Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/06/2003 RFebruary 6, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 6, 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 (Excused) David Wolfley (10:45) Lora Jean Young (8:36) Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Russell Budd Dwight Richardson ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Derv. & Environmental Serv. Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Services Dept. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Manager Glenn Heath, Planning Services Ross Gochenaur, Panning Services Greg Garcia, Transportation Services Don Scott, Transportation Services REVISED AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2003 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE 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. ADDENDATOTHEAGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- JANUARY 2, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS- JANUARY 8, 2003 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2001-AR-1776, Jerry Neal, representing Ben Moore, requesting a 92-foot extension from the permitted 20 feet for a boat dock protruding a total of 112 feet into the waterway for property located at 66 Dolphin Circle, further described as Lot 91, Isles of Capri No. 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Bo BD-2002-AR-3323, Jerry C. Neal, representing Harry and Julie Wood, requesting a 139-foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 159 feet into the waterway for property located at 86 Dolphin Circle, further described as Lot 86, Isle of Capri Unit 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to VA-2002-AR-3322) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) ~ VA-2002-AR-3322, Jerry C. Neal, representing Harry and Julie Wood, requesting a variance from the required side setbacks for dock facilities from 7.5 feet to 0.0 feet for property located at 86 Dolphin Circle, fiai-ther described as Lot 86, Isles of Capri Unit 1, in Section 3 I, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to BD-2002-AR-3323) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) PUDZ-2001-AR-1842, Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., representing Thomas G Eckerty, Trustee for 1-75 Exit 15 Land Trust, requesting a rezone from A, RSF-4, RMF-6, RMF-12 AND C-4 to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for property located in the southwest quadrant of the 1-75, Exit 15 Interchange, with frontage on Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37.39+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) ~!iC~;~2~O0~ R. Brace Anderson, Esq., representing David Key, AICP, Regional Vice President, U.S. Home Corporation requesting to establish the "Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay" for Sections 13, 14, 23 & 24, T48S, R26E, consisting of 2,562 +/- acres. (Coordinator: Glenn Heath) 10. 11. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN revised 2/27/03/CCPC AGENDA/SM/sp/rnk 2 February 6, 2003 e 0 Pledge of Allegiance was recited with Chairman Abernathy calling the meeting or order at 8:30 AM. Chairman Abernathy reminded anyone of the public that wishes to speak on a particular item must fill out a form in the hallway and present it to the Planning Dept. Anyone appearing on behalf of someone else, and being paid to do so, by Collier Counties Ordinance is a lobbyist. All lobbyists must register with the County. Roll Call was taken - a quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - none. Mrs. Young arrived- 8:36 A.M. Approval of Minutes - January 2, 2003 - Mr. Budd moved to approve the minutes of January 2, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried Unanimously 6-0. Planning Commission Absences - Mr. Adelstein will be absent for the February 20, 2003 meeting. BCC Report - Recaps - January 8, 2003 - none. Chairman's Report - Mr. Abemathy commented on a packet the members received about ethics, conduct, conflict of interest, drinking on the job and repeated absences of Collier County employees. He resents the fact that volunteers such as the Planning Commission members are lumped into a category of offenders that may have worked for the County. 8. Advertised Public Hearings: Ae BD-2001-AR-1776 -Jerry Neal representing Ben Moore, requesting a 92 foot extension from the permitted 20 feet for a boat dock protruding a total of 112 feet into the waterway for property located at 66 Dolphin Circle, Isle of Capri, Florida. Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services - informed the Commissioners staff changed procedures whereby thc petitioner will petition the Planning Commission rather than the staff. The applicant will be the presenter. For official purposes the petition will be read into the record by the staff Planner or the Chairman of the Planning Commission. Those that need to be sworn will be done at this time, the presentation by the applicant, and then question the applicant and staff if needed. Staff then summarizes the issues, February 6, 2003 makes a recommendation, question the applicant or staff again and then any final comments by the applicant will be held at that time. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER: Jerry Neal - representing Mr. & Mrs. Moore - This petition came before the Planning Commission last year, but being there was a change in procedures a new application had to be done with the new procedure. He is back with the same drawings and information as last year. They had a licensed surveyor verify the water depths maintaining the original petition is correct. Mr. Neal displayed a map of the area being presented. Many photos were shown discussing the water depth and sand bar in the area. They are asking to extend a dock from the back of the yard to the edge of the sand bar. He talked about the mean water line. He received one letter in favor of the dock extension and three letters in opposition. A letter from Richard Berkes says the water depth at 35 feet out is 8 feet deep. The surveyor shows at mean low water it is 2 1/2 feet which at low tide would be less. Another concern is a trench across the sand bar to get to the boat house. No one would try to create a trench to get the boat closer to shore as it would lead to fines and jail time. They have permits from the State DEP, the State Submerged Lands and Army Corps. of Engineers. Another letter states they do not want any project to extend past the 20 foot limit. Letter received earlier in the day claims the dock would block their vision and devalue their property. The last letter he discussed stated they were not in objection to the proposed dock. The person/s lives in the Marco Towers on the Marco River overlooking the bay. Mr. Neal talked about the shoals with Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson stated this is the first one in the area asking for an extension on a dock. Mrs. Young noticed the letters in opposition were from those that live in the area while the one in favor is on the other side of the bay on the 9th floor. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - Planning Services - the petition is not affected by the zone protection of the Manatee situation. This is a single slip dock and exempt from the Manatee Protection Plan and no moratorium in Collier County because they do have the Manatee Protection Plan. February 6, 2003 Mrs. Young asked about possibly obstructing the view of others on the bay. Mr. Gochenaur showed a map of the area of the other homes. Mr. Abernathy asked about posting a "manatee area" sign during construction but not after. Mr. Gochenaur stated typically during construction they may bring in work boats, a barge, crane and more activity than a regular pleasure boat. He will look it over and make any corrections that need be. Mr. Gochenaur recommended approval since the project meets all the criteria. SPEAKERS Walter Tamulis - 62 Dolphin Ct. - owns the property contiguous to Mr. & Mrs. Moore. He doesn't live there at this time but has spoken with Mr. Moore about the petition. He approves of the dock, but the extension was something he would like a better understanding of. He felt it could extend in front of his residence. He discussed the water depth and lot line. Mr. Richardson stated they do have factual data to back up the water depth. Mr. Budd informed Mr. Tamulis they are concerned with this particular property and the credible evidence in front of them with a desire to get everyone to an adequate water depth. In the future if Mr. Tamulis wanted to get to a 4 foot depth in compliance with the Manatee Protection Ordinance that he would come before the Planning Commission, whether it be intruding on navigation or whatever the issue may be in reference to his property and it would be considered at that time. Jim Hughes - property owner at 94 Dolphin Circle - he displayed his dock on the visualizer. Has lived there since 1989 and owns a cruiser. He was not aware of the background of the channel but knows previous owners have been able to get in and out all the time. He has photos showing the boat at low tide. Mrs. Betts, in Marco Towers can see their dock and had no problem at that time being in favor of it. Mr. Abernathy restated Mr. Hughes mentioned at low tide looking up past the subject property he can see sand along the area. Mr. Hughes said -yes but it would be out quite a ways. He is supporting the dock extension. Mr. Gochenaur stated Mr. White wanted him to clarify with regards to the resolution and decision whether they would or would not approve the language regarding manatee signs in the resolution itself or recommendation. When making the recommendation they need to specify, if voting in favor, whether they are approving the language in the resolution or the language in the recommendation. The hearing is closed for motion and discussion. 4 February 6, 2003 Mr. Budd moved approval of the staffs recommendation for petition BD- 2001-AR-1226 including the staff's stipulations as appears in the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 7-0. BD-2001-AR-3323 - Jerry Neal representing Harry & Julie Wood requesting a 139 foot boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding 159 total feet into the waterway for property located at 86 Dolphin Circle, Isle of Capri's, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - none. Ce Mr. Abernathy read the companion item to the Variance Petition of: YA-2002-AR-3322 - Jerry Neal representing Harry & Julie Wood requesting a variance side setbacks for dock facilities from 7.5 feet to 0.0 feet for property located at 86 Dolphin Circle, Isle of Capri's, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. PETITONER: Jerry Neal - representing Mr. & Mrs. Wood - This petition also was to come before the Planning Commission last year but had to go through thc new procedure first. He displayed an arterial map of the area, the dock (179 feet), and the relationship between the docks and proposed docks. A notarized affidavit from thc neighbors for no objection was presented and also recorded in Tallahassec as part of the permit. Riparian lines have been set by thc State. They are asking to have the pilings close to thc riparian lines to stay within their own boundaries. Mr. Richardson asked about trimming the mangroves. Mr. Neal stated they are trimming only and not cutting the mangroves. They could cut them as a single family if they wished to. Mr. Abernathy asked about thc deed process giving a certain amount of ownership and asked if that would change the width of measuring the waterway. Does it become a different property line? If so the dock wouldn't be extended by much. Mr. Neal replied it is between an easement and a fcc simple. For right now they arc referencing thc platted lot line before the riparian was added to it. Mr. Adelstein asked abut the 7 V2 feet setback of which Mr. Neal showed on the map. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - Planning Services - there is no requirement for an EAC review - single family properties are exempt - they arc allowed to trim mangroves with State permission. The Petitioner has stated they will not be trimming any of the mangroves. 5 February 6, 2003 For purposes of the dock extension - they are taking it from the mean high water line out to the most restricted point of 159 feet. SPEAKERS Mr. Hughes - 94 Dolphin Circle - adjacent to Mr. & Mrs. Wood - When they got their State permit they were allowed a sufficient cut of 6 feet to get out to the water. The dock walkway is 30 inches wide with a handrail. 1995 a law was passed where Mangroves could be cut down to 6 feet as long as they were supervised by a Landscape Architect. They maintain a hedge of about 6 feet. He is not opposed to the variance. The hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Budd moved Item B - BD-2001-AR-3323 for approval with staff recommendations along with the language in the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 6-0. Mr. Budd moved Item C, companion petition, VA-2002-AR-3322, for the 7 ~ foot side setback be approved. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Disclosures - none. Motion Carried Unanimously 6-0. Break - 9:50 AM Reconvened - 10:04 AM De PUDZ-2001-AR-1842 - Dwight Nadeau, RWA Inc., representing Thomas G. Eckerty, Trustee for 1-75 Exit 15 Land Trust, requesting a rezone form A, RSF-4, RMF-12, and C-4 to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for property located in the southwest quadrant of the 1- 75 Exit 15 Interchange, with frontage on Davis Blvd, East, Collier County, Florida. Consists of 37.39 plus acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Dwight Nadeau - RWA Inc., representing Thomas Eckerty, - he asked that the staff report become part of the public record. The subject property is within Activity Center #9 which identifies where commercial land uses are proposed in the interchange area. This PUD will comply with the Activity Center #9 zoning overlay district provisions contained in Sections 2.2.35 of the Land Development Code. The proposed rezoning request is to provide for limited commercial land use opportunity not to exceed 200,000 6 February 6, 2003 square feet on approx. 20 acres. Industrial Business Park land use limited to 250,000 square feet, gross leased floor area, on approx. 17 acres. It was noted the subject property is currently zoned for construction of approx. 95,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, 95 multi-family units as well as three single family units based on the existing zoning today. The proposed zoning will take away the incompatible residential land uses within the Activity Center #9 and provide unified plan of development and provide consistency with the comprehensive plan for the subject property. The project is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan as stated in staff report. The Wetlands on the property are of poor quality based on the impoundment by the surrounding roadways. The hydrology has been disrupted by the Golden Gate Canal. The drainage for the proposed East Gateway project will go through the Saddlebrook PUD to the west and adjoining the East Gateway PUD. The storm water conveyance system has been approved through the South Florida Management Districts. The native vegetation on the property will retain 9.34 acres of the 37.4 acres of which 5.7 are already in the preserve along the westerly boundary with the preserve areas of the Saddlebrook Village permit as well as the 1-75 right-of way. The proposed PUD has incorporated the development standards that would minimize or mitigate any potential compatibility concerns that may arise with high density multi- family residential product to the West in Saddlebrook Village. He discussed the transition of higher intensity uses to a higher intensity multi-family residential use which Saddlebrook is 13 dwelling units per acre. It will then change to the West further into the Palm Springs single-family sub-division with some C-1 property on the frontage of Radio Road. This project will take direct access onto Davis Blvd. with West Port Commerce Center where the infamous Wal-Mart Super Store may be constructed. He referred to the map of a wide conservation area associated with a northerly phase of Saddlebrook Village. They are requiring a 50 foot setback off the property boundary of Saddlebrook Village for all Commercial land uses that would abut the village. Transportation has looked at the project and is comfortable with the temporary limitation of 9,400 square feet equating to 1% or a diminimus impact on Davis Blvd. That limitation will be temporary until additional capacity is provided with the potential interim improvements proposed with Collier County Transportation and Construction. There may be a need for Storm Water Management areas on the east Gateway property and potentially on the West Port Property on the South. They will work with the County on Storm Water Management when needed. All conditions of approval have been agreed to by the applicant and incorporated into the PUD document and facts on record. Mr. Richardson asked about the vision statement providing any residential - Mr. Nadeau answered no residential component or any requirement in that quadrant of the interchange of the Activity Center #9. There are properties within the Activity Center that provide for dwelling units per acre in the Golden Gate Commerce Park as well as the Collier Blvd. mixed use Commercial Center PUD. It will be a Commercial/Industrial Business Park mixed use development. February 6, 2003 Ray Bellows used the term "mixed use" referring to the mix of Commercial and Industrial Business uses. He is not including residential in the PUD documents and makes no reference to such. Mr. Richardson is concerned about the "rush to rezone" when the roadways aren't really available for the development. Mr. Nadeau responded that the proposed project is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan based on the limitations imposed on the property. When the petition was submitted in 2000 there was not a deficient roadway for Davis Blvd at that time. Now the Davis Blvd. segment between Radio Road and Collier Blvd is falling into a deficient category. He understands there will be interim improvements to the road way proposed by Collier County. Mr. Richardson still feels it is a ploy to get the zoning because the development will not take place soon as the roadways will not be improved in the next 5 years. Discussion followed with Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Richardson about the subject of the fight time to move ahead on a project when the roadway is insufficient and no plans for improvement with the County for some time. Mr. Nadeau will develop the vast majority of the wetlands based on the poor wetland quality and discussions with the South Florida Water Management District. They will mitigate on and off site and there is no information at this time unless they have the zoning entitlements in place. Mr. Abernathy quoted part of the Environmental Advisory Council meeting discussing impacts on 20.3 acres or 86% of the wetlands, related impacts will be compensated for by enhancing and preserving 3.4 acres of wetlands and 2.3 acres of uplands. It doesn't say anything about off site mitigations. He asked if that is part of the program. Mr. Nadeau responded "yes", and that the PUD document requires an ERP permanent process with the SFWMD and they dictate if it gets mitigated. Yet the Environmental Advisory Council was told they had to do what the SWFWD advises and yet the EAC voted unanimously to oppose the project. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve it and he is wondering where the confusion is. People have challenged District permits in chambers as well as the BCC and have failed to prevail. There is non-conforming zoning within the Activity Center #9 and with the approval of the proposed rezoning will give a unified plan of development which the County has control over. The project is going to have a significant impact on the roadway and can't be approved without mitigation. February 6, 2003 Mr. Adelstein commented a few months ago Mr. Feder had stated there will be no future commercial development on Davis Blvd until the road has been put into a condition where it could hold any future development, so why should there be a change at this time. Mr. Nadeau responded they want the opportunity to increase the capacity so the commercial that is demanded in the area can be constructed when the capacity is available on the roadway. If it takes 2-3 years for the plans to be formulated to increase the capacity that the zoning will allow the property to participate with land area to be contributed for rights of way and for potential storm water management. This is what the zoning will do - it provides a greater tool for the County and DOT to use to improve the situation that everyone agrees has failed. There is a zoning entitlement that would be potentially necessary for the project to be built. In discussions with the County Attorneys office nothing will be done until capacity is on the roadway. The zoning would be in place, the facility may not be improved, but will not be held to the provisions of the code where 15% of the infrastructure must be in or 15% of the land uses proposed until the capacity is there. Mr. Schmitt said the three year window starts with the SDP process. This is strictly a rezoning action and no approval to proceed until the capacity on the roadway allows it. This is taking a zoning and complying it into a PUD - "a super zoning" so to speak. Staff will be removing the moratorium soon in two of the sections because 3.15 provide criteria to control growth in these areas until the improvements take place. The rezoning can take place but nothing else until the roadways are deemed adequate to support the development. Mr. Adelstein feels they can't make zoning changes until Mr. Feder says the moratorium is removed. Ray Bellows - policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element - the BCC can rezone the property as long as there is suitable mitigation. The petitioner is being mitigated to not impact greater than 5% of the Level of Service of the roadway. 1% now which is more restriction than the other PUD's that was approved in that Activity Center. The BCC has a history of looking at the mitigation, and the phasing of projects. In this case the project is being phased not to exceed the impact that is deemed significant. There is no recommendation by staff, the petitioner did not agree to it and the BCC could recommend denial because they would be exceeding the significance of Davis Blvd. Mr. Midney asked why the developer didn't wait until the roads were better to ask for the changes. The developers had been waiting on this property for a number of years and found the opportunity was right in 2000. The boundary changes were right and also the increase in the number of residential dwelling units in the area to support the commercial demand was right. 9 February 6, 2003 Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - there is a term in the moratorium Ordinance that says the duration of it is until they have a new adequate public facilities Ordinance effective. The new public facilities Ordinance was effective at some point on February 5, 2003. As a clean up they will be removing the moratorium from the Code, but by the term "operation of law" it has a set duration and condition for the termination of the duration has been filled, the moratorium is up by the "operation of law". Mr. Richardson would like to see Mr. Nadeau change the development commitment to have "zero" square feet of development until the roads are ready rather than the 5%. Mr. Nadeau said he would do that, but with the understanding that as incremental improvements are made to Davis Blvd. the capacity or opportunity for development would increase with the incremental improvements. Marjorie clarified the concurrency regulations and the state law concurrency and rules talk about when the impacts of the development occur. Out of a rezone there are no impacts until the CO is in place, living there or operating a business. The local government picks an intermediate time to start getting commitments from the developer to see what they are going to do to fix the road. At the rezoning time it is appropriate so they can be working toward that goal and the Government can be working toward what it needs to do to get the roads fixed by the time the impacts do occur. Stan Litsinger - Comprehensive Planning Manager - clarifying the circumstances he stated the standard in the comp plan under their comp plan became effective Feb. 5th and the Land Development Code became effective also. It is a 3% impact at the rezone of comp plan amendment stage as far as measuring impact and looking at mitigating standards. The Comp plan and rezone stage and proposed development being less than 1% was discussed. The existing LDC that became effective yesterday still has an annual determination of concurrency. In December the BCC found with the capacity expansion improvements on this particular section of Davis Blvd., they did not need to designate an area of significant influence, therefore, no concurrency stoppage until next Dec. This applicant can submit a site development plan and have it approved under the current concurrency situation. Marjorie Student clarified the new comp plan - 3% standard had not been exceeded, therefore consistent with the comp plan. STAFF Ray Bellows - Chief Planner - has been reviewed by staff in the consistency with all codes and regulations with the LDC and Growth Management Plan. He showed the proposed project and Activity Center #9 on the visualizer. The EAC reviewed the petition on Feb. 6th 2002 and recommended 7-0 for denial due to the impact of wetlands on site. Staff is recommending approval because of the off site mitigation. 10 February 6, 2003 (Mr. Wolfley arrived at 10:45 AM) A lengthy discussion followed concerning the wetland issues, working with SFWM District, and the EAC voting against the project. Ray Bellows stated for the record that staff has not received any letter of objections for the petition. The petitioner has agreed to limit the development to "zero" until the road is improved. The issue of sunsetting has been changed from 5 years to 3 years and the petitioner is requesting that the sunsetting process not be started because the County would not be issuing permits for roadways because it's deficient, so they can not meet the timeline. Staff has no problem with it. Mr. Nadeau told the Commission how the wetlands are evaluated. Don Scott - Transportation Planning - 4-6 laning State road 84 out to 951. Right of Way is planned for 2007-2008. Construction is programmed and going for an interim improvement at Davis, expanding the intersection out, to alleviate the moratorium for at least some time. There will be two lanes coming in for receiving two lanes off 951 and dual lefts and a separate right east bound at 84 & 951. This will change the traffic measurements of"F" to an acceptable level of service, depending upon other developments that may come forward in the area. Mr. Midney asked if the petitioner did not get the rezone and the County needed more space or lanes, would the County have to spend more money to get it. Mr. Scott responded "yes". Mr. Midney asked when the area is built out can they build the roads wide enough or will it still be crowded on the roads. Mr. Scott answered there are three levels -the interim project before doing the 6 & 4 lanes -but a large interchange project that incorporates 1-75 - ramps etc. being a $90M project. Mr. Scott does not know what the petitioners schedule is for development. Mr. Midney has concerns of the projected development how the roads will be adequate. Mr. Scott mentioned the improvements with the interchange at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway may help take some of the trips off the interstate. Mr. Midney is wondering if they are rushing the development at this time, he is looking at what is best for the community as a whole. Mrs. Young still feels they may be proceeding too fast at this time without enough information regarding roads and wetlands and what is going to happen on the funding. Ray Bellows feels they are eliminating some or most of the concerns by going to the "zero" trips on the roadway until the roadway is at an acceptable level of service. The mitigation isn't any different than any other project in the County where they refer to the SFWMD to work out the mitigation. He doesn't feel they are treating this project any differently than any other one. 11 February 6, 2003 Mr. Budd reiterated that some of his fellow Commissioners have expressed they are moving too far and too fast. He takes a different view. He states they are talking about a rezone. Assuming the rezone is passed - there is not the ability to pull a permit. There is still the South Florida Water Management District, the level of service on the road must be achieved and many administrative steps in the process before the first building permit can be achieved. Points have also been made that it may not come back to the Planning Commission again, which is true, because of the other points in the process that will occur. The Planning Commission is not the Water Management District, and if someone from the Board or some other Board wants to make Water Management judgments, they need to get on the Water Management Board. It is not the County Commission and if someone else wants to make those decisions they need to run for a County Commissioner. He does not agree with expanding the power and authority of the Planning Commission beyond that which is already established. To take it to an extreme if the Commissioners want to express an opinion on abortion they could do that to, but makes more sense if they were on the Supreme Court. Then the authority would be relevant to the issues. The Commissioners authority on the particular issue before them is relevant to a rezone request, assuming it is approved. There is no ability to pull a permit and processes being discussed with staff and the County Commissioners to determine the level of service at that time. If there are more cars are on the road, the level of service will decline. If another Wal Mart or someone else develops, the level of service will decline and then it will be decided. Just like abortion won't be decided by them, many other issues won't be decided by them. The issue is, does this land owner have the right to request a rezone. He doesn't feel they are sneaking in under any wires. They started the process back in 2000 - if they showed up and showed up for a date of '01 on their application, it just shows they engaged professionals back in '99 or 2000. Mr. Budd didn't feel like it sounded like a last minute deal to him. The Petitioner has every right to come forward and be discussed on their merits. The rezone should be taken for what it is - a request for a rezone. Not a carte blanc agreement to stack more cars on a road that can't take it today. He had no disagreement with the rezone. Joe Schmitt commented it is more advantageous to have it rezoned PUD rather than its current state. They then have control over the development and how and when it will impact the segment of road. That's why staff is recommending approval because it gives them more control over what happens on Davis Road than the current state of zone at the present. Greg Garcia - Collier County Transportation Planning - he is working very closely with Mr. Nadeau on Item Q and anything else happening with the PUD until the roadways can handle the additional impact. They can change the language to read: "The development would be limited or not be allowed to move forward to a "no build" until such time improvements are made to Davis Blvd., Collier Blvd. 951, within the area of impact where it has been demonstrated continuing on with the original language demonstrated with general accepted transportation practices on Davis Blvd. 84 and Collier Blvd. 951 will operate with acceptable levels of service with all or part of the 12 February 6, 2003 preferred site impacts. The limitation may be modified only when incremental improvements are made to Davis Blvd., Collier Blvd. 951 and that it supports additional capacity has been made available for increased development within the area of impact as a result of said improvements. Mr. Garcia said that Mr. Nadeau introduced a principal Water Management engineer from their firm to explain the mitigation process. They made a commitment when they were found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan by agreeing with all the conditions of approval. Even well beyond the Comp Plan and the Land Development Code by removing the 9,400 square feet of commercial development opportunity and they would wait until there is capacity to support development. He asks for approval from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Amellio Navoun - RWA - the Water Management District and the Corp. of Engineers calculate mitigation based on 1 to 1 (functionality). He gave an example of the Golden Gate Canal. He continued to explain it is not one acre here - to one acre there - it is functionality. Many things are considered as a wetland, but not a fully functional one. They are missing some aspect, whether wildlife, hydrology, right mix of plants where doing a practical approach isn't considered a full wetland. The District and the Corps for many years have all agreed that they should not ask anyone to mitigate on a 1 to 1 basis, they base it on a 1 to 1 function. Mr. Abernathy wondered then why the EAC voted against it if they deal with these matters all the time. Mr. Amellio had no idea why they voted against it. Mr. Midney asked if mitigation has been done according the value of the land. After a lengthy answer Mr. Amellio said "no". The hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to forward the petition PUDZ 2001-AR-1842 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the staff's stipulations and modifications. Being modified to "zero" square feet of shopping center use and the rest of the paragraph to remain, and also to add into the Transportation portion of the language that was read into the record by Greg Garcia making those modifications. This is a rezone, not approval of construction of any building, and not overlooking the obvious deficiency of the road. Those issues will be handled appropriately, but the rezone is appropriate at this time. Seconded by Mr. Abernathy. Carried 7-0. Em CP-2000-6 - George Varnadeau, representing David Key, AICP, Regional Vice President, U.S. Home Corporation requesting to establish the "Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay" for sections 13, 14, 23 & 24, T48S, R26E, consisting of 2,562 +/- acres. 13 February 6, 2003 Mr. Varnadeau representing U.S. Home Corp. - this is a continuing part of a process of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Heritage Bay Property. It was reviewed earlier for the transmittal proceedings and recommended unanimously to the BCC for approval. The Amendment was also recommended for approval from the Rural Fringe Assessment Committee and was approved from the BCC to DCA. The ORC report was received and now back for the adoption portion of the process. He addressed an exhibit on the wall stating it is a section in the urban area in the NE comer of Immokalee Road and 951 North consisting of approx. 2,500 acres and SW one quarter is in the urban area and the SW comer is an Activity Center. The plan amendment is no different than what was approved as part of the rural fringe amendments recommended by the Planning Commissions in June of this year. According to the staffs memorandum to the Commission it was noted by Glenn Heath - Planning Services that it should be changed to Urban Rural as "F" instead of"E". Mr. Varnadeau made it clear they are not approving a project but considering a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. They will be coming back within 6 weeks for their consideration and can answer any concerns or questions at that time. They put in place the guidelines in the Comp Plan and let them go forward with the project that has been filed. DCA had two objections and withdrawn one of them. The second was a timing situation. It was found they should be using TDR's for golf courses that were in the rural fringe area of the project. He discussed working with staffon paragraph #9 in the Amendments on page 4 concerning the procedure of providing financial guarantees that the monies are in place to acquire the TDR's when they come into place. They then have 90 days after the program becomes effective to acquire them for the golf course. If not in place within three years, their financial commitment goes away - if money in escrow - it comes back, if a letter of credit, they are released from that obligation. A minor change he referred to is page 4, paragraph 9, 3rd line - he clarifies what lakes they will acquire the TDR's for. Mr. Abernathy asked what Dr. Nicholas's price is for the TDR's in the absence of an open market - George thought it was $18,000. The golf course will be approx 100 acres. Discussion followed on the price of the TDR's, taking a risk with the TDR's and the time frame. Marjorie Student stated there is a process that they have to wait for a recommended order from the hearing officer and then the Dept of Community Affairs. When the Dept. issues the final order the Comp Plan Amendments are in effect. There is a timeline and expect it to be sometime in May. When there is a final order that says the Comp Plan is in order by DCA, it is in compliance and stays in place and they would have to comply with it. A lengthy discussion followed on the TDR's. 14 February 6, 2003 Stan Litsinger covered the process of several steps: - Identify them as a result of the final designation of ascending land - Identify each parcel that is sending how many TDRs from each parcel and establish an instrument that can be recorded and quoted in the open market. Establish existence of TDR's through Ordinance in LDC Can then sell at any rate chosen to Mr. Varnadeau and client. Budget policy as to whether the County will establish a baseline price for TDR's May or may not have a quasi governmental TDR banking First step will be to create them in an open market. If approved today there is language that they can never ask for more than "x" units. In the future the Planning Commission will be looking at a typical PUD and making recommendations as to - number of units, what type of units, heights, setbacks and all the typical things they ordinarily would look at. This is just the framework for coming back later for a project. The map was again referred to of the area. There is a sign up sheet in the hallway for members of the public that wish to receive correspondence and documentation for the project. Whatever the outcome of the hearing, Mr. Heath needs the notebooks back from the Commissioners so staff can get ready for the DCA packet. The hearing was closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to forward CP-2000-6 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the Amendments be adopted with the 48 months on the TDR Sunset. Seconded Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 7-0. 9. Old Business - none 10. New Business - Mr. Abernathy mentioned in his packet he had the Agenda of the January 8th, 2003 CCBCC meeting in which one item was adopted 5-0. Ordinance dealing with the unincorporated area of Collier County. 11. Public Comment Item - none 12. Discussion of Addenda - none March 20th Agenda will be held to four land use items. They will then close the public hearing and continue with a Workshop for the Planning Commission. There being no further business for the good of the County the meeting was 15 February 6, 2003 adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:00 Noon. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Kenneth Abernathy, Chairman 16 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 03- 01 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD2002-AR-3323 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 139-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 159-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 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-3323, filed on behalf of Harry R. Wood, III by Jerry C. Neal, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 86, Isles of Capri Unit 1, as described in Plat Book 3, Page(s) 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 139-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 159-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: o Before Collier County will issue a permit to construct the approved extension, corresponding pe,.-xnits, or le~crs of exemption, Irom the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection must be provided. Prior to final approval of this dock extension, reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) incl~es 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. !n 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. 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 and f!~led with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of 'i~/-~v~ ~ \ ,2003. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION · NNETH L. ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN Cc~mnjhnity Development and Environmental S~/¢es Administrator .~~o Form and Legal Sufficiency: Assistant County Attorney BD-2002-AR-3323/RG/lo 2 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: February 21, 2003 Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Community Development & Environmental Services Trish Morgan, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department CCPC Resolution 2003-02 Enclosed please find one (1) original document, CCPC Resolution 2003-02 as referenced above, approved by the Collier County Planning Commission on Thursday, February 6, 2003. Please sign the document and return it to the Minutes & Records Department, as it is a part of the official record. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 774-8406. Thank you. Enclosure CCPC RESOLUTION NO. C~:~-02 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2001-AR-1776 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 (Ordinance 91-102 as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 92-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 112-foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Jerry Neal, representing Ben Moore, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 91, Isles of Capri No.1, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 92-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 112--foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. 2. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2001-AR-1776 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Donethis ~tt-- ~ , ~ dayof .,~.~'~- 0~-[ ,2003. ATTEST: /U~?m.munit. y.De.v.elopment and Environmental ~ervices Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G ~v~l~te Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLL~,R CO~'qTY, FhORIDA KENNETH Lc. A~BERNATI~CHAIRMAN BD-2001 -AR- 1776/rg/SP