Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/15/2004 RJanuary l5,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 15, 2004 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: Russell Budd Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Dwight Richardson Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Robert Murray George Evans ALSO PRESENT: Susan Murray Ray Bellows Ross Gochenaur Kay Deselem Michele Mosca Michael DeRuntz Don Schneider AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2004, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WxLL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENC£/URAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED I0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM 1~- ,~'O RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRIT'IEN 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 t~rI'ENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITI~ED 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 PERTALNING 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. NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALIJ BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 4, 2003, AND THE LDC MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2003 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 16, 2003 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2003-AR-4690, Michael D. Hawkins, of Turrell and Associates, representing Michael D. Shrigley and G & M Estates USA, Inc., requesting a 13-foot boat dock extension from the maximum allowable 20 feet to allow for a boat dock facility protmding a total of 33 feet into the waterway. Property is located at 199 Topanga Drive, further described as Southport on the Bay Unit One, Lot 97, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2003-AR-4795, Michael D. Hawkins, of Turrell and Associates, representing John McNieholas, requesting an extension for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 41.5 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 160 '~'ahiti Street, further described as Lot 284, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) PI [,A-2003-AR-4008, C. Laurence Keesey, of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P. A. representing VYaterside Shops at Pdican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Pla'~ned Unit Development known as the Pelican Bay PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document to reallocate 170,343 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area. This relocated use will increase the approved uses by 134,343 sqt,~re feet of retail and 36,000 square feet of office space within the Sou:h Commercial Area. In addition, the Pelican Bay PUD is currently approved to contain up to 8,600 residential dwelling units. This petition will reduce the approved number by 800 units, to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection U.S. 41 and Seagate Drive, at 5555 Tamiami Trail N., in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida and consisting of 2,104 acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (COMPANION TO DOA-03-AR-4777) (Continued indefinitely) DOA-2003-AR-4777~ George L. Varnadoe and C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust, requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to relocate 170,343 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the north commercial area to the south commercial area, reduce the approved maximum nuber residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4,5,8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) (COMPANION TO PUDA-03-AR-4795). (Continued indefinitely) PUDZ-2003-AR-3764, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing John J. Nevins, for the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church, requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Community Facilities Planned Unit Development CFPUD, for a 14.89:t: acre project known as St. John the Evangelist PUD. The applicant is amending the schedule of uses by deleting the Adult Assisted Living Facility use and changing the status of several other uses from principal uses to accessory uses. The property is located at 625 111~ Avenue North, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) PUDZ-2002-AR-3411, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc, representing the applicants, Carl M. Nagel, managing partner of CDN Properties LLC, and Thomas Craig, Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a project to be known as Nagei-Craig Business Park PUD to allow a maximum of 417,000 square feet of business park land uses in building not to exceed 35 feet in height for 37.5+ acres of property located on the west side of Collier Boulevard approximately zA mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CU-2003-AR-4464, Louis Stirns, requesting Conditional Use "20" of the "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district for a Sporting and Recreational Camp per LDC 2.2.2.3. The property is located at 2061Moulder Drive, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20-~: acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) (WILL BE RESCHEDULED AT A LATER DATE). CU-2003-AR-4583, Beth Kosmerl/Stuart Kaye, of Kaye Homes, requesting Conditional Use #9 of the "E" zoning district, to allow the continuation of a Model Home/Sales Center per LDC 2.2.3.3. and 2.6.33.4. for 2.85 acres located at 910 39th Street S.W., further described as North 180 feet of Tract 151, Unit 27, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca) 2 I. CU-2003-AR-4799, Edward B. Hanf, of American Dream Builders, Inc., requesting Conditional Use 9 in the "E" Estates zoning district for a model home and sales center per Section 2.2.3.3. of the Land Development Code. Property is located at 4050 13th Avenue S.W., on the southwest corner of 13~ Ave SW and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) Golden Gate Estates Unit 26, Tract 119, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5+ acres. (Coordinator: Michael J'. DeRuntz) J. CU-2003-AR-4995, Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc. representing Christ Community Lutheran School, requesting Conditional Use 10 of the "A" zoning district for a private school per Section 2.2.2.3. The property is located at 14785 Collier Boulevard. The property is in .';ection 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier C'_ot]nty~ glnridn, nnnaictinE nf c) RR_+ n~,_r~_c_ (Co0_rclinnt_OF~ D' ~ S('~E~rI-~--r) 9 OLD BUSINESS ~0. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 1/15/03/CCPC AGENDA/RB/lo 3 January l5,2004 3. 4. 5. e Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 PM, and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Roll Call - A quorum was established. Addenda to the Agenda - no changes. Absences - Mr. Adelstein will not be in attendance for the February 19th meeting. Approval of Minutes - December 4, 2003 and the LDC Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2003. November 24, 2003 minutes - Page 12 - the motion was not unanimous - but 5-1. The name of the descending voter should be noted in the future. - Mr. Adelstein was excused for the first portion of the meeting, but in attendance at the 5:00 PM meeting. Mr. Kenneth Abernathy moved to accept the minutes of November 24, 2003 as amended. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 9-0. December 4, 2003 - Page 1 & Page 2 should be simultaneous that the meeting started at 8:30 AM. Page 7 - In the motion by Mr. Schiffer it should state "the side-yard setback is 5 & 10, rather than 6 & 12." - Page 20 & 21 - two motions were made back to back, it was not so stated who the descending voters were on either motion, the same as with Page 21. Mr. Abernathy moved to accept the minutes of December 4, 2003 as amended. Second by Mr. Adelstein. - Page 19 - Discussion of"signs" - It should be noted A Pole Sign is not the same as a Ground Sign. Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Adelstein amend their motion and second to include the changes to Page 19. Carried unanimously 9-0. BCC Report - Recaps - December 16, 2003 January 13th meeting - BCC denied the petition for the Communication Tower/Eagle Creek. Approved the Walker variance - shed and screen enclosure. - Approved the Hibiscus Church Rezone - Approved the Cocohatchee Nature Center 2 January 15, 2004 Mr. Strain asked the reason the BCC denied the Tower petition. Mr. Bellows responded the residents of Eagle Creek changed their minds in opposition with discussion at the BCC meeting concerning the height, having two towers and an alternate location. Mr. Abernathy asked about a development on the East side of 951 - north of Tree Farm Road - Nicaea Academy. Mr. Bellows responded it had been approved with a reduction in density to two units per acre and limited the access to Tree Farm Road. The petitioner did not give them access and have hired a new consultant to bring the petition back. (498-250 units) Marjorie Student added on the Tower that the FAA had a limitation of 527 feet. Staff had mentioned they only needed 3 feet over what they had - which was also a factor. 7. Chairman's Report- None 8. Advertised Public Hearings: A. BD-2003-AR-4690 - Michael D. Hawkins, of Turrell and Associates, representing Michael D. Shrigley and G. & M. Estates USA, Inc., requesting a 13-foot boat dock extension from the maximum allowable 20 feet to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 33 feet into the waterway. Property is located at 199 Topanga Drive, further described as Southport on the Bay Unit One, Collier County, Florida. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Michael Hawkins of Turreil & Assoc. representing Michael D. Shrigley. Asking for a 13 foot boat dock extension because it needs to be out past the mangroves. Dock is a 4 foot access walkway with a platform of 29 feet x 4 feet. The proposed facility will have two boat lifts. Facilitate a vessel of 28 feet and 20 feet. The width of the waterway is 130 feet and they are under 25% of that figure. Mr. Abernathy disagreed on the figure quoted for being under the 25% of the width of the waterway. He said 32 V2 feet would be ¼ of the width. If in measuring it is off a slight bit, Mr. Shrigley would be in violation. He felt they are stretching it to its limit. Aerials were shown of the house and proposed plan. The protrusion from the mean high water line was discussed. Mr. Schiffer stated Mr. Hawkins measured the 33 feet further back than the land would be on center with the boat lift. 3 January l5,2004 Mr. Hawkins responded he always gives the worst case scenario of the furthest protrusion that the dock would be from the property line or the mean high water line. Discussion followed on the dimensions. What is asked in the petition is the total protrusion from the mean high water line or property line - whichever is most restrictive. Mr. Midney asked if he is including the mangroves in the width of the waterway. Mr. Hawkins stated in the petition he is including the mangroves - mean high to mean high. The edge of the mangrove is not mean high water line. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - Zoning & Land Development Review - the project meets all their criteria and is compatible with other docks in the area with protrusion. It is the policy of the building department to allow 6 inches leeway in sinking pilings for the spot surveys. Pilings do shift. He recommends approval. The protrusion is exactly as the petitioner has presented and they accept it as 25% of the waterway. Mr. Richardson discussed moving the boat so as not to protrude so far out - a larger boat would not be feasible. Ross agreed. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval for BD-2003-AR-4690 with a stipulation they would be limited to 32 feet. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Schiffer stated he could not support the motion based on the data adding 10 feet to the dimension - dock protrusion is more than 25% into the waterway. Motion carried - 7-2. Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Murray voting "no". BD-2003-AR-4795 - Michael D. Hawkins, of Turrell and Associates, representing John McNicholas, requesting an extension for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 41.5 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 160 Tahiti Street, Collier County, FL. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Michael Hawkins, Turrell & Assoc., representing John McNicholas - boat dock extension request for 21.5 feet at Isle of Capri. Total protrusion is 41.5 feet into the waterway measured at 390 feet. Plan is to remove the existing dock at the site, proposed dock has a walkway of 4 feet, 4 January l5,2004 and walkway is 40 x 4. The vessels proposed to utilize the facility are 40 and 25 feet. Two boat lifts are associated with the structure. The setbacks are 25 feet and exceeded. Staffhad no objections and the petitioner has received State and Federal permits. Questions on navigation have been raised in which aerials were shown. It will not impact navigation in the area. Mr. Schiffer asked several questions in which Mr. Hawkins responded. One was the view was chosen because of the adjacent neighbors and petitioner. Mr. Schiffer had a view concern, in which Mr. Hawkins stated is not a criterion. They did enhance the set-backs to 25 feet. The sea wall and rip rap was of concern. Mr. Richardson stated they didn't need the dock at all and doesn't meet the criteria. Mr. Hawkins has met all the criteria in the staff report. The dock seems to be going into the waterway and is not necessary according to the criteria they are reviewing. STAFF Ross Gochenaur - Zoning and Land Development Review - the petitioner has explained the rational on placement of the dock and is not always at the deepest part adjacent to a property. They have had no complaints and no apparent impact on navigation. Mr. Adelstein is concerned about making sure there is depth room for the boat to be docked. Discussion followed on the petition meeting the criteria. The depth is approx. 11 feet. If it was moved back 10 feet, at the outer most piling it is minus 18 feet mean low water. The depth at the bulkhead is 7 feet. Patrick White - Assistant County Attorney - pointed out that the criteria issue is important and wanted everyone to understand that in those types of extensions they only need 4 out of the 5 primary criteria, and 4 out of 6 for the second criteria. If it would fail to meet 1 criterion, there are 4 others being met. Staff is correct in advising that the criteria have been met. Nothing in the Land Development Code says one takes priority over another. Mr. Gochenaur is recommending approval and stated it meets all criteria. He had given a copy to the Planning Commissioners earlier in the day of 5 property owners that were in opposition. He had indicated where those persons lived on the map. SPEAKERS Gabriel A. Almazan - is with the Isle of Capri fisheries and has concerns about the navigation in the area they are discussing. Discussed the channel markers, the depth of the waters and the vision of his fisherman when it is foggy and low tide. They see problems getting into the open waters. He is opposed to the proposed dock extension. Jeff Meiliber - Commercial fisherman for 18 years - his concern is there is not enough room if there is to be a dock extension. The commercial boats draw 4 - 4 V2 feet and is not like a recreational boat. He felt the dock could go a different direction than proposed. With spring, 5 January 15, 2004 new moon tides and storms with east winds blowing the tide they have a hard time getting further out. The sandbar is getting bigger creating further problems. Patrick Purslow - has the same problem as the previous speakers - navigable waterway. Channel marker, sandbar and the shoreline. He didn't feel the markers were put in by the Corps of Engineers. Charles Codman - Isle of Capri Marina and Charter Captain - His concerns are the same with the shallow water and channel markers are in the wrong place. Sandbar is further back and they do not have a problem with their boats. It is not near the dock and not a waterway navigation problem. He showed where the sandbar is located on the map. John McNichols - Along his seawall is rip rap about 10 feet out and not possible to build something straight along the property frontage and would have done so if it was an option. Everyone is use to going into the waterway the same area continually and it is not necessary. There is plenty of room to adjust. He does not want to hurt the Commercial businesses. Mr. Schiffer asked if they are putting two piles into the rip rap to build what is needed. Mr. McNichols responded he is, the rip rap is high - if built closer to seawall it will crumble. If they slide closer to the wall, could not get the boat in to go on the lift. The lift would be on top of the rip rap. Conversation pursued between Mr. Schiffer and Mr. McNichols concerning the lift and the rip rap positioning. Mr. Hawkins discussed the different terrain and not having a true water depth with hard bottom and rocks in the terrain. Elevations vary greatly. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Richardson moved to recommend denial of BD-2003-AR-4795 as submitted due to the fact that it fails on two criteria being: 1) Criteria #2 water depth and 2) Criteria #3 adverse impact on the navigable channel. Second by Mr. Midney. Patrick White stated the section for the criteria in the motion is: 2.6.21.3.1.2 & .3 for the above motion. Mr. Abernathy feels the whole scheme is flawed - first they want a 20 foot dock, and then more than 20 feet with conditions. He then looked at the number of criteria and staff looks at the reason why the petition shouldn't be granted. It then shifts the burden of the Land Development Code and feels they should look at it again. Mr. Midney feels they should error on the side of the community and not one person. Mr. Murray feels it is a matter of safety for the vessels subject to the winds, tide, and slippage. Motion carried unanimously 9-0 for denial. 6 January l5,2004 & D. - Continued indefinitely. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney stated there are some complicated legal issues involved with a change in management and taking another look at the issues. Also the Attomey for the objectors was injured in an accident during the Holidays. Mr. Adelstein moved to continue PUDA-2003-AR-4008 to a date satisfaction to the Petitioner not exceeding 6 months. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 9-0. Mr. Adelstein moved to continue DOA-2003-AR-4777 to a date satisfaction to the Petitioner not exceeding 6 months. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 9-0. PUDZ-2003-AR-3764 - Michael Fernandez, AICP, Planning Development, Inc., representing John J. Nevins, for the St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church, requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Dev. (PUD) to Community Facilities Planned Unit Dev. (CFPUD), for a 14.89 acre project known as St. John the Evangelist PUD, the applicant is amending the schedule of uses by deleting the adult Assisted Living Facility use and changing the status of several other uses from principal uses to accessory uses. The property is located at 625 lllth Ave., Collier County, FL. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Michael Fernandez - Planned Development Corp. - existing facility is a church with current Master Plan showing a development program showing residential uses being eliminated including a multi-story building in the rear of the property. They are then able to reduce the amount of required preserve space from 25 - 15%. This required an amendment of the PUD. The staff is recommending approval. An informational meeting was held with one individual attending showing no objections. The EAC recommended unanimous approval. There is an amount of increases in parking spaces and an agreement with the Cemetery for 3 means of ingress and egress to the site and also shared parking with the Cemetery. Mr. Richardson asked about the loss of native vegetation - where it is located. The amount of open space remains the same according to Mr. Fernandez. The 25% of preservation provided in the original plan was 100% onsite mitigation. He referred to a drawing of the areas where there were created vegetation areas and showed amount of open space being the same. They are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Plan which allows for the reduction. January 15, 2004 Mr. Richardson was concerned about losing some of the preservation. A lengthy discussion was held concerning the reduction of the vegetation. Mr. Fernandez mentioned in the original application there were gopher tortoises and has been relocated. A small wetland was mitigated with .59 acres or units of mitigation. The Amendment being processed is consistent with the PUD. If this does not get approved there will not be a future SDP amendment to provide for the additional development shown on the Master Plan. They are removing the three story structure that had residential uses and parking is being substituted. Maximum height on building is 45 feet. Mr. Strain asked about the parking. Parking calculation with the primary, principal and accessory uses were discussed. Mr. Fernandez stated there is appropriate parking on site now and a need for additional parking. In addition to additional parking they will have free access points. He addressed the access points with the cemetery and where they are located. There is a parking agreement in place and no problems with the school board. The turn lanes and traffic flows were discussed with the County. Mr. Strain asked about the offsite and onsite mitigation. Mr. Fernandez responded the original was 25%, 100% of it being created mitigation - in the new proposal they will have .82 acres of retained habitat - in addition the balance of the 15% - all onsite. Addition to the 15% they are creating .59 acres and 15 acres for habitat for the gopher tortoises off site. Turn lanes and traffic concerns were questioned by Mr. Abernathy during peak hours and when the activities of the church are held. Mr. Fernandez addressed the concerns in stating the traffic lanes will be adequate during all hours. There are no gates and people can use the entrances at anytime. The buffer area was addressed as being a Type "B" buffer. It will meet current code requirements but will be making improvements. STAFF Kay Deselem - Principal Planner/Zoning & Land Development Review - the petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and recommending approval with the PUD Documents and the stipulations with the one deviation. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Susan Murray - clarified a few statements by the Petitioner concerning open space versus native preservation. There is a difference - there are separate requirements for each - the vegetative preservation is being reduced but is not the same as "open space." January 15, 2004 Mr. Adelstein moved that PUDZ-2003-AR-3764 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for recommendation of approval. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 9-0. 10:07 AM BREAK 10:20 AM RECONVENED Mr. Budd stated he had a request to modify the Agenda and hear Item J next. Mr. Midney moved to modify the Agenda and hear Item J at this time. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried unanimously 9-0. CU-2003-AR-4995 - Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc. representing Christ Community Lutheran School, requesting Conditional Use 10 of the "A" zoning district for a private school. The property is located at 14785 Collier Blvd. Located in Collier County, Fl, consisting of 9.38+ acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Robert Duane - Hole Montes Inc. representing Christ Community Lutheran Church - clarified a stipulation - Condition #5 - Type "B" Buffer along north property line - should be a "modified" Type "B" Buffer 10 feet in width because of an existing wall on the north property line. He is requesting the BCC provide their fee back on the Petition because they have been in this process for a year or so due to staff asking for a retention pond on the original site and another site had to be located along with another analysis. Mr. Strain asked about this project as being put through as a "fast track project". He was with the understanding the Economic Development Council was involved in things that provide economic development such as businesses. Seems this doesn't seem consistent with business. Mr. Duane responded they met the criteria for "fast tracking." The schedule is to finish by August 2004. Mr. Strain stated the area of 951 is only 2 lanes and a disaster. To have a development continue without a 6 lane being completed will be very difficult for the people in that area. He felt it would have additional impacts on the residents. The AM Peak hours in the traffic study by Transportation is 55 trips and not a significant impact on the roadway according to Mr. Duane. 9 January 15, 2004 Mr. Abernathy asked the question of the fee being waived. Mr. Duane knows it is the BCC that makes that determination but just wanted the Planning Commissioners to know they are making that protest. Mr. Yovanovich stated he wanted them to know they paid an application fee for the first application and due to actions of the County; they had to choose a second site for the school. Mr. Duane explained the phasing of the plan. Develop the portables first, allowing them to build the elementary school then the middle school and finally the auditorium and administrative areas. It's a progressive increase of grades from Pre-K through 8th grade. Mr. Adelstein asked about Condition #3 concerning the deviation from Section 2.8.3.7.4 of the Land Development Code concerning the wet & dry retention areas. They agreed to ungulate around the plantings around the back of the retention area. STAFF Don Schneider - staff concurs with approval of the Petition with the conditions supplied with it and recommends approval. Don Scott - Transportation - based on the concurrency system the project on 951 will start in one year. This is based on it meeting the requirements for counting the capacity in the analysis. It is not failing by their analysis right now. Hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Adelstein moved to approve CU-2003-AR-4995 and forward to the Board of County Commissioners along with the recommendation from staff. Second by Mr. Murray. Motion and second was amended to include the Type "B" Buffer referred to by Mr. Duane. Motion carried 8-1. Mr. Strain voting "no". Fo PUDZ-2003-AR-3411 - Mr. Robert Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc. representing the applicants, Carl M. Nagel, managing partner of CDN Properties LLC, and Thomas Craig, Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc. requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a project to be known as Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD to allow a maximum of 417,000 square feet of business parkland uses in building not to exceed 35 feet in height or 37.5 +/- acre of property located on the west side of Collier Blvd. approx. ¼ mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, Collier County, FL. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - Mr. Strain, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Adelstein all had conversations with Mr. Mulhere. 10 January 15, 2004 PETITIONER Robert Mulhere - RWA - showed an aerial of the site. Plan allows for a maximum of 417,000 square feet of business park uses. They eliminated a number of uses they felt were not appropriate or objectionable. Light industrial type uses allowed for 30% of total square feet with 125,000 square feet secondary uses. He discussed the loop road to provide cross access to the shopping center and Business Park. They will provide their fair share of property for Wolf Road. He showed future residential and a proposed fire station on the map. Worked with the Vanderbilt Country Club residents. They resolved issues of concern and have come to terms. They will revise the PUD to reflect the changes. A handout was given to the Commissioners (Attached) and as follows: 1 - All buildings are limited to two stories not to exceed 30 feet in height. (B3 & B4) 2 - Public record of renderings and architectural standards - any changes would be minimum. 3 - Landscape buffers to enhance neighborhood. Asked for deviation. Vanderbilt County Club wanted to be sure certain code requirements be put on the record. Language was put in according to Code requirements. 4- Building frontage on Collier Blvd. will be set back a minimum of 75 feet from the PUD perimeter. 5 - Concerned about vehicle storage yards - which are permitted - but did a couple of changes to this change. Change is "or any combination thereof, if adjacent, for overnight vehicle storage etc." Also - they indicated the PUD prohibits any outside storage which includes no outside storage of commercial construction equipment such as bulldozers, tractors, dumpsters, bucket loaders, cranes and the like. 6 - Communication towers will not be permitted in Tracts "B3 & B4". 7 - The attached spreadsheets set forth the remaining allowable uses, and whether such uses are permitted in Tracts "B3 & B4". · No uses were added, just removed. · Discussed the concerns of the Comprehensive Plan being amended and not having approval of the rezone or submitting the SDP until it is. · Deviations requested are: - 5 foot reduction on the north and south Eliminate requirement for a 6 foot architectural wall Allowed to go from 35' to 42' - would be appealing General Contractor and Landscape Architectural - requested those uses Will remove Auto Rental use - removed Hotel use. Mr. Strain asked about their intentions of improving Wolf Road. Mr. Mulhere responded they agreed to participate and provide the right-of-way and build the first 500 feet with turn lanes and dedicate an additional 30 feet to create a 60 right-of- way. Potential rezones may be coming in and take care of a certain portion. Mr. Strain asked if they would improve the entire area in front of their property. 11 January 15, 2004 Mr. Mulhere stated there will be someone else that would benefit from it and would need to talk to his client concerning that portion. Left and fight turn lanes will be provided due to the County asking for the 80 feet. In the PUD - if going to 3 stories will it be for office only on the 3rd floor? Where there is no wall what percentage and when will the vegetation be put in? Answer was 80% within one year according to the Code requirements. In the transportation portion - what is commitment for loop roads? Mr. Mulhere showed it on the map. Mr. Mulhere stated they agree to dedicate the right-of-way for Wolf Road within 60 days of the PUD rezone becoming effective. Mr. Adelstein asked if they would be willing to lower the 42 feet to the 35 feet. Mr. White informed the Commissioners they are centering their discussion on the heights that are being put into the Land Development Code in the present cycle of amendments with the difference between building height and zoning height. They may not be talking about the same thing. Mr. Mulhere stated he is referring to the building height being the minimum height established by law (FEMA) - that point to mid point of the roof. He stated there is no plan or knowledge of any use requesting three stories. The extra 7 feet (B21 & B23) provides for greater architectural flexibility. STAFF Kay Deselem - 2 staff reports in packet. Mr. Mulhere explained the changes, and Kay had just received the list of uses and limitations as per their agreement with the neighboring property owners. In the Supplemental staff report - still recommending approval and find it consistent with the Comp Plan. She discussed the possibility of a fire station in that area being discussed. She had heard it was going to be water retention for Collier County widening. Will work with the applicant to get a PUD document that reflects the changes proposed. Mr. Richardson asked about the reclassification for 951 and being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, being the roadway would have to be an arterial, is there any way, in their process, for some deviation that would refine the problem? David Weeks - Comprehensive Planning Dept. - responded they can approve the petition contingent upon the classification occurring and the change can occur by the property owner or the County. The Planning Commissioners and BCC have the fight to interrupt the language in the GMP that may differ from staff. SPEAKERS Chappell Wilson - Resident Vanderbilt County Club - Chairman of VB 951 Ad Hoc Committee - the Committee look at all issues that involve them and 951 and are the closest development to the proposed project. They have met with Mr. Mulhere in which many of 12 January l5,2004 their concerns have been addressed. They have come to an agreement with satisfactory answers to all questions. They have a good understanding of the Business Park and have no objections to it. They want to be a good neighbor. They have no problem with the 42 feet in the back section. They feel it would enhance the project and views to everyone. They would object to a flat roofi Mr. Mulhere summed up the earlier concerns: · Quality - align with the fire station - but not closer to Collier Blvd. but will coordinate with the fire station. 3rd floor office - concern that there are uses in a business park district that can not be predicted. Self-storage, showroom uses or other types they can't participate. They would look like office space if there were other uses, so it can not be limited to only office space and wouldn't agree to it. Right-of-way - the fire station will not construct the roadway - it is being done by the petitioner. (both sides with turn lanes) They are doing their fair share and other property owners would construct the rest of it. Don't need to construct the rest as they are constructing way beyond their ingress and egress. Don't feel there is a need for it. · Still want the 42 feet deviation. Bill Hoover - Hoover Planning - representing petitioner - Wolf Creek is in for a plat and environmental permit. He showed the acreage on the map where condos and the road will be built. More easements are needed and those areas were also shown on the map. They have no control over other property owners. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval to the BCC for PUDZ-2002-AR-3411 subject to the following stipulations: I - No auto Rental business allowed 2 - Agreement conditions by the Vanderbiit County Club as presented, along with the spreadsheet, applies. 3 - Loop road as shown in the South - if PUD is not addressed - its needed dedications are addressed and provided. 4 - Wolf Road is extended to west end of subject's property line - not just in dedication, but in 2 lane version with a 4 lane version done and completed to the intersection that will be coordinated with the fire department and include left and right turn lanes. 5 - Wolf Road from 951 to where the intersection with the fire department with the Business Park will be 80 feet wide. Second by Mr. Murray. Mr. Richardson can not support the portion of the motion that deals with the timing and active involvement with the right-of-way construction going further than the petitioner's construction goes. 13 January 15,2004 Mr. Abernathy stated he can not support the complete northern leg of Wolf Road where the petition proposes to build. Other Commissioners agreed with him. Kay Deselem wanted clarification on timing - Mr. Strain responded that it would be by the last permit issuance of the building. At the end of the project it would then be installed. Mr. Mulhere asked if Mr. Strain would agree to a condition saying: If the right-of-way is not otherwise required for construction through other adjacent property owners zoning conditions. Mr. Strain amended his motion to state the above statement by Mr. Mulhere, and the road will be built by County Standards; Mr. Murray agrees as the second. Mr. Strain stated - for timing - it should be when 350,000 square feet is completed. Mr. Mulhere suggested it read: At the time the maximum square footage has been achieved or at such time transportation staff deems it to be necessary to complete Wolf Road. A lengthy discussion followed on the traffic patterns, signalization, turn lanes and the timing issue. Kay Deselem stated in discussing the issue with transportation they would like to see a date certain - example - five years from date of approval of the petition, (or) 350,000 square feet whichever occurs first. Mr. Strain agrees to the five years from the effective date and approved by the GMP process, unless otherwise required for the other property owners. This is amended to the motion and second. Motion carried unanimously 9-0. 12:05 PM - BREAK 12:15 PM - RECONVENED No need for any action on Item G - CU-2003-AR-4464 - continuance. G. CU-2003-AR-4583, Beth Kosmer/Stuart Kaye, of Kaye Homes, requesting Conditional Use #9 of the "E" zoning district, to allow the continuation of a Model Home/Sales Center per LDC 2.2.3.3. and 2.6.33.4 for 2.85 acres located at 910 39th street SE further described as north 180 feet of Tract 151 unit 27, Gold Gate Estates in Collier County, FL. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - Mr. Strain has had discussion with several members of the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee - Karen Lacard, Linda Hartman and Russell Tuft. 14 January 15, 2004 PETITIONER Stuart Kaye - requesting approval to continue the conditional use for the existing model center with the current location. Get along with their neighbors and has no knowledge of any citizen objecting to the use and not seeking any current changes to the current use. STAFF Michelle Mosca - Dept of Zoning and Land Development Review - the conditional use is expiring presently. Mr. Strain stated Mr. Robert Pierson signed an agreement on behalf of Mr. Stuart to get the conditional use in 1998 with a stipulation "this conditional use for model sales center is approved for a period of five years. After the expiration of the conditional use the buildings must be converted into a single family residence." This was a condition for the current approval and means the agreement stands. Michelle stated staff recommended approval based upon the criteria established in the LDC and nothing prohibits the petitioner to come back for an additional conditional use regardless whether they agreed to the agreement or not. She could not locate anything in the Code that would prevent them coming in again based on the criteria and marketability of the model. Mr. Strain asked about the Resolution 98182 that is attached and wondered if they took precedence over the Land Development Code. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - stated the Land Development Code is an Ordinance and a Resolution. An internal operating document. It is up to the Board to decide if a Conditional Use is extended or not. Mr. Strain talked about temporary uses and not conditional uses and those allowed in the Golden Gate Estates and have been debated every 10 years in the Golden Gate Master Plan. It was brought up as a temporary use only and presented it as that. He read language that was presented to the committee concerning the uses. (Model Homes and temporary structures are initially permitted for three years and thereafter require annual approval) Those that are saying the intent is different are not the people that were on the committee. He disagrees and will not vote for renewal for those reasons. Glenn Heath - Collier County Comprehensive Planning Staff- he did bring the item to the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee. It was a request by the County Commission to consider whether the process or renewals of the permits should be done administratively or through the Board of County Commissioners. It was decided it should be done through the Board of County Commissioners. Subsequent to the Sunset of the Committee, staff was working on finalizing the language for the Golden Gate Master Plan and the language Mr. Strain referred to was directed to him by the Planning Director to be included in the Amendments. The language to be included was incomplete and Mr. Weeks will discuss the issue. This does not meet the location criteria for Conditional Uses for the Golden Gate Master Plan. 15 January 15, 2004 When brought to the Committee it was an LDC matter not Master Plan. David Weeks - Comprehensive Planning Dept. - his understanding in what the Committee was discussing was whether or not to make a change to the LDC as to how temporary use permits are to be reviewed. The end result was the Board of County Commissioners did not vote for any change, so temporary use permits are still viewed as previously had been. The options still exist as a conditional use which is ineffective as a continuation of a temporary use. Mr. Strain disagreed. Mr. Weeks gave a history of why staff interrupted the conditional uses the way they did. He gave different examples and stated the residents said there are too many of the non-residential uses already. So criteria were established in the Golden Gate Master Plan on the conditional uses. If particular criteria are not met they cannot get the conditional use approved. The locational criteria have been met. He discussed the transitional conditional use. It must be abutting certain type of non residential uses. Commercial use or certain type of essential use. In the mid-90's two changes occurred - one was excavation and the other was a conditional use for a model home. If beyond the allowable three years a conditional use is needed. At the time it was not the intent of the Golden Gate Master Plan transitional conditional use criteria to apply to either of the two conditional uses. Those uses are different than the other allowed in the Estates zoning district. Through the Amendment they tried to put language in the Golden Gate Master Plan that would clearly state 1) the excavations that are allowed in the Estate Zoning District are not subject to the location of criteria of conditional uses and 2) neither are the conditional uses for model homes and sales centers. The language they see now clearly says "a temporary use permit" - that is not what they are dealing with now - it is a conditional use petition. The intent was to allow for the temporary use permits that go beyond the three years; get a conditional use approved without having to meet the locational criteria. Until changed they are standing by the interpretation made under the previous language and their position is the uses should not have to meet locational criteria and was the intent they would have to meet the locational criteria. So the petition can be found consistent with the Golden Gate Master Plan. Mr. Strain felt this model home (or thing) has been there for 11-13 years and now want an unlimited time and is basically calling it a real estate office. That is not the criteria that were presented to the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee. The minutes that Glenn Heath sent to Mr. Weeks clearly stated this particular one was pointed out as an issue of contention. He stated the developer found a loop hole and built a duplex on a lot that is restricted and had to make provisions to say it is not separate buildings. This has been a thom in the side of the community for a long time. The Golden Gate Master Plan would have been tightened up if they would have known this earlier. Michelle Mosca - under the condition section it is limited to an additional five years. Mr. Kaye is willing to bring in neighbors and citizens in support of the conditional use and respects Mr. Strain's remarks. 16 January l5,2004 Mr. Weeks believes this language came after the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee disbanded. He stated the discussion in front of the Committee dealt with the proposed Land Development Code change regarding temporary use permits for model homes and that the committee was never presented with this language. Mr. Strain entertained a motion to extend the conditional use for one year which provides time for the applicant or staff to get together with the participants on the Committee and get their opinions and have discussion for explaining the process. If a consensus says it is not a problem, so when it comes back for renewal it can be brought up either "for" or "negative" to resolve it. Did not think the Conditional use should stop today. Five years is not adequate. Mr. Weeks stated that even if they called all 10 committee members, they would have to deal to make a recommendation and ultimate decision from the BCC on the language that has been adopted and in effect in the Master Plan. The Committee's input in valuable, but if they disagree with staff' s position, staff has to interrupt the language that is before them. Susan Murray suggested a three year time frame - one year is not enough. Discussion followed on the principal home and a guest house, meeting set-backs, temporary use permits and whether the home is a single family resident or two homes (duplex) on a single family residential lot. Mr. Kaye stated the intent has been and is currently to be a model home center. There are two floor plans on the inside of the structure. They want to continue to be a model center to sell homes on a very busy comer surrounded by Commercial property, be a good neighbor and helpful to the citizens of Collier County and Golden Gate Estates. Mr. Murray asked if it sold would it be a single family home. Mr. Kaye could not say what the future would bring with the activity in Golden Gate Estates with the lots and affordable housing. Ray Bellows stated they gave them five years so the applicant can make good use of the property and in five years a lot can change to the neighborhood. Hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend petition CU-2003-AR-4583 for approval for a two year period. Second by Mr. Adeistein. Mr. Strain felt staff could find adequate time to put together, in the next cycle, a change in the Growth Management Plan and correct the language. Mr. Abernathy felt they were not looking at the principal question of whether it is a model home or not. It is a real estate office and should be terminated. He thinks it is a hoax and can't vote for the two years. 17 January l5,2004 Mr. Budd liked the motion so it gives time to clarify exactly the issue Mr. Abernathy talked about. Need appropriate language. Motion carried 8-1. Mr. Abernathy voted "no". H. CU-2003-AR-4799 - Edward B. Hanf, of American Dream Builders, Inc. requesting Conditional use 9 in the "E" Estates zoning District for a model home and sales center per Section 2.2.3.3. of the Land Development Code. Property is located at 4050 13th Avenue, SW on the southwest corner of 13th Ave. SW and Collier Blvd. Golden Gate Estates in Collier County, FI. Consists of 5+/- acres. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - none. PETITIONER Edward Hanf- Vice President of Operations - American Dream Builders - built structure in 1997 and operated it as a single family model home and will continue to operate it as long as affordable homes can be built in the Golden Gate Estates area. Concern is with the price of lots approaching a minimum of 40,000 that affordable homes may not be able to be built in the area. No significant impact on neighbors - no one showed at the public meeting. Cost to apply for permits in the past has been less than $1,000 and is now $2,500. Two items - transportation will be taking 75 feet of right-of-way which would impact their septic system. In the last 30 days there has been a high voltage line built by FPL in front of their property on the sidewalk on 951. When applied for permit they were asked to pay for a road impact fee. The gravel parking lot is used for the sales staff. The permit expires in 2005. They are applying early so as not to run into any type of problems at the last minute. His single family dwelling is one unit - one front door and one two car garage. STAFF Mike DeRuntz - Principal Planner for Zoning and Land Development Review Dept. - has reviewed request and meets criteria for conditional use. Recommending approval with the five conditions. One is installing a sidewalk on 13th street and constructed within 6 months of the approval of the permit. Mr. Strain stated this is the same problem as the last conditional use request and asked about the Golden Gate Master Plan. Mr. Weeks stated it could be a conclusion that this petition is not consistent with the location of criteria. Staffs interpretation of the language is that the petition is not subject to the location of criteria - that was the intent of the Amendment that was adopted that was in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Staffs position is - the conditional use petition is not subject to the locational criteria for conditional uses, therefore the petition can be found consistent with the Master Plan. 18 January l5,2004 The language needs to be clarified as with the last petition. Mr. Strain made a request of staff to at least e-mail the language with an explanation to the members of the former Committee of the Golden Gate Master Plan. They can then have input and a right to be heard. Since the Committee has "sunsetted" the results will be the opinion of 10 citizens. The sidewalk issue was discussed and was stated it is coming from the Transportation Dept. and is included into the recommendation. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved denial of CU-2003-AR-4799. Second by Mr. Midney. Mr. Strain stated there is two years left. Staff can get the language cleaned up in the meantime and when it comes forward there will be more of an understanding of the language. Mr. Strain withdrew his pending motion for denial as did Mr. Midney his second. Mr. Strain moved to approve CU-2003-AR-4799 with a one year extension. Second by Mr. Midney. Carried unanimously 9-0. 9. Old Business Mr. Strain discussed old County records and understanding them. He stated "when there was a legal transcript everything was very clear. No offenses to the minute taker, but minutes are not transcripts." He felt they are going through more technical issues and warrants a court reporter. Mr. Budd stated it was his understanding it was a budget issue and felt they need to contact the County Manager and/or Board of County Commissioners. According to Susan Murray it was a budget issue and not enough stenographers to serve all the Counties transcripts. Money had not been budgeted for the expense of court reporters, and Susan will bring it to Joe Schmitt's attention. Mr. Strain moved to request the County Commission to consider reinstituting, at some point, the transcribing of their meetings as they have had in the past. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0. 10. New Business · February 27 - BCC & CCPC Joint Workshop - 9:00 AM - Evaluation and Appraisal · March 16 - BCC Workshop on Boat Houses 19 January 15, 2004 Mr. Schiffer suggested an Ad Hoc Committee be appointed that would work with the various other committees and possibly a Commissioner for transmitting data concerning many issues. 11. Public Comment Item - none 12. Discussion of the Addenda- none There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:25 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Mr. Russell Budd 20 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Serv/ces Division Planning Services Department ° 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ° Naples, Florida 34104 January 22, 2004 TURRELL & ASSOCIATES MICHAEL HAWKINS 3584 EXCHANGE AVE, # B NAPLES, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2003-AR-4690, G & M ESTATES USA, INC. Dear Mr. Hawkins: On Thursday, January 15, 2004, the Collier County Planning approved Petition No. BD-2003-AR-4690. A copy of Resolution No. 04-01 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911. Sincerely,/~ ~..~ Ross Gochenaur, Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RG/Io Enclosure CC: G & M ESTATES USA INC Michael D. Shrigley 6530 Highcroft Drive Naples, FL 34119 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) w/'a' Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarreil) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File Commission heard and C C www.colliergov net Phone(239) 403-2400 Fax(239) 643-6965 CCPC RESOLUTION 04- n l__ A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2003-AR-4690 FOR A 12-FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION FROM THE REQUIRED 20 FEET ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102, as amended) hereinafter referred to as the LDC, 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 12-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by Section 2.6.21. of the LDC to authorize a 32-foot boat dock facility in a PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning District 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 Section 2.6.21. of the LDC; 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-2003-4690, filed on behalf of G & M Estates USA, Incorporated, by Turrell and Associates, for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 97, Unit One, Southport on the Bay Subdivision according to the Plat thereof, as described in Plat Book 15, Pages 51-53, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be and the same is hereby approved for a 12-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by Section 2.6.21. of the LDC to authorize a 32-foot boat docking facility in a PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height shall be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion. 1 of 2 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 shall 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. /.fi~/~ dayof ! ATTEST: sCp~munityb/vices AdmD?~IrOaPtomrent and Environmental COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER ~OUNT/y~, FLOR,IDA , RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjorie i~ ~Siudent ' Assistant County Attorney B D-2003-AR -4690/Io 2of2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Commnnity Development and Environmental Services Division Planning Services Department · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 February 10, 2004 Turrell and Associates Michael Hawkins 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2003-AR-4795, McNICHOLAS, JOHN Dear Mr. Hawkins: On Thursday, January 15, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and denied Petition No. BD-2003-AR-4795. If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2958. S incere,~l~_ Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Enclosure CC: JOHN M MCNICHOLAS 160 Tahiti Street Isles of Capri, FL 34113 Land Dept. Property Appraiser Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) / Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File c Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 www.colliergov, net CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO THE DENIAL OF PETITION NUMBER BD-2003- AR-4795 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 conl;erred on ali 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 21.5-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 41.5-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 the request does not meet the criteria 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-4795, filed on behalf of John M. McNicholas by Michael D. Hawkins of Turrell and Associates, for the property hereinafter described as: Isles of Capri No. 2, Lot 284, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 46 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby denied for a 21.5-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. Page 1 of 2 This Resolution is hereby denied after motion, second and majority vote. Done this /,~'~ ~ day of c.7'~Uc, t:/y , 2004. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN' Schmift /Cojhmunity Development and Environmental S~4rvices Administrator .~~~i Form and Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G. White Assistant County Attorney BD-2003-AR-4795/RG/Io Page 2 of 2