Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/05/2003 RJune 5, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, June 5, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abemathy Mark Strain Dwight Richardson - Absent Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Russell Budd David Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 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 MINLrrEs 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 WRIT'rEN 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. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 1, 2003, CCPC MEETING 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES - - DWIGHT RICHARDSON WILL NOT BE PRESENT AT TIlE JUNE, 2003, MEETINGS 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS APRIL 30, 2003 LDC SPECIAL MEETING, & MAY 1, 2003 LDC SPECIAL MEETING & MAY 13, 2003 - 7. CHAmMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ-2002=AR=2841, Richard Woodruff, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson P.A., representing U.S. Home Corporation, requesthlg a rezone from 'A" rural agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Heritage Bay DRI/PUD for a maximum of 3,450 residential dwelling units, 50,000 square feet of office uses, 150,000 square feet of retail uses, and Assisted Living Facility containing up to 200 units for property located on the northeast comer of Iaa,okalee Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,562~ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (COMPANION ITEM TO DRI-2000-01) DRI-2000-01, Alan D. Reynolds, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Vamadoe, and Anderson P.A., representing U.S. Home Corporation, requesting approval of a "DRI' Development of Regional Impact to be known as Heritage Bay DRI, for a maximum of 3,450 residential dwelling units, 200 assisted living units, a $4-hole golf course and related facilities, three neighborhood town centers to contain up to 40,000 sq. ft. of building space, and a maximum of 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses of which 50,000 sq. fl. is limited to offices, for property located on the northeast quadrant of t,~..c~kalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,5622 acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (CONTi~VLIED TO JUNE 19, 2003) VA-2002-AR-2525, 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 prolrusion for a boathouse to a maximum of 50 feet, and a waiver of thc 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, I1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22, Block G; and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block H, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reisschl) PUDZ=2002-AR-2433, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Plsnnlng & Development, Inc., representing David A. Custer of H.D. Development, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as H.D. Development PUD for 104 residential dwelling units for property located on the north side of Immokalee Road approximately 1.25 miles east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 46.64± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUDZ-2002-AR-3011, Dwight H. Nadeau, of R.W.A., Inc., representing A.ILM. Development, Corp., of S.W. FL., Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as "Tuscany Cove" PUD for a residential development for a maximum of 500 residential dwelling units generally located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately ¼ mile South of hmuokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 78.07 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi) Fo PUDZ=2002-AR-3161, Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Naples Botanical Garden, Inc., requesting a rezone from 'C-3', 'RSF=5", "RMF-6", "RSF-3', "RSF-4", and "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Naples Botanical Garden PUD for a 171 acre development consisting of an education center, conservatory, exhibition gallery, maintenance nursery, and theatre, in addition to walkways that will lead to eight different garden areas. The property is located at the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) This application is a companion item to petition PI.~DA-AR-1834. 69 acres will be removed from the CDC PUD and incorporated into the Botanical Garden PUD. CU-2002=AR-2354, William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting Conditional Use 3 & 4 of "E" Estates to add a Child Care and Pre-School to the existing Faith Co~mnity Church, located at 6455 22~ Avenue NW, further described as part of Tracts IS & 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi) , 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS: THERE WILL BE NO CCPC MEETING ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS: JULY 3, 2003, AND AUGUST 7, 2003 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN CCPC AGENDAYSM/lo5/01/03 2 June 5, 2003 CCPC Meeting Mr. Abernathy called the meeting to order: June 5th meeting of the CCPC Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Abernathy requested speakers to fill out slips. Reminder: Collier County Ordinance 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall before engaging before any lobbying activities register with the Clerk and Minutes and Record Department. A lobbyist is defined as someone who appears on behalf of someone else and is part of his job and is paid to do so. Roll call was taken - Mr. Richardson was not in attendance Mr. Abernathy: Items 8A and 8B on the agenda to be continued to July 17th. Motion to continue Item 8A (PUDZ-2002-AR-2841) by Mr. Budd; 2nd by Mr. Adelstein All in favor 8-0 Motion to continue Item 8B (DRI-2000-01) by Mr. Adelstein; 2nd by Mr. Budd All in favor 8-0. Addenda to the Agenda: Mr. Strain: Item F: Brought to attention that petition PUDA- AR-1834 was not yet available. (Companion item) Requested that Attorney Student to comment on whether this would inhibit the case from being heard. Attorney Student: Spoke to staff and applicant and it will be heard later. No legal impediment to hearing this matter today. Mr. Bellows: Confirmed that the companion item Mr. Strain referred to (PUDA-AR- 1834) was not ready to be heard today.. Mr. Abernathy: Two sets of minutes to approve: Special Session on April 30, 2003 and Regular session and Special session on May 1. Requested permission from Attorney Student to approve both sets together. Mr. Abernathy: Motion to approve the special session of April 30, and regular and · ' "° dd special session on May 1. 2 byMr. Bu . Mr. Schiffer: Comment: April 30: Page 4: Overhead Parking: Typo- "aers" should be "areas" and the regulation proposed should be "consistent" not inconsistent with the master plan." May 1 regular session- page 2, Schiffer abstained item 8C not the addenda to the agenda. All in favor 8-0 2 June 5, 2003 Abernathy: July 3, August 7 meeting will not meet. June 19 meeting - Mr. Midney will not be attendance. Abernathy: Recap of May 13 Mr. Bellows: Research and technology part and regional park approved by the board. Abernathy: Move into the advertised public hearings 1st Hearing: Item 8C: VA-2002-AR-2525: Robert Davy and Mark Allen representing Little Hickory Shores Unit 3 Re-plat property owners, requesting a 15-foot variance from the required boathouse to a maximum of 50 feet, and a waiver of the requirement that roof material and color of 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, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 20 and 22. Block G and lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block H in Section 5, Township 48 South, range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Coordinator: Fred Reisschl) Abernathy requested disclosures regarding this case: Mr. Strain had spoken with several people involved in the case. Abernathy was recipient of letters who he has read. Adelstein received letters and emails, but did not read. Midney received letters as did Schiffer. Petitioner: Rich Yovanovich: Representing Mark Allen and Robert Davy. Entered letters of support for the petition. Focus on the issue of a variance request. Abernathy requested clarification. If person has an extension granted then residents are free to build a boat house. Yovanovich: Discussed history of conditional use. Formerly you could not have a boat dock unless there was a principal structure. House cannot fit on these lots so provisional and conditional use was processed to allow boat docks to be built. There was also a variance granted to allow for zero set back for the boats. Question is: Can you have a boat house on these lots with current criteria? No. Some of the boat dock criteria needed to be amended to recognize that there is no principal structure. Abernathy: Requested clarification between boat docks, housing, and launch facility. Yovanovich: Docks and mooring of vessels- according to the BCC the docks can go to the zero lot line on either side. Question now is if you can have a boat house that does the same thing and can you have more than one boat house. Proceeded to illustrate with photos of the area. Showed existing vegetation to shield the boat houses from the road. Also showed photos of Mr. Allen's two slips with the canvas covers. Frames meet the hurricane wind requirements. June 5, 2003 Strain: Asked why solid structures are being requested rather than canvas boat cover. Yovanovich: He said he was advised to pursue solid structure as the BCC would not approve canvas covers. Schmitt: This case came about as the result of case over a year ago noting the land development code that the roof must match the principal structure- but there is none so variance must be requested. Discussion of extensions and variances between Strain,Yvanovich and Schmitt. Schmitt: If canvas covers are granted- a stipulation needs to be made that they be removed when winds exceed 70 miles or an hour or whatever is appropriate. The frames must first be approved before this is approved. Strain: Confused about this case. The applicant was told that this structure did not require a permanent cover. Interpretation of code seems to have changed. Issue at hand is that there is no principal structure to base criteria on. Schmitt: Need to agree on roof line and consistency for this area. Variance for zero lot lines and commonality of acceptable design standard. Abernathy: Proposed recommendation of canvas roofs that were the same color as opposed to hard surface shingle roofs. Schmitt: Such a recommendation would be able to assist in clearing up this matter. Clarification was made that if this variance for 30 feet is approved that if any other extensions such as to 50 feet would require individuals to come in for extension variances. Attorney for the opposition Tony Pearse: Mr. Pires: Addressed the concerns of thc 14 families he was representing. These are boat lot owners who are opposed to this initiative for a number of reasons. - Application is premature and not ready for review o No sketches, graphics etc. to illustrate the impact on neighboring properties The code provides for boat launching, but not docks and boat houses Maximum number of boat houses is not consistent with code- code cites one and some lots have two - Injurious to the character of the neighborhood 4 June 5, 2003 Speakers were as follows: Ms. Maggio: Resident of the Little Hickory Shores area. She discussed the letters and petitions signed. Made an attempt to clear up confusion regarding residents who had switched from being in support of to not in support of the variance. - Mentioned that as a property owner she was aware of the codes in place before purchasing her property. She thought she knew what she could and could not expect to happen in the surrounding area. Discussed original petition which was filed and denied by the planning commission but passed by the BCC. The property owners were never made aware of this decision. - Concerns of increased traffic and illegal renting of docks. - Concern over feel of residential area - Are we opening the door for many more variance requests? Where does it end? Why do we have laws in place to begin with? Commissioner Itenning: Briefly addressed the board, not in relation to any item discussed on the agenda. He simply asked to speak to recognize the board for their hard work and valued services. Ms. Martin: Resident of the Little Hickory Shores area. Raised the issue of increased taxes for these property owners. Also stated that she is a tax player, yet unable to place a boat dock on her vacant lot due to codes in place. - Concerned about the 50 foot extension as it would limit her access to the Gulf. She would not be able to leave during periods of low tide. Mr. McCrohan: Resident and owner of 50 foot dock - 13 year resident and member of the boating community. - Stressed the non-commercial use of boat docks. - 50 foot dock is maximum suggested and individual variances would need to be applied for. He was never asked to sign a petition whether for or against the variance. Traffic issue stems from the boat launch, not the individual boat docks. Mr. Santos: Resident and President of the Bonita Shores Boating Association Much confusion regarding this case as well as miscommunication, We do not want to police our neighborhood Initial deed for these lots was not for boat houses, roofs and 50 foot docks Mr. Fee: Resident and President of the North Bay Civic Association. June 5, 2003 Concerns over preserving the Florida Coastland This variance request will change the neighborhood and the look of the bay Showed pictures of boat houses in Port Royal area and asked if that was the direction the neighborhood was moving to. Requested denial of petition. RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES Mr. Yovanovich: Discussed relevant testimony. Clarified that they are not requesting 50 foot docks. They are requesting a 30 foot variance. - They will comply with whatever suggested roof material (i.e., hard cover or canvas.) Mr. Strain made a motion for apProval of the variance request to be as follows: Approval for petition VA-2002-AR-2525 is recommended for approval with the stipulation that the structures be vinyl or canvas in a darker green or darker color in nature and that they be allowed to be up to 30 feet in length. Also, the canvas covers are to be taken down with applicable wind loads. Mr. Wolfley seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion led to the amended motion: Approval for petition VA-2002-AR-2525 is recommended for approval with the stipulation that the structures be vinyl or canvas in a darker green or darker color in nature and that they be allowed to be up to 30 feet in length. Also, the canvas covers are to be taken down with applicable wind loads. Amendment: Setback issue is 2.5. feet with one foot overhang. Motion approved 5-3. Opposed by Abernathy, Young and Adelstein. ITEM 8D-PUDZ-2003-AR-2433: William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. representing David A. Custer of H.D. Development, LLC, requesting rezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be kmown as H.D. Development PUD for 104 residential dwelling units for property located on the north side of Immokalee Road approximately 1.25 miles east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 46.64+/- acres. All persons expecting to testify please rise and be sworn in. 6 June 5, 2003 Disclosures? None Mr. Hoover: Representing the Petitioner D. Custer. Project will have two access points: 1. Treeline Boulevard (two tracts designated single family) 2. Old Cypress Commercial site (subdivision) Parcel will be developed depending on approval. There is a large preserve area which will be preserved. EAC has approved unanimously with 7-0 vote for existing development. Project will not lower the level of service on the road. Immokalee Road will be level for service B with or without the project. Abernathy concerned over the exit route for residents also: - Traffic impact study Office space not mentioned (that was dropped) Hoover confirmed that traffic will be increased for 104 dwellings but not for retail office space and homes will be of an upscale nature. Road system was discussed as was traffic. Drive is going behind the commercial area. Platted access easement north to the preserve and connects to a cul-de-sac. Water easement will also not cut through the preserve. Fronts setback will be on Immokalee Road. Buffer is wider than setback. Strain questioned who wrote the PUD re: removing ambiguities re: traffic. Marjorie Student said that motion was under review and language will be stricken and revised to reflect more accurate language. Any motion made will reflect that language. Note: Every motion that is on the agenda has the same issue re: ambiguous language re: traffic and they will all be cleared up according to Attorney Student. No registered speakers. Hearing closed and opened for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd made motion to approve and seconded by Adelstein. Unanimously approved 8-0. June 5, 2003 ITEM 8E-PUDZ-2002-AR-3001: Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc. representing ARM Development Corp., of SWFL, Inc. requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as "Tuscany Cove." PUD for a residential development for a maximum of 500 residential dwelling units generally located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) approximately ¼ mile South of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 78.07 acres. All those expecting to testify on this item- rise and be sworn in. Disclosures? Strain addressed Mr. Nadeau at the beginning of the meeting re: questions. Dwight Nadeau: Representing the petitioner, ARM Development of SWFL, Inc. Issues Discussed: - Moderate intensity unit dwellings- varying sizes of attached and unattached. 50% impacts these wetland areas jurisdictional to the water management district and directed by the South Florida Water Management System. Native vegetation definitions met- 7.47 acres. - Native preserve language was also complied with. This area has been proposed to be aggregated into Tract P which will become part of the mitigation for the site (with the water management district) This petition was heard by the environmental advisory council and received a unanimous recommendation of approval to you as well as to the BCC. Substantial traffic review. 18 conditions which area attached to section 5.5 of the PUD document. We are in compliance with the transportation circulation element of the GMP and have no changes of levels of service on which we would be impacting. Creativity in development design and adequate separation between units. Findings by staff for compliance with the future land use element, the coastal conversation element, the transportation circulation element and with that we have found to be in full compliance with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Mr. Nadeau opened himself to questions with a recommendation of approval to the BCC. Mr. Wolfely: Questioned location: Across from Pebblebrooke? Is there going to be a traffic light? Concerns over full access. Mr. Nadeau confirmed that it would be located there without a full opening. There will be no new traffic light, but potentially one located south of the school and where the GG Nursey are. Greg Garcia, Transportation Planning responded to some traffic concerns. 8 June 5, 2003 There may be a full opening at that location pending other development issues. Full median opening is currently prohibited under policy. Access management studies showed that these movements do work. Schiffer: Questioned setback often feet for two stories and the same for three feet. Nadeau confirmed that set back would be one half the height of the structures. Abernathy: Clear up traffic language. Also under Q after the 3ra bullet says: Collier County transportation staff reserves the right to require removal of any gate found to cause concern to relative to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Is "concern" specific enough? Nadeau understands this and has worked it out with transportation. Mr. Strain: Concerns re: II-6: preserves will not go below 7.47 acres. Nadeau said that was accurate. II-2: preserves and acres are shown as 5 acres. Nadeau: There are two different preserves. One is a county requirement and one is a South Florida preserve which are roughly 5 acres and are not reflected on this master plan due to the inclusion of native. There are a remaining 2.49 acres being added to comply with the native preserve requirements of Collier County. Strain questioned consistency on page II-2 instead of 5 saying 7.47. Nadeau agreed. No objection. Table will show 7.47. Page 1I-3. Para. E: Is there anything inconsistent with this development standard's table? Nadeau said no. This identifies in the preliminary sub division plat the typical unit layouts will be identified with the proper spacing. III-3: Under Villas, patio homes and zero lot line: from house to house there will be ten feet but the screen enclosures can be three foot separation from the property line. Nadeau: Principal structures are designed that way to allow for side loaded garages on the larger detached villas. Clarified set back. Will there be ten foot set back to get from front to back. Yes. Page 111-6, page 4 - accessory structures. Max. of 35 feet except for attached screen enclosures. How high will the screen enclosures be? Provides for screen to go up to the second or third floor but 35 feet is not a standard. Table 2- Residential Development Standards: Side yard measurements have reference to footnote 8. Clarified that footnote should be 7 as well as 8. Language can be added. 9 June 5,2003 Building height? 35 feet. Measure from the finished floor elevation, but on prior page under H- it talks about measuring from the flood elevation. Can we nail it down? Nadeau: Height will be measured from minimal flood elevation. Transportation? Clean up ambiguous language. Issue of traffic on 951. There are not adequate lanes. Will you will be willing to hold any CO's until the widening of 951 is completed? Nadeau: No. V-7 Item C: Will the alternatives meet the current LDC requirements? Nadeau: Yes. Whatever the district permits, the county complies with. No more questions from Mr. Strain. Fred Reischl: Consistent with growth management plan and recommend approval with changes made to the PUD document which Nadeau complied with. Public Speaker: Bill Chini: Manager for Crystal Lake Resort Represents 490 lot owners. Concerns: - Traffic - More communities prior to 6-1aning will exacerbate problem even more. What is allowable for density? Density has maximum of 7 dwellings per acres. No further discussion regarding fact finding. No objections to the project itself only objects to the project coming on board before the 6-1aning. No other speakers. Public heating closed and opened for discussion and motion. Nadeau suggested taking away 75 units to gain the approval of the BCC. Reduced from 500 to 425 dwelling units. Schmitt said that even though the CO may be issued earlier, it will not go into effect until the proper public facilities are in place. The project should be completed by the same time that the project is completed. The actual homes will not begin construction for one year or so from now. Project will be total of three year absorption. Motion to forward subject to no CO's being issued until the 6-1aning of 951 is completed and only 425 units. Young seconded motion. All in favor 5-3. Motion passes. 10 June 5,2003 ITEM 8F: PUDZ-2002-AR-3161: Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Naples Botanical garden, Inc. requesting a rezone from C-3 RSF-5 RMF-6 RSF-3 RSF-4 and PUD to PUD Planned Unit Development to be known as Naples Botanical Garden PUD for a 171 acre development consisting of an education center, conservatory, exhibition gallery, maintenance nursery and theatre in addition to walkways that will lead to eight different garden areas. The property is located at the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 23, Township 50 South, range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Speakers sworn in. Disccloures? Mr. Strain spoke to Mr. Duane about the tower. Mr. Abernathy has a history with the Botanical Garden and was a member of the board of directors. Formed a preliminary opinion of the fact that they would be able to rezoned which does not seem to be an issue. No economic interest. Petitioner: Bruce Anderson, Esq. Representing Naples Botanical Gardens. Items discussed: Environmental Advisory Council recommended unanimous approval. - The growth management plan specifically recognizes Naples Botanical Gardens for its intended use as a botanical garden and limits its use to "non-residential uses." Existing zoning allows 400 homes to be built on this property. Unique land use. Property not proposed to be sub divided. Mr. Duane: - No objections to this project. - 5 foot sidewalk versus 6 foot sidewalk Project comprises 171 acres. Most will be confined to the west side of Bayshore Drive. Reviewed where various buildings and areas will be. - Reviewed parking areas. - Reviewed access points. - Line of site for this facility has relatively little impact from a structure of this height (85 foot glass building). Establishing a landmark. 100 acres of open space. Page 17 of the staff report: Struggle has been to make the sidewalks work for this project. Item H: We have agreed that a five foot, not six foot will be required. Sidewalks will only be constructed to the overflow parking area. Cost will be approximately $5,000. Phasing consideration for bike paths and sidewalks: Phase 1 along Bayshore Drive and into the research facility. Two year increments and all sidewalks to be completed in period not to exceed 6 years. Project will probably have over 12 year build out. Questions? 11 June 5, 2003 Mr. Strain: Who wrote the PUD? Anderson and Montes. Language regarding 12 year build out and donations. However, on page 8 under 4.7 you have placed yourself under the Sunset monitoring provisions of the LDC. This is probably not necessary as you do not need to have certain performance standards. Mr. Montes: He would welcome the ability to have 12 year build out. Mr. Bellows: Phases can be extended but not eliminated. Mr. Schmitt: BCC can exempt them in the future. Architectural standards have a great deal of flexibility. Discussion of height of the building: 125 feet. 85 feet with the roof extension takes it to 125 feet. Signature theme of this garden. All glass- no hard structure. Ms. Young suggested that the sidewalk fee be assumed by the community. Greg Garcia: Discussed more sidewalk issues and to concede one foot from 6 to 5. Diane Flagg: They have been working with the applicant on this sidewalk issue. Recommended for sidewalk on Fern street. Consistent with the LDC. Will money have to be paid for this sidewalk issue? Yes. If the board approves differently the BG would be happy to receive the $5,000 for sidewalks. Mr. Bellows: Staff recommends approval. Supportive of building structure. Plan to develop sidewalks agreed on. No public speaker. Closed hearing and open for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd: Motion to approve with the recommendation that there be 5 foot sidewalk not 6 foot along the 6 foot clear zone and that it only goes to overflow parking along Bayshore. Reference also made to clarify painted crosswalk and phasing for bike paths. That the Sunset monitoring be modified to six years in lieu of the standard three years. And the deletion of the poling place requirement and that there be a deletion of the $5,000 mitigation fee. Seconded by Ms. Young. All in favor approved: 7-0 12 June 5,2003 Note: Mr. Woifley asked that his concurrence and approval be recorded, though technically he was not here to vote. He was in favor of this item. ITEM 8G: CU-2002-AR-2354. William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church requesting conditional use 3 and 4 of E Estates to add a child care and pre-school to the existing Faith Community Church located at 6455 22nd ave. NW further described as part of Tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 97. Persons to testify on this item sworn in. Disclosures: Mr. Strain discussed issue with Mr. Frye who represents the Oakes Civic Assoc. on this project. Mr. Budd in that neighborhood and has attended meetings on this matter. Has not voted on the issue at any meeting. Petitioner: Bill Hoover representing Faith Community Church. Issues discussed: - Property is zoned estates and was conditionally approved for church in 1997. - Church has a applied for permit to add pre-school and child care center in three separate phases. They wish to open in August Phase 1:65 students - Phase 2: 160 students. Turn lanes would be out in and church facility would be enlarged from 8500 sf. to 17000 sf. Church has agreed to do this after Livingston Road is complete. Not prior to August 2006 at the earliest. Phase 3:7-8 years out. Child care center would have 240 students. Much opposition to this petition. - Traffic- 11,000 trips on the road today. Level service B. - Issue the neighbors have is that the road gets cut through already and this will increase traffic tremendously. Roadway improvements should alleviate a lot of the residents concerns. Questions from the Board? Mr. Strain: History of the project? Initially when the land was approved for church the number of day care students would be based on the number of parishioners they have. How many parishioners? Roy Schuck, Pastor for Faith Community Church. There are over 100. Day care is being used for more than the parishioners. Mr. Strain: Concerned about the size of church compared to the number of students. Mr. Abernathy: Concerns over licensing standards needed. Also, in the history of the case there was talk of an elementary school. Opposition may see this as foot in the door to getting an elementary school further down the line. 13 June 5, 2003 Mr. Schuck: No plans to do this in the future. Focus on day care. Mr. Schiffer: Addressed parking and drop off areas. Clarification that only 65 students would be allowed until Logan and Livingston are completed. Discussion of buffers. Bellows and Student discussed original conditions which should stay in place. Strain questioned whether buffer will be removed. Staff needs to figure out what is needed there. Vegetative buffer versus wall. Should stay in place. Clear up the original language. Reischi: Consistent with the Golden Gate area master plan. Church exists as a conditional use currently, the analysis showed that the additional customary uses would be compatible with the neighborhood and fits in. There were 65 letters in opposition to this and we believe with the phasing prospect, this project will actually be advantageous to the neighborhood. The people that live here with children will not have to go to other areas for child care. Oakes Boulevard currently at level B. Timing of site development plan: Discussion of sidewalk development. Engineering and cost is substantial. Future variance will be requested on that. Speakers: Carl Frye: President Oakes Estates Advisory Council. - Opposes as written and presented, Represents 200 dues paying members- all volunteers. Concerns: - Far more students than neighborhood can handle. - Many residents have spoken out on this issue. - Traffic Objectives are applauded but the full use of the church's investment is too much. Tremendous negative impact - Residents have come to the conclusion to reject this application in its entirety rather than coming to a compromise. - Fighting new developments of 50 single family home sites. Crime and residential nature There are problems traveling now, what will the future be like? Return the neighborhood to residential nature. _ Neighborhood is unique- it does not go anywhere but has turned into major corridor. 14 June 5,2003 Variance opens the door to other problems. What will stop me from getting a variance for my home to be a business and have people coming and going. There is only one way in and out to the church parking. Bob Walker, resident of Oakes Boulevard Issues: Traffic, problems on Immokalee Road. Light will be removed. So there will be a right in and right out which will change the pattern of the traffic. Residential neighborhood Not opposed to the church or child care, only to the traffic- 1280 trips per day at peak times. Peter Goodin, resident of Oakes Blvd. Concerns: Traffic implications Current zoning issues, why do we need to stray? Safety issues for current residents Mr. Hoover: Rebuttal Issues: Addressed some traffic concerns. - Were the letters that came in form letters or individual letters? They were combination. - Some people make actually use this facility and opposition may not be 100 percent. Mr. Abernathy questioned the number of 240 students. Was this tied into an economic model? Assertion was made that this was true at civic meeting. This is the maximum number that the church facility could support. Number was quantified based on square footage. Ms. Young questioned why a compromise could not be reached? Would the church be willing to come down in its request for students? Pastor Schuck said he was willing to work with this but it would need to be above 100. Closed public hearing and opened for discussion and motion. Mr. Budd: Agrees with residents re: primary concern of traffic. We need to work together as a community. Motion for approval with the limitation of phase 2 build out of 120 students. Phase 1 limited to 65. Phase 2 not allowed until the site development plan is approved, 15 June 5, 2003 necessary turn lanes, etc and the completion of Livingston and Logan and Collier Boulevard to Yanderbilt North to 951. No phase 3 - 120 maximum students. Adelstein seconded the motion. Motion in favor 5-2. Wolfley absent from this motion Schedule for August and July: Recommendation to move meeting from July 16 to July 23 and August 13 to August 20th. Ray Bellows will work this issue out and get back to the commission. Meeting adjourned 2:00 p.m. COLLIER cOUNTY PLANN1NG COMMISSION KENNETH ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN 16