Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/06/2003 RMarch 6, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 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 David Wolfley Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Brad Shiffer ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Planning Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Denise Metcalf, Planning Technician Mike DeRuntz, Planning Services Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COLrNTY 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. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- FEBRUARY 6, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS- FEBRUARY 11, 2003 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao BD-2002-AR-3324, Michael Hawkins, of Turrell & Associates, representing Charles Wilson, requesting an extension for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 39 feet into the waterway for property located at 168 Venus Cay, further described as Lot 58, Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase II, Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) VA-2002-AR-3379, Aquatic Architechs, Inc., representing Kris and Jodi Anderson, requesting a 1.8-foot variance from the required 10-foot rear yard setback for property located at 349 Wimbledon Lane, further described as Lot 39, Block B, Berkshire Lakes Unit 1, Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Michael DeRuntz) 10. 11. 12. 13. VA-2002-AR-3418, Roland and Stella Ricard, requesting a variance from the required 20-foot rear yard setback to 18.5 feet for property located at 109 Bordeaux Circle, further described as Lot 489, Riviera Golf Estates Unit 2, Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Michael DeRuntz) PUDZ-2002-AR-3095, Alan Reynolds, of Wilson Miller, Inc., representing Levitt and Sons, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Livingston Village PUD for a maximum of 590 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of Livingston Road north of Wyndemere Country Club in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of approximately 149+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo/3-06-03 2 March 6, 2003 e 0 Pledge of Allegiance was recited with Chairman Abernathy calling the meeting to order at 8:35 AM. Roll Call was taken - a quorum was established. Chairman Abemathy reminded those that wish to speak to fill out a form. He also informed everyone if they are a lobbyist, they must register with the County. Addenda to the Agenda - Ray Bellows - Chief Planner, Planning Services Dept. - stated he is asking for a continuance of Item #8D - PUDZ-2002-AR-3095. The reason being the applicant has withdrawn. The property owner wishes to continue with the petition but Wilson Miller is no longer the agent. There will be a new agent and they have agreed with staff to work out the last remaining transportation issues. Mr. Budd moved to continue Item #8D - PUDZ-2002-AR-3095. Seconded by Ms. Young. Carried unanimously 9-0. 4. Approval of Minutes -January 16, 2003 & February 6, 2003. Mr. Budd moved to approve the minutes of January 16, 2003 & February 6, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried - 8-0 for January 16th with Mr. Shiffer abstaining. Carried 7-0 for February 6th with Mr. Shifter & Mr. Strain abstaining. Absences - Mr. Schmitt announced a schedule change. The March 20th meeting was planned for a Workshop after the meeting. Due to the postponement of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments from the last meeting and being held on the 20th he has to look at a different date for the Workshop. Commissioner Chairman Tom Henning has invited the Planning Commission members to attend the Workshop on March 12th. They will discuss such topics as: building heights, side yard setbacks, density calculations, submerged lands, marine wetlands & density calculations, economic development stimulus and beach access. It is not mandatory to attend, but the invitation has been extended by the County Commission Chairman. If anyone chooses to attend, they will be at the table with the County Commissioners. A hand count was taken with 7 attending. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - noted it will be advertised and appear in Sundays newspaper. The Amendments identifying the Elements and Sub- Elements, and what the amendment is, is what will be advertised. Mr. Strain wants to make sure if a neighborhood is affected by any Amendments or decisions they will be on the agenda and promptly noticed to the public. Marjorie Student stated the law requires broad public participation. Page 2 March 6, 2003 Mr. Strain stated that the purpose of an ad is to limit the discussions to what is properly advertised. He would not want to vote on something that was not clearly advertised. The four Land Use items scheduled will be heard on March 20th and then hear the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. BCC Report- Recaps- February 11, 2003 -None Mr. Richardson asked about the FP&L issue for 91 st Ave. Mr. Schmitt informed them the Board of County Commissioners passed an ordinance to form an MSTU. Lines will be buried with the cost passed to the MSTU. (Municipal Service Taxing Unit) 7. Chairman Report - None 8. Advertised Public Hearings: Ae BD-2002-AR-3324 -Michael Hawkins, of Turreil & Associates, representing Charles Wilson, requesting an extension for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 39 feet into the waterway for property at 168 Venus Cay, Port of the Island, Collier County, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Michael Hawkins - representing Charles Wilson - this is for an extension for 19 feet from the allowed 20 feet. An aerial was shown. The boat lift needs to be extended to give adequate water depths for the vessel. There are no objections to the project. The navigation will not be affected by adjacent property owners. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - Planning Services - there are no objections and staff recommends approval with the four stipulations. The dock on the opposite side protrudes 38 feet - 249 foot waterway. 50% of the waterway needs to be maintained. Mr. Abemathy commented on the style of questions that accompany the criteria for petitions. Double negatives are used several times and feel the LDC Amendments need to be cleaned up. Mr. Bellows agreed. The hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Budd moved to approve the petition BD-2002-AR-3324 with the four staff recommendations. Seconded Ms. Young. Carried 9-0. Page 3 March 6, 2003 VA-2002-AR-3379 - Aquatic Architects, Inc., representing Kris & Jodi Anderson requesting 1.8 foot variance from the required 10 foot rear yard setback for property at 349 Wimbledon Lane, Berkshire Lakes Unit 1, Collier County, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Brad Shifter reviewed the site plan that was submitted to staff for the original permit. PETITIONER Rick Cleveland - Aquatic Architects, Inc., - representing Kris & Jodi Anderson - he is asking for a variance after the fact duc to a mistake made by an Aquatic Architects salesperson. He stated the salesperson did not understand the rear setbacks being staked on a curve. This was an oversight and after receiving an approved print the pool was built according to plan. Thc flaw was overlooked based on the assumption the salesperson did his homework. Thc encroachment begins on the west end of the pool deck at 10 inches over thc public utility & drainage easement. It continues for 34 V2 feet in a straight line falling out of thc survey arch on the east end at 20 inches. The encroachment does not create a hardship for the neighbors, utility companies or emergency workers. Aquatic Architects builds an average of 200 pools a year. This encroachment is their first major infraction since in business. As a reputable company, they are taking steps to prevent such oversights from occurring in the future. All jobs are now being pre-sighted by trained field superintendents and/or a survey company depending upon markers. It is not the company's interest to override setbacks and is asking the Planning Commission grant the minimum 1'8" (one foot eight inches) variance required allowing Aquatic Architects to precede. If the variance was denied the neighbors would have to deal with construction starting over. Part of the deck would be cut off and encroach on a new code. Many other obstacles would be faced. A waterfall was shown and mentioned it would have to be taken out completely if the variance was denied. Staff could not find any land related hardship. They are restrained by the Code to deny the variance. Mr. Shiffer referenced Exhibit "C". It was prepared by the salesman. Mr. Cleveland believes the salesman's interpretation of the actual setbacks was the actual pool edge rather than the deck. That is not the right assumption and the salesman is no longer with the company. Their company hires surveyors to measure properties. In this case it was not done. Mr. Shiffer feels the County should not accept, as a site plan, a survey done by "person A", "person B" drafting on the survey and submitting as a site plan causing these type problems. Discussion followed on the 10 feet written on the survey by the salesperson. Page 4 March 6, 2003 Joe Schmitt clarified there is no encroachment when it is just the pool deck. When it is enclosed is what makes it an encroachment. Mr. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - stated it is both an easement and a setback; a yard setback at 10 feet and an easement for public utility and drainage easement. They are to discuss only that aspect of the accessory structure, the cage that encroaches into the setback requirement for a yard that arises from the LDC. Mr. Abemathy complimented Mr. Cleveland, as a contractor, for coming in front of the Planning Commission and accepting responsibility. STAFF Mike DeRuntz - Planning Services - staff is denying the variance. In reviewing the application there was no hardship. No land related hardship they could find. The enclosure followed the outline of the deck area and that is where they ran into a problem. Mrs. Young felt there would be a substantial cost involved in reconstructing the structure. Mr. Strain stated there may not have been a hardship that caused the problem, but again not hurting anyone in the neighborhood. Mr. Bellows stated variances like this; with adjacent property to the rear, is another residential lot that staff would have a harder time approving. The Planning Commission might find a mitigation that this is on an easement and a lake behind the property. It could be a form of mitigation that wouldn't be any adverse impacts. Mr. Abernathy discussed guidelines used in the Code and rules that people hide behind. Common sense needs to be used at certain times in particular situations and feel they should approve this variance, but no bureaucrat will do that. Aquatic Architects paid $2,000 for the "after the fact" variance. Doubling the fees is discouraging people from doing this in the future rather than after the fact. These fees are to pay for the staff services provided. The hearing was closed for motion & discussion. Mr. Budd moved to forward petition VA-2002-AR-3379 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. Seconded Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 9-0. Mr. Shiffer was not comfortable with the resolution being actually a variance for the main building itself that was not in the discussion. He wondered if it was common to not have things in the narration and yet be in the resolution. Mr. DeRuntz stated it was an oversight on his part, and needs to be withdrawn in the Resolution and revised. Page 5 March 6, 2003 VA-2002-AR-3418 - Roland & Stella Ricard, requesting a variance from the required 20 foot rear yard setback to 18.5 feet for the property at 109 Bordeaux Circle, Riviera Golf Estates Unit 3, Collier County, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - None PETITIONER Roland Ricard - representing himself and his wife - he is requesting a petition and an after-the-fact variance for thc 20 feet rear yard setback required in the Riviera Golf Estates. Thc applicant added a 7 feet by 17 feet screened enclosure over an existing 7 feet by 14 feet concrete patio. The applicant wanted the screen enclosure so his handicapped wife could go outside. It is parallel to the front property line on the east side of thc lot. The mar property line is a concave curve. The applicant did not know the comer of the rear wall encroaches 0.3 feet into the rear building setback line. The applicant continued to give thc purpose and description of the request from thc staff handout. Hc is requesting the existing 0.3 feet encroachment of the rear wall of the single family structure be included into this request. He discussed the 3 foot thickness of the pad. He also had a petition signed by the neighbors in support of his request. He is the second owner of the property. After a spot survey after the enclosure was already built the encroachment was found. The size and design could not be done so Mr. Ricard had then decided to request the variance. He did state the encroachment was there when the property was bought. STAFF Mike DeRuntz - Planning Services - a letter or petition in which Mr. Ricard mentioned was handed to all the Commissioners in which were received on Monday. A map was shown on the visualizer. Mr. Ricard had to also pay the $2,000 fee. The attorney asked Mr. DeRuntz to make a revision of the resolution attached in which he handed to all the Commissioners. He discussed the changes. Mr. White informed the members the Resolution needs to be read in conjunction with the plat plan. The maximum variance is 1.5 feet. By the Resolution they are indicating there is a maximum of 1.5 feet being granted down to zero at the point where the curved setback line exists and intersects the principle structure. Mr. DeRuntz continued to read the changes. With staff review there were special circumstances with the existing structure. Staff felt it was an honest mistake on the petitioner's part. Mr. Shiffer felt they need to get proper site plans from the beginning and discuss the various issues. Page 6 March 6, 2003 Mr. Ricard was unaware of the encroachment when he bought the home. Denise Metcalf- Planning Technician for the Collier County Building Dept. - the minimum requirements when a site plan goes to permit for a single family home or a screened enclosure addition are: show lot width, lot depth, existing structures and proposed. Also required is to show the distance between the proposed structure and the property line, where the street is and if there is water located on the property. This site plan meets all the minimum requirements. Discussion followed on a registered professional surveyor to attest to what is presented is factual. Mr. Schmitt mentioned they do not require it as it is another burden on the homeowner. They can change the LDC to require that type of detail but ultimately the homeowner and contractors responsibility. Staff is trying not to be bureaucratic The hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to approve petition VA-2002-AR-3418 with the recommendations made by staff. Seconded Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously 9-0. 10. 11. 12. Old Business - If there is a continuance Mr. Adelstein would like to be e-mailed that it has been removed. Marjorie Student wanted the committee to know that until the continuance is voted upon, it is unknown whether is will be continued or not. New Business - Mr. Shiffer questioned if they know who is & isn't a lobbyist. It was noted there is a list on the internet which is updated every 4 hours. Mr. Budd commented it is important to enforce the ordinance and the Planning Commission needs to enforce it but feels it is govemment at its worst. They have created a revenue source that doesn't cover the cost of the activity. The lobbyist pay $25.00 for an event that probably cost the County $200.00, to no point, to no avail to create revenue, to create problems so they can't track it, so nobody cares. Discussion followed conceming lobbyists. Public Comment - None Discussion of Addenda - None Page 7 March 6, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:03 AM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Kenneth Abernathy Page 8