amendment to a PUD that was approved in 2001. Petitioner's proposing modifying yard & height requirements and Master Plan revised to eliminate a potential Assisted Living Facility and delete the golf course. The proposed 204 acre PUD is a mixed use community providing a total of 612 single family units, multi-family and recreational amenities with lakes, open space and preserve areas. This is consistent with the adjacent development. The amendment will not change or impact any previous approval. Staff recommends approval subject to staff's stipulation to the attached ordinance. Discussion followed on heights according to the table in the Commissioners packet. Ray Bellows talked about the ALF (Assisted Living Facilities) conversion. Section 3.3, #4 references the determining factor of the intensity uses of the ALF - it does not count beds or rooms. They do not double count the land. Discussion followed on the number of beds, size of rooms, acreage with ratios, ground level parking and landscaping. Mrs. Young is concemed about the traffic impact study and the level of service. Karen Bishop - she noted they have not increased their density from the original PUD. Just asking for some setback changes and getting rid of the golf course. Mr. Richardson said they need to look at this as if a new project. Karen responded it was zoned in the beginning and platted 550 unit mobile home park, added 20 acres with no changes to the density for the past 25 years. Greg Garcia - Transportation - the level of service on that segment of 41 is "C". The figures do not put it over the adopted level of service. Reed Jarvi - Transportation Engineer with Vanasse Daylor - he discussed and explained the two triggers - one of significance (5%) shows where they need to analyze the roads - if under the significance, they do not have to analyze it. Then they look at "is it adverse" meaning over the level of service. If Significant level of service A, B, C or D it is still approvable. If Significant and Adverse - level of service E or F - then a problem. The LOS east of 951 was projected (with the project) at LOS "C" being as significant factor. They are doing projections on the future using historical data. The current projections for the build out of this particular project, is within the level of service standards. Greg Garcia told the Commissioners when concurrency is in place the staff will have a better hold on projects approved and those coming forward. This segment of roadway meets the current requirements and does not put it over the adopted LOS threshold. A couple of words have been change due to the attorneys, and also an insignificant paragraph about posting of speed limits within a development complying with the speed limit requirements adopted by Florida Statues. Signalization has been modified also by the attorneys. He explained the responsibility being that of the developer. 15 January2,2003 Sidewalks will meet the standards and has been put back into the code. They will be on both sides and Karen Bishop does not have a problem with it. They will comply with the Land Development Code. The site is 200 acres, 35-40 acres open space, and about 30 acres under water. Mrs. Young asked about the change creating a drainage problem. The permits are in place and have an outfall structure that will be taken out and improving it with lessening the impacts. Mr. Abernathy inquired about the setbacks asking if they could be at 7 V2 feet. Karen addresses other upscale communities and not diminishing the quality of a project by having a foot and a half difference. If persons don't want to be that close, they will not buy in that particular development. She would be losing product line if she had to change it. She has agreed to 6 feet from the 5 feet originally. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Adelstein asked about the issue of how high the project will go. It will be 3 habitable floors for multi-family which is 50 feet, and ALF is 45 feet. Mr. Adelstein is reading- maximum height is 35 feet. She clarifies it being under the common areas - clubhouse and preserve areas not residential. Karen summaries it - for multi-family residential up to 3 habitable floors - 50 feet, the single family, attached and detached - 35 feet and the ALF can be 45 feet. Mr. Richardson made a general comment that staff gives them more detailed information on heights etc. No speakers. The hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to forward PUDA-2002-AR-2803 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried 7-0. 9. Old Business: Scheduling of the Workshop will be done by Mr. Joe Schmitt. Mr. Adelstein complimented the staff for getting the packets out as early as they did with the Holidays. 10. New Business: None 11. Public Comments: None 12. Discussion of Addenda: None 13. Adjourn - being no other business to come before the Planning Commission it was adjourned at 1:10 PM. 16 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS AST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME tAILING ADDRESS ;ITY COUNTY )ATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR CI~MMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: 0 CITY ~COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION IS: [3 ELECTIVE CI~ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending 3n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. · to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: , In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who-will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO A']-I'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~[~(~'Y- ~). ~'t'(LA~ ~,.J , hereby disclose that on ~- '~' (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 - PAGE 2