Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/03/2003 RApril 3, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 3, 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 Abemathy Mark Strain David Wolfley Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young (Excused) Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services Fred Reischl, Planning Services Kay Deselem, Planning Services AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WII.L MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2003, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WN.I. BE LIMITED TO 5 MINWI'ES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTFED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNYZI~.D 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 MATER/ALS 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 WNJ. BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAI~ABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WH.L 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 WI-HCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO TI-IE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS- MARCH 11, 2003 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2002-AR-3301, Dominick Novello, Jr., of Novello Building Co., representing Chris Summerton, requesting approval of a boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock on property located at 464 Oak Avenue, Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, further described as Lot 3, Bock I, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. · BD-2002-AR.3341, Roy Scott Ramnick, requesting approval of a boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock on property located at 140 San Salvador Street, further described as Lot 310, Isles of Capri Unit 2, Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Ce Eo Fe Ge He Jo BD-2002-AR-3515, Turrell & Associates, representing Richard Ziko, requesting a 25-foot boat dock extension from the permitted 20 feet to construct a boat dock facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway for property located at 156 Venus Cay, further described as Lot 61, Port of the Islands (The Cays) Unit One, in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) VA-2002-AR.2525 (FR) Robert Davy and Mark Allen, representing Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Re-plat property owners, requesting a 15-foot variance from the required boathouse setbacks of 15 feet to 0 feet, a 30-foot variance from the 20-foot maximum protrusion for a boathouse to a maximum of 50 feet, and a waiver of the requirement that roof material and color of a boathouse be the same as that on the principal structure for property located in the Hickory Shores Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22, Block G; and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and I0, Block H, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) VA-2002-AR-3191, Frederick Kramer, Esq., representing Dawn win~ers, requesting an after-the-fact variance to the front and both side yard setbacks. The petitioner is requesting to reduce the front yard from the required 25 feet to 15.85 feet; to reduce the north side yard from the required 7.5 feet to 3.25 feet; and to reduce the south side yard from the required 7.5 feet to 4.7 feet to allow the existing house to remain as it is. The subject property is located at 112 Moon Bay Street, Lot 112, in Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 0.14a: acres and is located in the Port Au Prince Subdivision.(Coordinator: Ross Gocbenaur) VA-2003-AR-3658, Beau Keene, P.E., of Keene Engineering, representing Maria Martinez, owner, requests a 3.3 foot after-the-fact front yard setback variance from the required 15 feet leaving a 11.7 foot front yard for residential property located in the "E" Estates zoning district. The property to be considered for the variance is located at 811 Everglades Boulevard at the northwest intersection of 8~ Avenue NE and Everglades Boulevard North, in Section 6, Township 49 S, Range 28 E, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 1.64 acres and is located in Golden Gate Estates. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) PUDA-2002-AR-2240, Donald A. Pickworth, P.A., and Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Centex Homes, requesting an amendment to the Twelve Lakes PUD for the purpose of updating the master plan and development standards within the approved Twelve Lakes PUD located in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 262.33±acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED INDEFINITELY. CU-2002-AR.3486, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Facilities Management Department, requests a Conditional Use "26" of the "A" Agricultural Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3.26 of the Land Development Code for governmental facilities as an Essential Service. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located at 2387 Orange Blossom Drive, at the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport-Pulling Road (CR-31) in Section 2, Township 49, Range 25, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 9+ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) RZ-2002-AR.3160, Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Benderson Development Co., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "C-3" for parking and infrastructure only, for property located east o~'Donovan Center PUD on the south side of Immokalee Road in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 0.43± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) RZ-2002-AR-3539 Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., requests a rezone from "A" Agricultural zoning district to "RSF-5(3)" Residential Single-Family zoning district to allow a maximum of 31 lots to be developed as a residential subdivision with some percentage to be set aside for affordable housing units. This property consists of 10.3+ acres. This area may be added to a 26.4-acre subdivision that was approved for a maximum of 79 singIe-family homesites that is located immediately to the north. The subject property is located at 10401 and 10407 Greenway Road, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) OLD BUSINESS 10. 11. 12. 13. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo/3-03-03 3 April 3, 2003 Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll call was taken - a quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - Mr. Strain added- April 9th meeting - time frame. Also noted the packet did not have March20th m~nutes' as stated on Agenda. Item 8D - Continued VA-2002-AR-2525 until May 1 st for petitioner and neighbors to work out some differences. Mr. Pires, Woodward, Pires & Lombardo -has been retained from some of the residents of the Little Hickory Shores Subdivision with concerns about issues and recognize the petitioners request for continuance. Discussion followed on procedure. Joe Schmitt mentioned this is dealing with a boat house and a variance already exists with lot lines and the boat docks. This procedure was approved over three years ago. Mr. Schmitt stated this is not out of the ordinary. This is a result of a code enforcement case. Mr. Adelstein moved to continue Item 8D - VA-2002-AR-2525 until May 1st, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously 8-0. Approval of Minutes - March 20, 2003 - Do not have in packets. Planning Commission Absences - April 9th -- LDC Meeting (5:05 PM) - Mr. Budd, Mr. Adelstein & Mrs. Young will not be in attendance. April 17th -- Mr. Budd & Mrs. Young will be absent. BCC Report - Recaps - March 11, 2003 - none Chairman's Report - Mrs. Young had surgery and doing fine. Advertised Public Hearings: BD-2002-AR-3301 - Dominick Novello, Jr. of Novello Building Co., representing Chris Summerton, requesting approval of a boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock on property located at 464 Oak Avenue, Connors Vanderbilt Beach Estates. Disclosures - Mr. Richardson received e-mails from citizens in the area. Mr. Strain received e-mails from Chris Carpenter, Bruce Gray, BJ Savard-Boyer & Bruce Burkhart. Mr. Abernathy received an E-mail from Mr. Burkhart and did not read. Mr. Adelstein also received E-mail from Mr. Burkhart and did not read. April 3, 2003 PETITIONER Mr. Novello stated they meet all 6 requirements for what is being proposed. Want to put a boathouse on an existing dock which was legally permitted. There was a discrepancy of a survey that Mr. Strain received with the setback showing 14.2 feet with someone penciling over it making it 15.2 feet. Mr. Novello's recent updated survey shows 15.2 feet. STAFF Ross Gochenaur stated he has a signed sealed survey. There was some confusion as to which survey is correct with the setback. Mr. Novello mentioned it was 14 feet, took of the deck plank and then met the 15 foot setback. The overhang and building it over the pilings was discussed. Ross said the boathouse can be built anywhere within the building envelope of the dock. Mr. Strain asked about the seagrass beds. Ross quoted different sections of the LDC pertaining to the seagrasses also noting this is a petition, not a conditional use or variance. It is heard only by the Planning Commission. A boathouse is an accessory use - permitted accessory to a dock facility. Ross also noted as long as they stay within the envelope, they can build on the existing pilings. Mr. Schiffer asked about the roof over the property line and supports. Mr. Novella mentioned they have to get engineering for the header with the roof being built on the supporting header. Ross said if someone constructs the boathouse over an inset dock, they treat it as an accessory structure to the home for the rear yard and is required to meet setbacks for rear yard accessory structure. He has never had anyone ask permission for a boathouse to intrude into the rear yard. Several other questions concerning the structure, cantilevering over the property line and the roof line were asked of the petitioner. Many of these will be scrutinized when a building permit is submitted and must meet the setback requirements. The owner can extend over his own property. Mr. Schiffer is not comfortable with the drawing submitted to the Committee. Ray Bellows - Chief Planner - the building permit will be engineered by a Certified Engineer and will contain all the appropriate dimensions etc. Mr. Schiffer stated he has concerns on the drawings and wondered if they can be removed from their packets. It was noted they are not approving the drawing, just the theory he can put the boathouse in. The Resolution does not contain the drawing as an exhibit. April3,2003 Mr. Abemathy stated all this discussion could have been eliminated if Mr. Gochenaur would have gone first and ironed out some of the issues and concerns they had. The petitioner doesn't always have all the answers to the questions the Commissioners are asking. If a staff member would go first and lay the ground work it would be more beneficial. Mr. Schmitt disagrees, seeing it is the applicant's petition, if it is presented poorly, the Board has the option to dismiss it - they are not there to defend it but to defend the staff's position. Mr. Strain expressed that at times the Planning Commissioners were concerned that staff was representing the petitioners too often, thus the new process. Ross Gochenaur stated the petitioner meets all criteria and recommends approval. SPEAKERS Ed Maguire - a handout was given to the members. He is a 28 year full time resident and next door to the resident seeking the boathouse and is protesting it. His handout showed what he has to look at and what he will lose if the boathouse is constructed. He mentioned past problems he has had with the neighbor, Mr. Summerton. There have been disputes over the past. There is a provision of the law that speaks to an implied easement for land, air and view which a person has had many years of uncontested use, and allows for retention use under adverse possession. He feels this view falls into that category. His view will be denied if the boathouse is approved. He talked about the real estate value of the property being diminished. He spoke of the Summerton's not being good neighbors. Their view will be cut off completely from the horizon. Signs had been removed concerning the meeting before the Planning Commission and then replaced again. He is asking for denial of the Boathouse. Mr. Richardson talked about the rights of the Land Development Code is concerned. He determined once a permitted dock goes into place, and meets all criteria, they then ask to put the dock up. Then the Planning Commission has 6 criteria to look, and no criteria to deal with in the issue Mr. Maguire has brought to their attention. He feels their hands are tied. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - she spoke to the subject Mr. Richardson spoke about on Mr. Whites behalf. She wished persons would call the attorneys office in matters such as this. Mr. Maguire stated he did call and spoke with Ellen. Ms. Student stated there is a matter of private rights between individuals and the County is governed by the criteria of the Land Development Code whether the boathouse should be approved or not. Her position is that they are governed by the criteria for the denial or grant of a boathouse and if any easement issues - will lie between the property owner. She would have to defer to a Real Estate Attorney as to "view" being a problem. Ray Bellows mentioned the view corridor is protected through the setbacks of the dock which has to conform to the setbacks at the time to create the view corridor. Not entitled 4 April3,2003 to any more or less then the setbacks provided that the dock conforms to and being no variance applied for the "view" corridor makes it not applicable. Much discussion followed conceming the view line, setbacks protecting neighboring properties, the impact on someone's view, modifying the application process, and canopies on vessels. The Planning Commission is a finder of facts, assess the credibility and the competency of the evidence presented and apply them to the criteria set in the Code for item/s under consideration. Staff needs to see if there needs to be tweaking or additional criteria added. B.J. Savard -Boyer - homeowner - Vanderbilt Beach - she opposes the boathouse on Oak Ave. It will impact the view of Mr. Maguire and new persons east of the property. Her issues are with the amendments that were approved 2 or 3 years ago. The people will lose sunsets, not seeing the sky at all. There will be no view. If permitting boathouses on existing docks, there will be problems with many homeowners in the future. There are many docks on the properties, but she cannot imagine all the properties having a cover. She discussed the view of neighboring property owners. It has to be changed - a boathouse is different than a dock with a boatlift. The Land Development Code was discussed with the process of public hearings and changing the Code. The hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain mentioned the Planning Commission's job is also to protect the comforts and the interests of everyone. He has no problem with boathouses if the neighborhoods don't, but when they do, it is concern of review under Division 1.4 fostering the Public Health, Safety and Comfort. In this case he has to side with the public. Mr. Strain moved to recommend BD-2002-AR-3341 be denied. Mr. Schiffer seconded. Mr. Schiffer said when data is presented, it should be correct. Mr. Budd felt the drawings presented were structurally inaccurate and amateurish. What is intended is in the legal rights within the current code but view is obstructed. The property owner has the right to proceed with the dock and is subject to be overturned. It does comply with the current regulations and will vote no. Marjorie Student stated Division 1.4 is a general provision of the Code. She reiterated that the Commission is constrained by the criteria to govern the petition before them. April 3, 2003 Mr. Abernathy agrees with Mr. Budd and doesn't like boathouses because of obstructing a view. Mr. Novello's presentation stated he will build the boathouse within the guidelines and of the law, and is in favor of approving it. Mr. Adelstein agrees with Mr. Budd, even though he agrees with the view issue, but doesn't feel they can change the rules now and are required to follow them. Mr. Wolfley stated they are there to protect the rights of the majority of the people involved. He sided with Mr. Strain in that it looks as those the rights of others are more affected than the property owner. Mr. Midney agrees with Mr. Strain's motion on the basis of Item 4 which states whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of other neighboring waterfront property owners. Mr. Richardson is very sympathetic to the health, safety and welfare issue. One of his issues are they have other boathouse petitions and if it is not a concern on the issue, then they can fall back to the Code. This is so subjective and trying to agree on one or the other. Ross wasn't entirely convinced they have heard from the entire community on the subject. There were no letters sent directly to staff. He received only two phone calls concerning the project. Motion to disapprove carried 5-3. Those voting "no" were: Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Budd, and Mr. Abernathy. The Petitioner has 14 days to appeal the action to the Board of Zoning Appeals which is the Board of County Commissioners, if he so chooses. 9:55 AM Break 10:05 AM Reconvened BD-2002-AR-3341 - Roy Scott Ramnick, requesting approval of boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock on property located at 140 San Salvador Street, Isles of Capri. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. PETITIONER Roy Ramnick - 140- San Salvador Street, Isles of Capri - stated he meets all the requirements for the boathouse and asked for an approval for permit. A new dock was put in six months ago. April 3, 2003 There are no problems with the neighbors. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - a survey is not part of the requirements, just drawing of the dock as it is going on the property to meet the required set-backs. The dimensions of the boathouse are supposed to be the structural supports - the eaves are in addition to it. The Resolution will need to be changed from 32 feet to 30 feet. (30 foot Boathouse) One letter was received from owner 6 lots away (rental property). Meets all code criteria, one letter of objection to boathouses in general, one letter in approval of the project, another neighbor recommends approval and staff asks for approval. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to approve BD-2002-AR-3341 subject to the stipulations listed in the Resolution and the modification of 32 feet to 30 feet for the boathouse. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried 7-0. (Mr. Wolfley was out of the room) Ce BD-2002-AR-3515 - Turrell & Associates, representing Richard Ziko, requesting a 25-foot boat dock extension from the permitted 20 feet to construct a boat dock facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway for property located at 256 Venus Cay, Port of the Islands (The Cays). Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. PETITIONER Mr. Michael Hawkins - Turrell & Assoc. representing Mr. Ziko - requesting a 25 foot dock extension with angle design. There are no objections and the neighbor is in favor of the angle design so navigation was not impacted from his dock. There is a home under construction. There are other boat docks with the angle design. There will be one boat slip. The Boat lift cannot start any closer than the 4.7 line. The extra distance is needed. STAFF No questions. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to approve the petition BD-2002-AR-3515 subject to the attached stipulation. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. April 3, 2003 Marjorie has concems along with Mr. Schmitt that if there are problems with the regulations it needs to be handled with staff to study and bring back regulations and Development Code. If there is a problem with a boat house and it is not asked for, it has to be advertised and follow the appropriate processes. Mr. Abernathy felt it should be changed and generated from within. Motion Carried 8-0. VA- 2002-AR-3191 -Frederic Kramer, representing Dawn Winters, requesting an after the fact variance to the front and both side yard setbacks. Requesting to reduce the front yard from the required 25 feet to 15.85 feet, reduce north side yard from 7.5 feet to 3.25 feet, and reduce south side yard from 7.5 feet to 4.7 feet to allow the existing house to remain as it is. Property located at 112 Moon Bay Street, Collier County, Florida, located in the Port Au Prince Subdivision. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. PETITIONER Dawn Winters - owner 112 Moon Bay Street - requesting an approval of the after the fact variance. When the home was put on the market a survey was done. The survey found the setbacks did not meet code on the property. Other owners had not been made aware of the problems until now. She has the support of the neighbors. This is a double- wide home. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - The home and addition was legally permitted before they required spot surveys to confirm the house meets the required setbacks. There have been no objections; one letter commended the owner on the maintenance of the property. Approval is recommended. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval for petition VA-2002-AR-3191. Seconded by Mr. Midney. Mr. Schiffer asked if the house was destroyed and rebuilt would the variance apply. Mr. Gochenaur replied the variance would go with the land. April 3, 2003 Mr. Schiffer would like to add a stipulation to the motion that if the house was rebuilt it would be according to code. Mr. Strain has no objection to adding it to his motion. Mr. Midney approved also. If the house is destroyed more than 50% it must then be built within the setbacks. Motion carried 8-0. VA-2003-AR-3658 - Beau Keene, of Keene of Engineering, representing Maria Martinez, Owner, requests a 3.3 foot after the fact front yard setback variance from the required 215 feet leaving 11.7 foot front yard for residential property located in the "E" Estates zoning district. Property for variance is located at 811 Everglades Blvd at NW intersection of 8th Ave. NE and Everglades Blvd North. Property consists of 1.64 acres located in Golden Gate Estates. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. PETITIONER Ron Nino - VanAsse & Daylor - Beau was unable to attend and authorized Mr. Nino to represent him. The County erroneousl~happroved the building permit and site plan with the building located 12.8 feet from avenue NE. The builder compounded the problem by another 1.1 feet closer to 8th Ave. NE by improperly staking the building. The error is as result of County review staff including the setback being 12.5 feet, thus approved a building 12.8 feet. Based on an incorrect reading of the Code saying the setback for nonconforming estate lots is on the long side of the lot is one half the normal requirement. In another section of the Code it says "in no case" on the non-conforming lots can it be less than 15 feet. Staff forgot that part of the equation and that is the reason he was there with a non- complying provision of the Code. The building is larger than the sum of the two yard requirements would have permitted. He showed the building on the screen. He stated the problem is the timing of the spot and slab survey. He discussed vertical construction and the builder being at risk. The spot survey should be approved first. The homeowner suffers and not the builder. He encourages accepting the staff's recommendation and approving the variance. Mr. Adelstein can understand the staff's error, but now they are told there is an error by the builder. Then to compound it again with another variance, he finds it hard to accept with the owner being the builder. Mr. Schmitt stated the permit clearly states builder calls for a spot survey within 10 days in placing the slab. If the builder continues with construction while they wait for the spot April 3, 2003 survey, that is their risk. Staff can't police it. It's the builder's responsibility. It was staffs initial mistake in the setbacks. Mr. Nino stated the house would have to be demolished because it doesn't fit. There are difficulties with the offending wall. Mr. Adelstein still can't justify it and stated it has got to stop. He can see the staff's mistake but not the builder. Mr. Strain has a concern with what is happening as Mr. Adelstein pointed out, and objects to Mr. Nino's insinuation that the bulk of the problem is on staff, he feels it is on the builder. STAFF Kay Deselem - Planning Services - staff recommends approval with conditions. She showed an aerial photo of the property. The person most affected is the property owner and will not affect the neighbors. She showed pictures of the house in several directions in relationship to the roadway and towards Everglades Blvd. The existing wall is not close to the roadway pavement. Staff recommended support of the total variance. Mr. Richardson mentioned if the variance is accepted by the Commission, they should accept that the structure can be rebuilt exactly as it would be approved under the variance. The 50% rule wouldn't apply. Hardships and destruction was discussed. Mr. Strain noted under the hardship conditions there is a difference between destruction now and destruction by natural occurrence. Discussion followed on health, safety and welfare issues, natural conditions, hurricane, fire or disasters occurring. The 50% rule does have criteria and many would be surprised what is deemed 50% under FEMA. The hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd moved to approve petition VA-2003-AR-3658 in accordance with the staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Schiffer felt the building could still be deemed 50%, yet still have the block work and super structure. The motion was amended to add: "to let the variance run with the land". Mr. Abernathy seconded. Carried 7-1. Mr. Adelstein voted "no". PUDA-2002-AR-2240 - Donald A. Pickworth and Anita Jenkins, of Wilson-Miller Inc. representing Centex Homes, requesting an amendment to the Twelve Lakes PUD for the purpose of updating the master plan and development standards within the approved Twelve 10 April 3, 2003 Lakes PUD located in Collier County, Florida. Property consists of 262.33 acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Strain spoke with Mr. Pickworth briefly. Mr. Budd spoke with Mr. Wayward/Centex Homes, Mr. Richardson spoke with Jeff and Mr. Wolfley spoke with Centex Homes. PETITIONER Don Pickworth - representing Centex Homes - contract purchaser of the property. This is an update of the old PUD approved in 1987. The density and intensity of the project has been reduced over the years and now consists of 1,000 residential units and 112,000 feet of commercial. This is an update of the Master Plan, revisions to reflect current development standards and reflect current patterns and practices of how PUD's are done. The road through the middle of the project will be a public thorough fare which will provide an alternate route for local traffic in the area. The preserve area increases almost double. Mr. Abernathy asked about the wetlands - of which Bruce Wayland - Senior Ecologist/Wilson-Miller - stated the EAC report specifies enhancing the onsite preserve in addition to purchasing credits from an offsite mitigation bank. A unit costs approx. $40,000. Anita Jenkins - Wilson-Miller - Planning Coordinator - gave the following information concerning the Twelve Lakes project: 262 acres - between Radio Rd and Davies Blvd. - East of Santa Barbara Blvd. PUD Update Development Standards Process - 3 submittals of staff comments & in agreement with them - Amendments - Development Standards - Deviation from LDC - how PUD amendments are handled in the future. - Commercial District acreage 11.3 acres will be maintained - uses consistent with PUD commercial uses and allows flexibility that it may be residential. Consolidated 4 small preserve areas to 2 large ones. (Hydro-logically linked) Gopher Tortoises will be preserved on site - Storm Water Management project handled through a series of the lake and discharged into the Davis Blvd. Storm Water Mgt. System. - No new impacts of project - Benefit will be the North/South roadway being public The Homeowners Association will have the responsibility of maintaining the preserve. The exotics are the responsibility of the developer. The County will police it. Jeff Perry - Wilson-Miller - they anticipate the traffic be distributed evenly between the northern and southern entrances. Right and left turn lanes will be put in by the 11 April 3, 2003 developer. The County has plans to widen Radio Road to 4 lanes, so mm lanes would be in place when the project opens. Some discussion followed on traffic studies, surveys and impact on Davis and Collier Blvd. There was no update of analysis. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - with this amendment there will be fewer trips generated. They will be giving additional right-of-way off both roadways for future improvements. (An additional 20 & 25 feet.) The question came up on gates and guardhouses. It is going to be offthe individual developments, not on the public roadway. Mr. Garcia stated they can add language for clarification. The cut-through - will be a 4 way intersection and align with the north approach, previously Green Huron development which is now Sapphire Lakes. In viewing the map shown single and multi-family will be part of the development. An altered Master Plan was available with changes being the original included a cai-de- sac which has now been removed. The Preserve acreage went up and the residential acreage went down. Mr. Abemathy asked about the Commercial and wondered what was needed. Anita responded it is to provide neighborhood services and goods for the resident's in the community. Mr. Strain questioned the preserve acreage - 99.4 are the correct acreages. Traffic areas and the density were discussed. Question was asked: can they rely on the DRI for consistency and not entailing the commitments they made in the ADA and the DRI when the approval for the project was acquired. Marjorie responded it is a PUD Amendment, if they still have a DRI they have to go through process of abandonment which has never been done in Collier County or much in the State of Florida. The format of the PUD was discussed - Wilson-Miller submits in a different format. Once submitted to County and reviewed, it becomes a public record. Marjorie would have to do further research for copy rights. Anita responded they have not had a problem working with staff on that particular format with underlining and strike through. It was noted the Planning Commission did not receive that format. It is difficult to follow when it is not done from one PUD to another. There was some confusion what was submitted to staff and then to the Planning Commission and what should be done and what is received. 12 April 3, 2003 Other questions asked were about the following: Excavations, changes in the LDC language from one year ago, open space requirements and preserve areas on site (adding "shall"), sign dimensions, common architectural theme, development standards for height measurements, rear yard setbacks, maintenance easement of the outer edge of the lakes, and the EAC report in eliminating supermarkets. Mr. Strain asked if the temporary road is put in it will destroy the vegetation to utilize the road and should have language added for restoration. It will not go through Sable Lakes. He addressed 6.4 - D concerning wetlands and preserve. John English - Licensed Engineer -Wilson-Miller - the County Code reads no structure shall be within 25 feet of a preserve. No fill placed within 10 feet of a preserve. This has raised questions since the policy is being enforced as it is contradictory. He wonders if preserve means jurisdictional wetland line or the conservation line. He proceeded to discuss the water management criteria needed as an upland buffer. But will meet the intent of the code. He feels it is very poorly written and needs clarification. Mr. Strain asked about 6.5 - E - Indicate impact fees will be paid in time for building permits. Marjorie Student suggests impact fees be paid in accordance with the Ordinance as well as the Division 315. She has consulted with Mr. Garcia on the subject. Mr. Strain asked if they had a problem holding off until Davis Blvd. is 4 laned to 951. Anita said that was the owner to make that change and will meet concurrency. They are authorized to make changes to the Development standards and the Master Plan. Mr. Strain asked Greg Garcia how much of the project could be built at any one time based on concurrency. Mr. Garcia responded "none of it". They are protected until the road gets improved. STAFF Ray Bellows - project has been reviewed with consistently with the Growth Management Plan. There have been no letters for or against and recommend approval. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion Mr. Wolfley moved to forward PUDA-2002-AR-2240 to the BCC with recommendations and approval subject to the stipulations to the PUD documents along with Mr. Strains agreed upon: 2.17- Open Space requirement- "shall" residential District-"shall" fully satisfy open space. 2.18 - adding "shall" 2.13 - With the exception of the entry locations of the roads would fall back to the LDC language. 2.8 - Preserve areas on site "Shall" satisfy the requirements. C-4 - Entrance signs not to exceed 15 feet. D-4 - Temporary signs not to exceed 15 feet. 13 April 3, 2003 D-5- Temporary signs will be removed at 60% of build out. Table 1 - Page 16 - Multi-family dwellings - 50 feet- height will be measured pursuant to the LDC amendment. 4.4 - Development Standards - Maximum height of 35 feet - FEMA or 18 inches above crown of the road. 5.3- Permitted uses regarding temporary access roads that restoration will follow usage of the road. 6.4 - D - Environmental - Buffer shall be provided around wetlands consistent with the LDC. 6.5 - E - Transportation - Impact fees will be paid in accordance with the applicable County Ordinances at the time of submittal. Main roads will be designated public, therefore no gatehouse or other gates. Seconded Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously 8-0. Mr. Wolfley moved to amend the agenda to hear 8. (J) before breaking for lunch. Seconded Mr. Budd. Carried unanimously. 8-0. J. RZ-2002-AR-3160 - Robert L. Duane, Hole Montes, lnc, representing Benderson Development Co., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "C-3" for parking and infrastructure only, for property located east of Donovan Center PUD on the south side of Immokalee Road, Florida consisting f .43 acres plus. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - Mr. Strain spoke with Mr. Duane briefly. PETITIONER Robert Duane - Holes Montes, Inc. - his client originally purchased the Donovan Center PUD he thought the out parcel was part of it and was not. Therefore they are requesting C-3 uses (very limited). The out parcel is going to be part of a larger commercial development, copy of site plan in packets. One correction - adds provision for preserve and buffer areas - part of parcel. The legal description was for the entire shopping center. STAFF Fred Reischl - Planning - Parking is a permitted use. No one showed for the informational meeting and no calls or comments were received. He recommends approval. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. 14 April 3, 2003 Mr. Budd moved to foreword RZ-2002-AR-3160 to the Board of County Commissioners for recommendation for approval. Seconded Mr. Adeistein. Carried unanimously 8-0. 12:30 PM - Lunch Break 1:35 PM - Reconvened CU-2002-AR-3486 - Vincent A. Cautero, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. representing Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Facilities Management Dept., request a conditional use "26" of the "A" Agricultural Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3.26 of the Land Development Code for governmental facilities as an Essential Service. The property to be considered for the conditional use is located sat 2387 Orange Blossom Dr., at the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport-Pulling Road, Collier County, FL. Property consists or 9 plus acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Disclosures - None. Mr. Budd did not return. PETITIONER Mr. Vincent Cautero - Coastal Engineering Consultants - the purpose for the application is to get approval for construction of a multi-purpose County Government building on Orange Blossom Road. The County intends to construct a building over 11,600 square feet for housing several departments' constitution officers as well as staff and the Board of County Commissioners. That would also include the Tax Collector, the Sheriffs office, and Board of County Commissioners staff, thc Property Appraiser, Clerk of Circuit Court and Supervisors of Elections. The building will be a satellite office and multi-purpose user center for North Naples. Site plan in is their packets and addressed on the map. It includes a 9 acre piece. The impacted area is approx. 1.6 acres - west of the parking lot for the county library building. The original Master Plan included all 9 acres previously but done in two separate applications. The majority of the site that is already developed includes thc parking area and new library headquarters to the East. There is a curb cut which will provide access with a deceleration lane on Orange Blossom. He covered the left and right turn lanes on the map. A rendering was shown of the building. Mr. Adelstein asked about the lease with Sprint. Mr. Cautero responded it is not part of the application. 15 April 3, 2003 The zoning is agricultural and would be for both sites. Libraries are an essential service permitted through the SDP process but does not allow government buildings to be permitted through the process alone. Need to go through the conditional use process first. A complete traffic study has been done last November. The findings will not have a significant impact on the trips on Orange Blossom. Mr. Richardson had concerns of more traffic in the area. Mr. Cautero corrected himself that the building is intended to be a multi-purpose center. Part of the Clerk of Courts staff will have offices and be a "one-stop" shop multi service center. The principal office will still be located at its present location. The hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Schiffer moved to forward CU-2002-AR-3486 to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Carried unanimously 7-0. Je RZ-2002-AR-3539 - Vincent A. Cautero, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, requesting rezone from "A" Agricultural zoning district to "RSF-5(3)" Residential Single-Family zoning district to allow maximum of 31 lots to be developed as residential subdivision with some percentage to be set aside for affordable housing units. Property consists of 10.3 plus acres. Area may be added to 26.4 acre subdivision approved for maximum of 70 single family home sites located north. Property is located at 10401 and 10407 Greenway Road, Collier County, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Vincent Cautero - is an application that compliments a zone change that was approved by Board of County Commissioners last June. Property owners had concerns of intentions for a zone change in Phase II at that time. The parcels are owned by Mr. & Mrs. Victor Haertling. The property as a whole will be developed in a residential single family subdivision. Property is inside the urban boundary. Across the street it is in the rural fringe area. They are asking for a cap at three units per acre. The EAC would review the application before the preliminary plat is approved by the BCC. Environmental study had been done on the entire acreage and would be introduced again and wetland determination at that time before platted. They are asking for a straight rezone. Buyers would have to qualify for low, very low or very, very low incomes. County staffhas recommended favorable conditions and ask for the Planning Commissions approval. 16 April 3, 2003 Mr. Adelstein has major concems with the homes not having garages. Dr. Sam Durso - President of Habitat for Humanity for Collier County - the reason they haven't done garages in the past because Habitat International has a rule not to do garages. They would like to do garages - talked with them - funding is available but not if they do garages. An exception can be made if required by the County to do garages. A future project they plan to do will have garages. If all goes well, they may come back and do garages on this project. STAFF Kay Deselem - Planning Services - conditions should be added if the Commissioners wish. Discussion followed on the garages, driveways and whether they should put garages in as a condition. Mr. Durso mentioned he has a new subdivision in about a year - planning to sell the units to persons making between $35,000-55,000. He does not allow 2 families in one home. They will probably take a lot for a recreational area, depending upon design. This project will tie into the 26 acre to the north dealing with sidewalk construction east of the property. Greg Garcia - Transportation Planning - when they do the site review they will look at the tot lot and park type facilities where there will be a minimum amount of traffic. Kay stated this is only a conceptual plan. Mr. Strain would like "tot lot" added as a condition. Mr. Durso has no problem with the condition as long as it is done after the homes are built. Greg Garcia stated at the time of the SDP approval it will show where it is going to be in the development. Hr. Abernathy announced that Dr. & Mrs. Durso were recently recognized as "Citizens of the Year" by the Community Foundation. A sidewalk will be constructed along Greenway Road according to the Counties requirements in accordance with the construction documents. Kay reiterated they recommend approval with conditions. Hearing is closed for discussion and motion. Mr. Strain recommended approval for RZ-2002-AR-3539 subject to staff conditions with the addition of#10 referring to the sidewalk, a single stall garage, and a tot lot shall be required at the time 80% of the CO's are reached and the 17 April 3, 2003 commitment of location to the access in regards to Mrs. Epperts that were addressed. Seconded by Mr. Richardson. Carried unanimously 7-0. e New Business: A. April 9th meeting - time frame - The LDC Amendments for April 9th contains controversial material along with the Rural Land Stewardship area. They are not as clear as he thought they would be. He is afraid they are going to squeeze those along with the other Amendments into the same evening. He doesn't mind going far into the evening, but wants his fellow Commissioners to know that it will be late. The Stewardship area is one that he asked to have in the Immokalee area. Ray Bellows stated he will check with Joe Schmitt. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - at their first meeting they will be reviewing a draft proposal and get the final draft prior to the April 30th meeting. Then they can have that meeting or possibly an unscheduled meeting in Immokalee. The Title Block that was advertised for the meeting on the April 9th, two matters were lacking; Section 2.2.27-the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay Provisions & Provisions relating to 1.18 of the Code. They are in the Title Block now for the meetings occurring subsequently. Discussion followed to dates and time on the Amendments to be heard. The regular Planning Commission meeting on the April 17th will be a workshop and presentation by Marjorie Student with one land use petition. It was decided to hear the LDC Amendments discussed earlier on the April 17th. The meeting could possibly be held in Immokalee. Mr. Richardson discussed the situation in the LDC concerning docks and boathouses. Mr. White checked on the advertising and found they have to keep the April 17th meeting in the BCC Chambers. If they wanted to add the LDC for that day, they will run the ad with that information. It was directed to mn the ad for the LDC Amendment for the Agenda on the 17th. It was a consensus to hold the April 30th meeting in Immokalee. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Kenneth Abemathy 18 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Comm~nity Development and Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 April 28, 2003 ROY SCOTT RAMNICK 140 SAN SALVADOR ST NAPLES, FL 34113-8641 REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-3341, RAMNICK, ROY LETTER SHOWING CORRECTED APPROVAL DATE COMMISSION BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING Dear Mr. Ramnick: On Thursday, April 03, 2003, Petition No. BD-2002-AR-3341. the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved A copy of Resolution No. 03-04 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. sincer~/~ - Ross Gochenaur Planner RG/lo Enclosure CC: ROY SCOTT RAMNICK Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP &PDI)' J '~ / Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File C Phone(239! (2391 643-(~968 www.coliiergov, nct CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 03-04 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2002-AR-3341 FOR A BOATHOUSE 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 20-foot by 30-foot boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock 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-3341, filed by Roy Scott Ramnick, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 310, Isles of Capri Unit 2, Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 46, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a boat dock allowed by LDC Section 2.6.21., to authorize a 20-foot by 30-foot boathouse to be constructed on an existing dock in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following condition: 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 filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 3rd day of April, 2003. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDa/ KENNETH L. ABERNATH21~, CHAIRMAN ~/c/~ :tl rOaPt omre n t a,~d Environmental Approved~~Sufficiency: Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Commnnlty Development and Envhonmental Services Div~ion Planning Services Department ° 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 April 28, 2003 TURRELL AND ASSOCIATES 3584 EXCHANGE AVE., SUITE B NAPLES, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2002-AR-3515, ZIKO, RICHARD LETTER SHOWING CORRECTED APPROVAL DATE BY THE COMMISSION Dear Gentlemen: On Thursday, April 03, 2003, the Collier County Planning Petition No. BD-2002-AR-3515. A copy of Resolution No. 03-05 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincere~ Ross Gochenaur Planner COLLIER Commission COUNTY PLANNING heard and approved Enclosure CC: RICHARD C & SHARON L ZIKO 302 Stella Marls Dr. S., Naples, Fl. 34104 Land Dept. Property Appraiser t/// Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File C z y www.colliergov.net Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 03-0:5 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2002-AR-3515 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 o1' 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 25-Ioot extension tot a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 45-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-3515, filed on behalf of Richard C. and Sharon L. Ziko by Turrell and Associates, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 61, Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase II, as described in Plat Book 2t, Pages 1-4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 45-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: Before Collier County will issue a permit to construct the approved extension, corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection must be provided. Prior to final approval of this dock extension, reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway. In order to protect manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway. 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 filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 3rd day of .April, 2003. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA KENNETH L. ABERNATIJY, CHAIRMAN ~)~Ph K' Schr/nit!- / ~ee rmvv i cmeUsn i~[ mDie~ ~ '1 rOaPt cmre n t ~nd Environmental Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G. ~.4-~4 ,~ju.v.~ Assistant County Attorney BD-2002-AR-3515/RG/$p