Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/17/2003 RJuly 17, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 17, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission 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: Not Present: Kenneth L. Abernathy Russell A. Budd Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Dwight Richardson Brad Schiffer David J. Wolfley Mark P. Strain Paul Midney Page 1 AGENDA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, .{I~Y'17, 2003, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: ~ 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 RECOGNI~3~.D BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE wRrrTEN 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, ~ MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITrED 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES BCC REPORT- RECAPS: JUNE I0, 2003 AND JUNE 24, 2003 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2003-AR-3847, Miles Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Peter Guglielmi, requesting a boathouse on an existing dock.. The dock extends 23 feet-out into the waterway; however, the proposed boathouse would extend only 20 feet. Properxy to be considered is located at 119 Heron Avenue, Lot 25, Block T, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) II. B. 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, requesting a rezone fi'om 'A" rural agr/cuitural to "PUD" Planned Un/t Development to be known as Her/rage Bay DRI/PUD for a rruvdmmn of 3,450 residential dwell/ng units, $0,000 square feet of office uses, 150,000 square feet of reta/l uses, and Assisted L/v/ng Facility conrain/ng up to 200 un/ts for property, located on the northeast coruer of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (C. tL 950,/n Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, cons/sting of 2,$6Zi acres. (COMPANION ITEM TO DRL2000-01) (Coord/nator: Ray Bellows) C. DRI-2000-OI, Alan D. Reynolds, AICP, of. WihonM/ller, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young, van Assendcrp, Varuadoe, and Anderson p.A., representing U.S. Home Corporation, requesting approval of a "DP, I" Development of Regional Impact to be known as Her/rage Bay DRI, for a maxinmm of 3,450 residential dwelling un/ts, 200 assisted living un/ts, a $4-hole golfcoune and related facilities, three neighborhood town centers to contain up to 40,000 sq. fi. ofbufld/ng space, and a max/mum of 200,000 sq. fi. of commercial uses of which $0,000 sq. fi./s lirmted to oflSces, for property located on the northeast quadrant of Immokalee Road (C.IL 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 950, in Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Coil/er County, Florida, consisting of 2,$62:t: acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUDZ-2003-AR-3607, Will/am L. Hoover, Alcp, of Hoover Planning & Development,/nc., representing Barton and Wendy Mc/ntyre and Joseph Magdalener, requesting dutnges to the existing Nicaea Academy pud zoning. The proposed changes to the PUD docum~t and Master Plan will elimln~e the uses of private school and assisted living facility and allow for a rruudmum of 580 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezon is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard just south of the ~ Lake PUD (RV Park), in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 119+ acres. (Coordinator: Fred ReiscM) CPSS-2003-01: A Small Scale Amendment, amending the Future Land Use Element, Map of Activity Center//16, by increasing the existing N.W. quadrant acreage by .99 acres. [Coordinator:. John Dav/d Moss] PUDZ-2002-AR-3151, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Richard $. Santerre, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "C-3a and aRMF-6~ to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Miller Square PUD for a maximum of 20,000 square feet of commercial use, for properly located at the northeast comer of U.S. 41 East and Shadowiawn Drive, in Section I1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi/Mike Bosi) PUDZ-2003-AR-3605, William L. Hoover, AlCP of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing Gulf Coast Commercial Corporation, requesting a rezone from a "RMF-6" zoning district to a Planned Unit Deveiupment (puD) district to be known as the Botanical Place PUD. This project will consist of a maximum of 218 multi-family dwelling un/ts of which 64 dwelling units are required to be,affordable subject to the approval of the companion Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The property 1~ be considered for this rezone is located on the eastern side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 800 feet north of Thomasson Drive, further described as Lots 105 and 106, Naples Grove and Truck Co.'s Little Farm//2, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 19.83 + acres. (Coordinator:. Ray Bellows) CU-2002-AR-3537, Nick Stewart, of Stewart Mining Industries, requesting Conditional Use "1" for e~g in the "A-MI-lO" Rural Agricultural - Mobile IIome Overlay zoning dislrict pursuant to Section 2.2.2.3 of th~ Collier County Land Development Code for property located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischi) PUDA-2002-AR.2475, $. Gary Butler, PE, of Butler Engineering/nc., representing Bayswater Falling Waters LLC, requesting a rezone from "E", Estates, and PUD, Falling Waters PUD, to increase acreage of the existing Falling Waters PUD fi.om 134.04 to 161.54, change density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4.95 per acre, and show a change in proper~ ownership, for property located south of Davis Boulevard and v~est oi~ the proposed alignment of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 161.544- acres. (Coordinator:. Fred Reischi/Kay Deselem) 2 L PUDZ-2002-AR-2863, Karen Bishop, of PMS Inc. of NapIes, representing $olm A. Pulling, Ir. and Lucy G. Finch, requesting a rezone from "A' Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Longv/ew Center PUD for a max/mum of $6 residential dwell/rig un/ts, a rnaxinnun of 73,000 square feet of mixed retail and serv/ce uses and a maximum of 70,000 square feet of wed/cai and/or general office space for property'10cated at the northeast and southeast comer of A/rport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Road, in Section I, Township 49 Sou& Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.73± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)' ' ' K. 2003 Cycle GMP Amendment Petitioc.- Amending the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to add a new policy referencing the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 by the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Cornn~sioners; referencing the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series depicting existing and future school sites and school support facilities; referencing a map of existing school and school support facilities in the FLUE support document; and, identifying zoning districts which allow and which do not allow school and school support facilities. Amending the FLUM Series to add new maps depicting sites upon which schools and school support facilities are located, and depicting undeveloped sites for future schools and school support facilities. Amending the Intergovernme'ntai Coordination Element (ICE) to refer to the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to reference the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners and to cross-reference the FLUE and ICE policies and FLUM series. Amending the Immokaiee Area Master Plan to reference the two Interlocal Agreements adopted in May 2003 between the Collier County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners and to cross-refurence the FLUE and ICE policies and FLUM Series. [Coordinator: David Weeks] ~ Petition requesting text amendments to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element and the Recreation and Open Space Element in order to incorporate the Community Character/Smart Growth principles adopted by the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Coam~ittee. [Coordinator: John David Moss] ~ Petition requesting the adoption of the County Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) and the amendment of the goals, objectives and ' ''~ pohcl~ of the County's Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Future Land Use Element to establish the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP). [Coordirmtor: Darren Murphy] ~ Petition requesting the adoption of a new Economic Development Element including goals, objectives and policies to the Growth Manag~*nt Plan. [Coordinator:. $ohn David Moss & Randy Cohen] ~ Petition requesting amendments to the Capital Improvement Element (CIE), Transportation Element, and Future Land Use Element to revise Transportation Concurrency Management policies to establish a real time checkbook concurrency management system; to establish two (2) Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA), and to adopt a Map of the proposed TCMA within the Urban Designated Area on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM); to establish a Tramportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA'), and to adopt a ?ap. of.the proposed TCEA within the Urban Desi~.ted Area on the FLU-M; and to ~dd --' ........ xor tairsnare dev · · . ~ pu~c~=s pm,aamg eloper contributions, to the Multunodal Transportation Work Program ofa TCMA when d/rectly impacting a deficient road segment. [Coordinator: Start Litsinger] 3 ~ Petition requesting change to Overlays and Special Features of the Land Use Desi~!tion Description Section of the Future Land Use Element, to chan§e certain noise contours as previously changed by Land Development Code amendment on .lune 14, 2000. [Coordinator: Marcia Kendall] 9. OLD BUSINESS ~ . ' 10. 11. NEW BUSINESS: THERE WILL BE NO CCPC MEETING ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS: JULY 3, 2003, AND AUGUST 7, 2003 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA AD$OURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo5/01/03 4 July 17, 2003 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Kenneth L. Albernathy at 8:34 A.M. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Addenda to the Agenda: A Motion was made to continue item H. CU-2002-AR-3605 to a date certain due to the fact that the item was also being heard by the Environmental Advisory Council and they could not get through it during that meeting it was continued to the August EAC and due to the nature and scope of this petition the planning commission should be continued as well. Motion made by Mrs. Young, 2nd by Mr. Wolfley. All were in favor. Corrections to the minutes of June 5, 2003: -page 9 on the top it says 3 feet and feet should be replaced with the word stories, so it should read three stories -page 4 Tony Pires name was misspelled -page 6 minutes should include notation of the reasons for negative votes being cast -page 8 coastal conversation element should be coastal conservation element -page 12 2nd speaker is purported to be Mr. Montes when in fact it was someone from is company either Bob Dwayne or Anderson represented the Botanical Gardens Motion to approve minutes subject to these observations. Motion by Mr. Adelstein, 2nd by Mrs. Young, Mr. Richardson abstains; he was not at the meeting. 7-0 Public Hearings Item A. BD-2003-AR-3847 Ex Party disclosures: Ms. Boyer sent packets and talked with commission members, members also received e-mails regarding said boathouse. Petitioners: Miles Scofield and Rich Yovanovich- Presentation - A history of the boat dock was given along with the future implications of an added boathouse. Mr. Abernathy asks if the boathouse will push the property line out. Mr. Scofield - The dock extends 23ft. out into waterway the boathouse will only extend 20 ft. out. This has been legalized through the state. Mr. Richardson asks if it is the only dock on the property. Mr. Scofield - There are 2 docks located on the property. Various surveys and photographs were examined and the feasibility of newer dock location was discussed. Computer image is shown of what the projected boathouse will look like. The adjacent neighbors have no complaints about the boathouse obstructing their views. The width of the waterway is 150 feet within this area, the boathouse will be within an idle speed zone, and coming through the bridge boaters will have a clear view of the channel. The boathouse sticks out no further than the existing structure. Mr. Schiffer asks what the height is being measured from. Page 2 July 17, 2003 Mr. Scofield - the height is measured from the upper deck, the retaining wall height is measured from the peak of the roof and would be under the eave height of the existing home. Mr. Richardson asks how the views not only from the channel but also from the nearby canals will be affected. Mr. Scofield - shows picture of the view coming out of the canal from the south, and says that the boathouse will not obstruct boaters' views. Mr. Schiffer expresses that the neighbors concerns are that boaters views will be blocked coming in and out of the channel. Mr. Scofield - there are no navigational hazards. Mr. Schiffer asks if the speed limit is the same in the canals as in the channel. Mr. Scofield - yes it is, idle speed. The property line is discussed due to a discrepancy between surveys it is determined that the property line is now the bulkhead line Mr. Schiffer asks if the dock itself is being extended. Mr. Scofield - it is not. The location of the dock is once more discussed along with the owner's reasons and rights to have it where it is located. It is determined that the dock was built in said location for the convenience of the owner. It is determined by Mr. Bellows that the location of the dock is a moot point; the petition is for the building of a boathouse. Mr. Yovanovieh - assures commission that all criteria have been met. Mr. Abernathy is concerned that the dock in that position was acquired by some sort of misrepresentation to this body. That is what the neighbors are claiming and if it shouldn't be there than it shouldn't have a roof either. Mr. Scofield states once more that the placement of the dock was completely within the owners rights. Registered Speakers B.J. Savard-Boyer - Mrs. Boyer believes the boathouse will create a blind spot for everyone coming into the waterway. With the building of the boathouse people will not be able to see coming around the comer. She is also concerned with the fact that neighbors were not properly notified of the public hearing concerning the building of the boathouse. The Notice of Public Hearing was not legible, was placed in a location that most neighbors would not have occasion to pass, and it was blown down by a storm. A poll was also taken of neighbors by Chris Carpenter who is a fellow board member out of 14 people polled, 4 were opposed, 2 were in favor, and 8 had no opinion on the construction of said boathouse. Neighbors also said they were not made aware of the hearing because of the placement of the sign. Mr. Abernathy- the advertising issues can not be solved here and need to be taken to court. Mrs. Scofield - gave Mr. Gochenaur a packet and asks if it is to be shared with the staff or with the petitioner. Mr. Strain - states that it is considered public record and to be shared with anyone who asks to see it. Mr. Bellows - states that any information submitted to the county is part of the public record. Page 3 July 17, 2003 Mr. Gochenaur- addresses the sign issue, Notice of Public Hearings are metal signs with plastic inserts. The weather in Collier County is sometimes stronger than what the signs can stand up to, the Code Enforcement Investigator in that area reported on Friday that the sign was down because of weather, he put it back up to the best of his ability, a new sign was brought to that location on Monday, which was the earliest that staff could draw a new sign up. Mr. Richardson - asks if there is any requirement for the sign to be pointed in a way that it would be visible to passing boaters. Mr. Gochenaur - the property owners within 500 ft. of the affected property were notified. In summary we are trying to put a roof on an already existing legally permitted dock, we have received exactly three written objections. The bottom line is this boathouse does meet all of our criteria. Mr. Abernathy - brings our attention to the word only, in the add for this item, he believes the word only is pleading a conclusion of some sort and is not factual. Mr. Gochenaur - I was trying to make sure that no one would be accused of trying to hide the fact that the dock itself protruded 23 ft. but the boathouse would only protrude 20 ft. not the 23 ft. of the dock. Mr. Abernathy - they have to draw their own conclusions, the word only makes it seem as if you are in favor of the thing. Mr. Strain - if they wanted to bring the setbacks into play on each side say hold in 15 ft. on each side of their property line could they build a solid dock along the rest of that waterfront. Mr. Gochenaur -There is no percentage of dock coverage. Mr. Strain - Which is the proposed resolution 20ft x 42ft or 18ft x by 32ft. Mr. Gochenaur - the resolution is in error it is 18ft x 32ft. Mr. Strain - the property has 3 slips, and the code says it should have no more than 2 slips. Mr. Gochenaur - there is no commitment to a slip on the 2nd dock. The ability to use a slip is not the same as the practice of using the slip. Mr. Strain - but a boat could be tied up to the dock. Mr. Gochenaur - the dock does not constitute a mooring slip. Mr. Abernathy - close the public heating and open for motion and discussion. Mr. Budd - I do not see a view issue in looking at the computer enhanced photographs show that the roof is over the sightline of boats on the water, there is no navigational issue. Mr. Budd - motion to approve this petition subject to said stipulations. Mr. Adelstein - 2nds the motion. Mr. Schiffer - because of the shape of this property it will not affect neighbors views. The placement of the original dock is a moot point, it could have been better placed but that's water over the dam. Mr. Abernathy - view is not even a legitimate issue, the issues are whether it is set back from the property line and whether it is no more than 15 ft. high, the roof is made of the same material as the house. Mr. Schiffer - a second look at the math from center pile to center pile. Mr. Gochenhaur - 30ft. Page 4 July 17, 2003 All in favor 8-0 9:45 10 minute break Item B & C PUDZ-2002-AR-2841 DRI-2000-01) Ex Party Disclosures Mr. Strain - has spoken to Bruce Anderson, Commissioner Coletta, various staff members about everything ranging from heights, workforce housing, to well fields, I attended a town meeting about a month ago at which Mr. Anderson made a presentation. Mr. Wolfley - has spoken with several land people who do not have any association with the company, to try to get information Bruce Anderson - introduces projects consulting team, Dr. Richard Woodruff, and Karen Day of WilsonMiller Inc., project engineer Josh Evans, transportation planner Steven Lung, environmental consultant Paul Owen. · DRI and PUD are both consistent with the growth management plan · 2 changes were made as a result of the regional planning council hearing, one was repetition in the PUD language in the development order and the other was a change in the language to make it consistent · One of the Regional Planning Council additions made to the development order was that Collier County would consult with the City of Bonita Springs in regard to the workforce housing issue · Issue of height of the buildings was addressed, Commission asks if multi family dwellings be no more than 100 t. high · Views from Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard are in question, Anderson resolves these issues by showing view planes that prove buildings cannot be seen from the roadways, the only view that is still in question is the view from the possible future extension of C.R. 951, it is determined that this view is not a concern because C.R. 951 's extension is still questionable. · Traffic concerns are addressed by Edward Cant, it is determined that traffic flow will not be unduly affected by this development, and the development will be contributing to the cost of road expansion in the area. · It is said that the community will be gated, convenience centers will be located internally and only available to residents, there will be a loop road open to the public so that they could gain access to emergency centers. Pelican Marsh is used as an example of the concept the developer may use on this project. · The county will not be able to extend access through reserve; the conservation easement on this property would prohibit this. It is an exclusive conservation easement. · Affordable Housing is addressed, the development has not yet committed to an exact number of affordable housing units. It has not yet been determined if affordable housing will go on or off site. These units will come out of the total 3450 units. · A larger easement is suggested to the rear of buildings so that there will be access for maintenance staff. Page 5 July 17, 2003 · Front yard setbacks must allow for cars to not be parked over sidewalk, according to amendment that was approved July 16, 2003. The garage door must be 23 ft. from the sidewalk. · The developer is still working with the EAC. · Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, tried to meet with the EAC to discuss further issues, they were unable to meet prior to the meeting but will be meeting July 18, 2003 to discuss these issues. · It is determined that under low-rise and mid-rise buildings the side yard set backs will read half the building heights. · Paul Tush, Director of the Water Department, gives information on well fields and well easements, the Water Department feels well sights should have a 100 ft. x 100 ft. easement for well sights without generators, and a 150 ft. x 150 fl. easement for well sights with generators, the generators should be placed upon every 3rd well. Well sights would be placed approximately ¼ mile apart along the 1 ½ mile west boundary. There is some concern about the placement of the wells, they are to be located under activity centers, but because of the depth of the wells they will not affect the activity taking place upon the surface. · The developers are concerned with the timeliness of the well issues. They believe the well easements are too large and that they should have been notified earlier than 30 days prior to this heating. The developers are willing to place well heads along the west side of the property in the 100 fi. right of way; these well heads would be 20 ft. x 20 ft. and 20ft. x 30 ft. · Ms. Student- Staff needs to evaluate the question of the wells before it goes to the board of County Commissioners. We have a well field protection ordinance and certain land uses within certain distances of the well head, certain land uses are prohibited under that ordinance. · Mr. Woodruff- We believe that those impacts will exist, the word easement here is actually myth because we are not able to use the 100f~. x 100ft. the county would have it, it is for all practical purposes a taking of land and I would not recommend that to the client. · Edward Kant- We do have concerns with the location of wells in the right of way because of drainage concerns, safety issues, and access issues. · Mr. Tush - Wells are currently on 20fl. x 30 fi. easements along Immokalee Road, however these wells are for supplemental irrigation not pottable water which would require a larger easement. 11:55 5 minute break Mr. Budd has departed at 12:00 · Amendment was filed to the ADA the project will be completed in one phase. · Traffic signals are discussed and it is determined that no decision can be made at this time on where they will be placed. · There is some discussion over Hurricane evacuation and possible storm refuges being located within the development. This issue has not been addressed by the Page 6 July 17, 2003 developer, because of their location on the flood plain there is no requirement for them to provide emergency shelters on sight. · Mr. Bellows - there is no requirement for them to provide emergency shelters on sight. · It is determined that 60 of the 82 units of affordable housing will be located on sight. · The maximum height of high-rise buildings will be 100 ft. measured from the 1 st floor FEMA elevation for habitable space, elevator shafts and the like may raise higher. Registered Speakers Audrey Vance - City Attorney for the city of Bonita Springs. Addresses the issue of affordable housing and its location. Whether the affordable housing is located on or off site the City of Bonita Springs believes that Heritage Bay must be responsible for their workforce housing, they must not create an impact they are not prepared to pay for. Close the public hearing and open for motions and discussion. Mr. Strain - motion to recommend approval for PUDZ-2002-AR-2841 with a series of stipulations. 1. The height will be limited to 100 ft. for the multi-family dwellings that were previously referenced at 120 ft. 2. The affordable housing off site will be subject for approval from the Board of County Commissioners with coordination with the City of Bonita Springs. The affordable housing will be phased in a phasing of 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3 to coincide with the development of other units on the project. The unit count of 82 on the affordable housing will be confirmed by the Collier County Housing Authority. A minimum of 60 units regardless will be established on site at income levels per the guidelines approved by Collier County. 3. The tables that we discussed will provide access easements for those accessory structures where they have zero setbacks so that maintenance crews can still get back and forth. The front setback will be a minimum of 23 ft. where they have a garage door setting back from a sidewalk. They remove the maximum separation language and changed all the references to such ½ the building heights. 4. The EAC recommendations will all be forwarded as part of our recommendation, with the exception of the latoral zone reference which is further defined within the PUD. 5. The addition of well easements will be coordinated with Collier County staff to provide well locations in areas that are not infringing on either the lakes or the uses of the property for this project. Mr. Wolfley 2nds the motion; but is not as enthusiastic about the affordable housing. Clarification on garage setback, the garage will be setback 23ft. from the sidewalk. Measured form the house side of the sidewalk to the garage door, if it is a front loader garage. Side entry garages are not a concern. Page 7 July 17, 2003 All in favor 7-0 Mr. Strain - motion to recommend approval for petition DRI-2000-01 with the following stipulations. 1. The stipulations under the PUD that apply will be inserted here. 2. With the additional stipulation that the applicant provide some consideration of Hurricane evacuation issues with the discussion with the BCC. Mr. Wolfley - 2nds motion. All in Favor 7-0 Recess for lunch 12:45 - 1:45 Item D. PUDZ-2003-AR-3607 Ex Party Disclosures - Mr. Strain spoke with Mr. Hoover in the elevator about the traffic problems on 951. · Mr. Hoover gives description of property and plans for growth. · The property will cause a moderate increase in traffic. · One developer is buying the entire property. · The density ban cuts across the West 35% of the property, about 40 acres. · There will be no Academy on this site it will be located on a different site in Bonita. · There is a concern with the access to this property, Tree Farm Road, which they are currently using for access, is not a county road, it is privately owned and the owner is currently demanding a rather large fee form the developer for its use. Transportation Operations are also concerned with future access to this development due to its proximity to other developments. If the development cannot use Tree Farm Road access will have to be granted from C.R. 951. · There is some discussion on the future of C.R. 951 and the traffic ins and outs that will be required for access to various developments. · Information given to the Commission makes the assumption that they will use Tree Farm Road, with C.R. 951 as a possible alternate access, Transportation has not fully reviewed this possibility as of yet. · Mrs. Young makes a motion to continue. · Mr. Strain 2nds the motion. · There is no time certain for the continuance. · All in favor 7-0 Item E. CPSS-2003-01 & F. PUDZ-2002-AR-3151 Ex Party disclosures - Mr. Strain spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and his client briefly during the break. Page 8 July 17, 2003 Mr. Yovanovich - suggests that Items E & F are taken at the same time since they are related. · The access will be from Bayside Drive and Shadowlawn, not from U.S. 41. · There will also be a 24ft. wide access point to connect Bayside Drive and Shadowlawn to improve traffic flow in this area. · The neighbors are pleased with the improvements to the property. · The building has only two front facades which does not meet with the faCade rules of the neighborhood. · It is determined that there will be no liquor store on the premises. · The PUD document is discussed and is in compliance with the growth plan; this petition does meet all requirements of the small scale amendment. The proposed amendment does not have any adverse environmental impacts and the project is compatible with the surrounding land uses. This small scale amendment will not become affective until after a 30 day challenge period. · Ms. Studen - the PUD document contains similar language that this will not be affective until the comp plan amendment becomes affective. Registered Public Speakers Chuck Gunther- represents neighborhood association, they approve of the drug store as long as there is no alcohol of any kind sold there. They do not want a sign advertising the drug store on Bayside Street because it is a dead end street with very little traffic. They would like a Dead End sign on Bayside Street. Robert Huff- agrees with Mr. Gunther, reiterates the neighborhoods wish for an alcohol free drug store. Close of Public Hearing Mr. Strain - motion to approve Item 8E. with the stipulation that the 20,000 sq. ft. noted on the requested action section of the report was reduced to 19,000 sq. ft. Mr. Adelstein - 2nds motion All in favor 7-0 Mr. Strain - motion to approve Item 8F. with the following stipulations: 1. the 20,000 sq. ft. be reduced to 19,000 sq.ft. 2. the reference to the easement will be 24ft instead of 20ft 3. the use of a 5921 Liquor Store be removed form the commercial categories 4. the wall shown along Bayside on the master plan not be removed 5. the ambiguous transportation language will be cleaned up by the County Attorney's Office 6. a dead End sign is placed at the end of the alley where it connects to Bayside Mr. Wolfley - 2nds motion Page 9 July 17, 2003 · There is more discussion about the architectural standards and the 2 facades. It is determined that they should compromise by adding as an amendment to the motion that they will meet the standards, laws, to the greatest extent possible. All in favor 7-0 Item G. PUDZ-2003-AR-3605 No Disclosures · A presentation is given on the location of the property and the uses of the surrounding properties. · Property currently as a density cap that allows 11 units per acre. · This project will not significantly impact traffic on Bayshore Dr. there is plenty of extra capacity on Bayshore Dr. · It is determined that there will be 15.6 units per acre. There is some discussion on how many units are to be permitted per acre. · Mr. Bellows - None of the residents of the area objected to the type of development and density there were some mitigating factors such as the large water retention lake area that will help drainage in the area. It's not unusual to have tracks with densities in this range it's still less than our maximum allowed. · Ms. Student - no car ports are permitted but when you have an overlay although PUDs can typically vary provisions of the land coed theoretically if you had the whole overlay area rezoned to PUD and they could vary it you could have an overlay that didn't have any teeth in it because the PUD could override it. It goes back to the matter of what the intent is in establishing the overlay. We do have a provision in the land code that deals with overlays. We need to iron this out between now and the County Commission meeting. · Staff recommends amending the land code for this overlay, but in the case of affordable housing they are not sure what the reasoning would be. · There is some discussion of the setbacks for uplands and wetlands. · Setbacks from lakes are discussed it is determined that there is a 20 ft. maintenance easement for the county and no further setback. Close of Public Hearing Mr. Strain - motion to approve Item G. PUDZ-2003-AR-3605 with the stipulation that it will be consistent with the Bayshore Triangle Overlay, unless changed by the BCC, and minor modifications to AHDB Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Mr. Adelstein - 2nds motion All in favor 7-0 Item I. PUDA-2002-AR-2475 Page 10 July 17, 2003 No Disclosures · There are not any units being added to the PUD, they will be spreading planned units through the additional tract, there will be no change in the total number of units. There will be no further development on these parcels. The addition will enhance drainage; the addition improves transportation through loop roads. · The entire PUD is up for review. · The additional 5 acres means the developer will not have to build anything over 2 stories. · There is discussion on how their location within an activity center changes their density. They are building much less than their maximum allowable and not utilizing the 16 unit bonus in their total density. · David Weeks - activity center commercial cannot be converted to development units. However property located within an activity center, as long as they're not in the urban coastal fringe are eligible for 16 units per acre. The property is zoned estates but not designated estates. · There is some confusion due to the fact that the information given describes the old PUD not the one being addressed today. 4:00 5 minute break (CONTINUED WITH SECTION 8I: PUDA-2002-AR-2475) I. PUDA-2002-AR-2475 J. Gary Butler, PE, of Butler Engineering, Inc., representing Bayswater Falling Waters LLC, requesting a rezone from "E", Estates, and PUD, Falling Waters PUD, to increase acreage of the existing Falling Waters PUD from 134.04 to 161.54, change density from 6 dwelling units per acre to 4.95 per acre, and show a change in property ownership, for property located south of Davis Boulevard and west of the proposed alignment of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 161.54 +- acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl/Kay Deselem ] Chairman Kenneth Abernathy continued the meeting at 4:00 PM with the change of court reporters. Public Speakers: 1.) Jim Winchester - lives near Cope Lane and has 3 concerns about the proposed rezoning a. The matter of rezoning has come up while many of the residents in Falling Water are on vacation. b. Commtmication has not really worked very well between the developers and the residents. Page 11 July 17, 2003 c. If the area south of Cope Lane is already state zoning, then why change it? - his final recommendation was that the commissioners deny the request to rezone south of Cope Lane 2.) Carol Manning - lives near Cope Lane - her concern is that the map shows that the area south of Cope Lane was to be incorporated into Falling Waters, she is asking for rezoning - she also wants to know why they have pumhased this land, especially if they're not going to build there - lastly, she wants to ensure that the property south of Cope Lane will not have access to Falling Waters by route of Magnolia Lane Davis Blvd. 3.) Alan Clark - concerned about the total number of people in Falling Waters -there is a lack of space for more traffic to enter through the gate and - what is going to happen to the area souih of Cope Lane? Dwight Richardson reassured him that the maximum number of residents, 799, would not change 4.) Richard Hailer - his concern was why six per unit, when originally it was four per unit? - the map appeared continuous and confusing, however staff did provide a clearer map, the map appears to show recreational or conservation areas, what will the plan be? - what does it mean when Cope Lane will be "improved"? - he is also concerned that the entrance is not secure - lastly, why did Baywater not have a meeting with the residents? Lora Jean Young asked what was his specific objection? - Mr. Hailer responded with: the approval process was fault, that six per unit is too much, the traffic problem, and the security problem 5.) Isabelle Capello - lives in Falling Waters - responding to the letter received from the Principal Planner - confusion about the site map with inaccuracies and misrepresentations - also stated that the map is misleading and it does not show all of the roads 6.) Shirley Riley Page 12 July 17, 2003 - last house on Cope Lane - concerned about section on the map that is not developed, but map shows that it is developed - also concerned about heavy traffic from construction, pot holes, and excessive trash from Falling Waters construction staff - concerned about strangers in her backyard looking for Falling Waters, wants it blocked off and the gate shut (as stated would follow after 4 years along with re- paving) - flooding from the building of Falling Waters - wants Cope Lane to be excluded from Falling Waters Brad Schiffer explained that the reason why the traffic entrance still exists is because there is still construction taking place, they are buying more land and building - Mrs. Riley went on to say that there is less than a ½" of black top on her road, according to a letter she had the road was supposed to be paved a total of 1" thick on either September 1, 1997 or by closing of construction entrance, "whichever shall come first" Brad Schiller tried to explain that the new road would be better placed after construction is finished, when they're done they will provide them with a "beautiful road" 7.) Rose Zewicki - president of one of the associations - stated that this problem is between Hupshmanns, previous owners, and the residents, not the developers of Falling Waters Gary Butler, of Butler Engineering, spoke to help clarify: 1 .) They had a meeting about a month or so ago at Falling Waters in the main club house at one of their scheduled association meetings. About 100 people showed up and they brought everyone up to speed, but didn't invite Cope Lane residents and didn't think that there was a problem. 2.) The 22 ½ acres rezoned into the estates areas, into the PUD, will be designated as a conservation unit so no one can ever develop it. They also plan on removing the malaluca trees. 3.) The reason for this conservation area is because the district told them that they would not permit their last phase unless they did something about the previous encroachments. 4.) They are willing to stop using Cope Lane and do some maintenance on the roads, by filling in the potholes or overlaying it. Page 13 July 17, 2003 Kenneth Abernathy asked for a motion. Mark Strain made a motion to continue and Lora Jean Young seconded the motion. The continuous, as yet to determine a later date, passed seven to nothing. J. PUDZ-2002-AR-2863 Karen Bishop, of PMS Inc., of Naples, representing John A. Pulling Jr. and Lucy G. Finch, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Longview Center PUD for a maximum of 56 residential dwelling units, a maximum of 73,000 square feet of mixed retail and service uses and a maximum of 70,000 square feet of medical and/or general office space for property located at the northeast and southeast comer of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.73 +- acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Karen Bishop (Agent) - only asking for 15 units, with a maximum of 59 units - ownership between Alec and Lucy is not 50/50 it is actually 48/52 -address change is needed and will be changed in a subsequent response to the commissioners - there is a total of 4 acres to the north of Orange Blossom and 9 acres to the south Reed Jarvi (Traffic Advisor) - explained that in the future Orange Blossom may have some difficulty supporting network Dwight Richardson - asked about above clarification and why only 15 units Karen Bishop - replied that space is minimal there will also be officeunits for retail space -she went on to explain the possible use of canal easements as pathways to avoid major traffic from Vanderbilt to Orange Blossom and possible further, this will be used solely as a walking path Dwight Richardson - asked what the peak hour of traffic is? Reed Jarvi - peak hour relates to the lOOth highest hour, including January and February, moved to the 250th hour Karen Bishop - in clarifying interconnect, stated that she made provisions for an interconnect to alleviate use of u-turn Page 14 July 17, 2003 -she had public meeting with 100 people showing different architecturals Mark Strain - noted that Marjorie Student has not reviewed this plan as of yet Ed Kant - asked question about interconnect with church Karen Bishop - came up with a plan that would have an interconnect with Lakeside community to the north through St. Katherine's -they tried to offer the church the use of their parking lot for overflow during Greek Festival if the church would allow for interconnect with Lakeside - the church refused, due to possible danger of parking lot cut through, so Bishop does not want to pursue interconnect to the south unless the church changes their mind about the interconnect to the north Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Richardson stated that they couldn't force the church to allow for the interconnect to the north. - she also looked at filling in lake to the northeast of Orange Blossom to provide an alternate interconnect, this is not Possible due to engineering reasons Ray Bellows - made mention to add to the PUD if church changes their mind then the interconnect to the north may proceed Mark Strain - asked about accuracy of traffic reports on airport? Ed Kant - stated that once Livingston is completed the traffic will loosen up on Airport (Livingston projected completion for Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt is for end of this calendar year) Dwight Richardson asked if there were plans to widen Orange Blossom? Mr. Kant stated that there are plans to expand it to 4 lanes, but not for some time David Weeks (Comprehensive Planner) - on p.9, PUD-Item 3, relating to commercial uses, "ticket agencies only," needs to be deleted Page 15 July 17, 2003 Kenneth Abernathy asked for a motion. Mark Strain made a motion with the previously listed stipulations: subject to legal and transportation reviews, interconnect to church when and where requested by transportation department, commercial will be 142,150 square ft., and omit #3 of PUD document on p.9. Wolfley seconded the motion and it passed seven to nothing. Kenneth Abernathy closed the meeting at 5:25 PM to be continued on Friday, July 18, 2003 at 8:30 AM. Collier County Planning Commission Kenneth Abernathy, Chairman Page 16 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Comm!~nlty Development and Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 July 23, 2003 SCOFIELD MARINE CONSULTING MILES SCOFIELD 3584-B EXCHANGE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104 REFERENCE: AR-3847, GUGLIELMI, PETER A. Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, July 17, 2003, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2003-AR-3847. A copy of Resolution No. 03-11 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerel~ Ross Gog. Ja~naur . Planner RG/Io Enclosure CC: PETER A. GUGLIELMI, TR. Land. Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) 1~ Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jan-ell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File C Fax (239) 643-6968 www.colliergov, net CCPC RESOLUTION 03- il RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2003-AR-3847 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 in an RSF-3 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-2003-AR-3847, filed on behalf of Peter A. Guglielmi, Tr. by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 25, Block T, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 89 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for the construction of a 20-foot by 30-foot boathouse in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 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 ['7~ day of ,~ ,2003. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNT,~Y, FLORIDA KENNETH L. ABERNATHY,~HAIRMAN ATTEST: J ~vironmental ~ervices Administrator o Forn~ and Legal Sufficiency: l~rick G. ~hlte '' - Assistant County Attorney B D-2003-AR-3847/RG/lo