Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/01/2004 RApril 1, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 1,2004 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 (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Planning Dept. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Joyce Ernest, Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL I, 2'004, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLO'ITED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZE~D BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 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 CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 2004, REGULAR MEETING AND FEBRUARY 19, 2004, SPECIAL WORKSHOP 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -FEBRUARY 17, 2004, JOINT WORKSHOP; FEBRUARY 24, 2004, REGUALR MEETING; FEBRUARY 25, 2004, JOINT WORKSHOP; MARCH 9-10, 2004, REGULAR MEETING. 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS o 9. I1. 12. 13. Ae Petition BD-2004-AR-5239, Andrew Jaffe, represented by Michael D. Hawkins, of Tun'ell & Associates, Inc., is requesting a 57-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which would allow construction of a boat docking facility accommodating 2 vessels protruding a total of 77 feet into a waterway which is about 705 feet wide. Property is located at 204 San Mateo Drive, legally known as Southport on the Bay Unit I, Lot 29, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) Petition CU-2003-AR-3914, Ann Phillips Pre-School, represented by Terrance L. Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, Inc., requests Conditional Use #3 of the RMF-6 district for Child Care Facility. The property to be considered for the Conditional Use is located at 860 102~ Avenue North, in the Naples Park Subdivision, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida and consists of .46 acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 3/16/04 CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 April 1,2004 1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Roll Call - A quorum was established with Mr. Evans absent. 3. Addenda to the Agenda - Mr. Abemathy requested discussion under Item 9 concerning the recent workshop concerning Boathouses. Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 8-0. 4. Absences - Mr. Budd may be absent on May 6th. 5. Approval of Minutes - February 19, 2004-regular meeting and February 19, 2004 special meeting. · Pages 10 - In discussing flowway - add South Florida Water Management District. · Page 12 - change quality to qualify. Mr. Strain moved to approve the February 19, 2004 minutes as amended. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0. February 19th special workshop: · Page 3 - add the word "one" - heard one time by this board. · Mr. Adelstein's name was misspelled- "Lindy". Mr. Strain moved to approve the February 19th, 2004 special meeting minutes as amended. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0. 6. BCC Report - Recaps - February 17, 2004, Joint Workshop; February 24, 2004, Regular Meeting; February 25, 2004, Joint Workshop; March 9-10, 2004, Regular Meeting. · Board approved the sign variance for the Chamber of Commerce - 5-0. · Approved PUD Amendment for Calusa Island Village 5-0. · SRA for Ave Maria University was approved. 7. Advertised Public Hearings: A. Petition BD-2004-AR-5239, Andrew Jaffe, represented by Michael D. Hawkins, of Turrell & Associates, Inc. is requesting a 57 foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which would allow construction of a boat docking facility accommodating 2 vessels protruding a total of 77 feet into a waterway which is about 705 feet wide. Property is located at 204 San Mateo Drive, legally known as Southport on the Bay Unit 1, Lot 29, in Section 6, and Collier County, Florida. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - none. April 1, 2004 PETITIONER Michael Hawkins, Turrell & Assoc. Representing Andrew Jaffe - requesting a 57 foot extension from the allowed 20. Will accommodate 2 vessels, one 30 & one 40 feet in length. Dock is approx. 877 square feet of over water structure and accommodates two boat lifts. Additional protrusion is required to protect the existing oyster bed and provide adequate water depths for the vessels. The dock will not impede navigation. The waterway is wide. Has met with the Association, and no concerns or objections. Are allowed to impact only the mangroves that will be trimmed for the access walkway. Need a State permit. Location of the lift for the boat on the lower dock - Mr. Schiffer asked if it is centered in the area or more towards the waterway in which the boat would stick out past the edge of the dock. Response from Mr. Hawkins is they just position it on the drawings to make it realistic on where the lift will sit - most of the time they are put towards the rear of the boat. - Mr. Adelstein asked about the width of the dock. It is 41 feet, the owner requested straight in boring, as he doesn't know what the adjacent owner may do in the future. Mr. Adelstein stated it is much further out than any of the other docks. If they were to rotate it according to Mr. Hawkins, there are shallow water depths close, and they need 4 ½ feet for the smaller vessel. STAFF Joyce Ernest - Department of Zoning and Land Development Review - had not received any objections. Similar boat dock extensions have been granted in Southport for other dock facilities. The project complies with 5 of 5 of the primary criteria and 5 of the secondary criteria. Staff recommends approval. Hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Abernathy moved to approve Petition BD-2004-AR-5239. Second by Mr. Strain. It was amended to state with the staff's stipulations in their report. Mr. Strain agreed. Carried unanimously 8-0. 3 April 1, 2004 B. CU-2003-AR-3914 - Ann Phillips Pre-School, represented by Terrance L. Kepple, of Kepple Engineering, In., requests Conditional Use #3 of the RMF- 6 district for Child Care Facility. The property to be considered for the Conditional Use is located at 860 102nd Avenue North, in the Naples Park Subdivision, Collier County, Florida. Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - Mr. Abernathy hada phone call asking him to take a look at the area. PETITIONER Terrance Kepple representing the petitioner - conditional use to allow expansion of the existing Day Care located at 860 102nd Ave. in Naples Park. Requesting expansion of approx. 1,000 square foot building addition and additional parking on the eastern side of the project. Will allow approx. 25 additional students attend the facility and required teachers. They will also construct a sidewalk along the frontage 102nd Ave. North and provide Water Management on site for the improvements. During Neighborhood Information meeting, the neighbor west of the project had concerns with the children throwing pine cones or basketballs in his yard. The neighbor requested, and they agreed they would place an 8 foot high wood fence along the western property line and connect it to the building. One additional tree will be placed in the area to prevent objects going over the 8 foot fence. His comment on the staff's stipulations is that they are to add an 8 foot fence along the western most south property line. No objection, but the remainder is fenced with a 6 foot fence and would be out of character with the 8 foot. Mr. Murray asked about the clarification of a wall or fence. Response was the neighbor requested a wood fence. It can be either. Mr. Adelstein asked if it could be a walt as to the noise barrier. He felt a wall would be better for abating noise. Discussion followed on the wall versus a fence with protection against noise and objects being thrown into the neighbor's area. Mr. Abernathy asked about the sidewalk - when he looked at the area, seemed there was a paved drop off area. He didn't know what a sidewalk would add to the area. 4 April 1, 2004 Mr. Kepple showed the Site Plan - County has asked for a sidewalk along frontage, and then connected to the building - 102nd to the door of the building, through the landscaping. Would be 5 foot wide. They have no objection to it. Mr. Strain asked where the sidewalk would go. They are requiring them to waste money, time and costs to run a sidewalk to nowhere dead ending in the dirt. He didn't think it made any sense. Mr. Kepple stated it is through the SDP process and the Code requires it everywhere except for single family homes. Mr. Abernathy stated anyone coming to the place will come from the east or west and walk across a paved 15 foot driveway in order to get to the little 5 foot sidewalk. Many of the Commissioners expressed - they do not have to agree with it. Mr. Schiffer asked about how many students are licensed to be there now - answer was 75. Mr. Strain asked Mr. Kepple if they were to make a motion to include waiving the requirement of a sidewalk in front of the property, would he have any objection. He answered he would not, but the Transportation Department isn't going to like it. Mr. Strain stated the Transportation Dept. isn't always correct in all cases. Mr. Schmitt reminded the Commissioners in the LDC Amendments were debated, went to the BCC, debated again, and now they are living with the change. He has directed his staff with some submitting payment in lieu of; because there are places that it doesn't make sense. This is one where the LDC requires it. STAFF Fred Reischl - Department of Zoning and Land Development Review - concerning the sidewalk - the property to the east is zoned C-3 (Commercial). When it is developed, it will have to have a sidewalk and will connect to the eastern side. Mr. Abernathy stated they are arguing the north/south one and Mr. Richardson said he is arguing both. Mr. Reischl then answered it is not a stipulation put in conditional uses, transportation department put it in and he included it - it is an SDP requirement. Staffdid not have an objection on a 6 foot wall. Staffis recommending either one; fence or wall. Sound is not an issue. 5 April 1, 2004 Discussion again followed on being a wall or fence. Mr. Midney had a question on changing the character of the neighborhood on the 6 or 8 foot wall. Mr. Reischl stated 6 feet is the maximum height in RMF-6. It will be between the two houses and visible from the front curving around and connect to the new addition on the building. Mr. Schiffer wondered if they set a limit to how many students there can be. Mr. Reischl stated it is a State requirement. Mr. Schiffer responded on whatever can be packed in, staff is happy? Mr. Reischl didn't feel it was packed in. This is zoned RMF-6, with commercial sidewalk and not commercial zoning so do not have 'to meet Division 2.8 for architectural standards. This will also improve parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Richardson stated this is a facility that provides a service to the community and providing a day care in Naples Park is critical. He applauds their willingness to expand the facility and supports it. Hearing is closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Budd agreed with Mr. Richardson and anytime they can encourage and make feasible child care facilities in Collier County, it is something greatly needed. If the neighbors are interested in an 8 foot fence, give them what they want. Mr. Abernathy moved to forward Petition CU-2003-AR-3914 with a recommendation of approval including a fence or wall. (The owner can have his choice.) This is per staff's recommendation of an 8 foot high fence and recommends to the BCC they waive their requirement of the 5 foot sidewalk connecting the east/west sidewalk to the front door. Marjorie Student asked if planting some vegetation is part of the stipulation. Mr. Strain clarified the following: · The applicant has volunteered additional landscaping and the landscaping is included as a stipulation. · Under Condition 1 of the staff's conditions, says: where along the western most 10 feet of the south side of the playground (referencing another 8 foot section of wall) he thought they agreed it could be 6 or 8 'feet to keep in alignment with the esthetics of the neighborhoods. · Condition #2 - instead of approving it with that condition on it, why don't they approve it with the stipulation of the landscaping. Condition #1 is they 6 April 1, 2004 recommend the amendment, and not approve with Condition 2. Leave Condition 2 off the approval. (The north/south sidewalk link) Motion and Second are in agreement to amend the motion as stated above. Mr. Schiffer had a concern it may be the requirement of the ADA. He would like to see the ADA require it and could be determined during building permit. Nothing they can do to overrule it. After much discussion Ray Bellows stated they do not have to list a stipulation that is required by ADA. Will be discussed in the SDP process. Motion carried unanimously 8-0. ge Old Business: · Joint meeting is scheduled for April 20th (EAR) Evaluation Appraisal Report - GMP Amendment dates will be given at a later date. · April 15th meeting - GMP delayed. e New Business:· Mr. Abernathy was disappointed with Mr. Gochenaur's presentation. · Made statements that boathouses are used solely for protecting boats. They know they hold parties as well. · Many times referred to boathouses as boat covers - which are misleading. · Showed cigar boats and lifts for someone's viewing, and noting to do with boathouses. · Whole thing was slanted for not doing anything about boathouses. · Two Coastal Commissioners agreed to an overlay for Commissioner Halas' District. Mr. Richardson mentioned it was left to the County Manager on how the community was going to be surveyed for those on the Coastal area. Mr. Schmitt stated Commissioners Fiala and Coletta made it clear to staff that they do not support any proposal. They will have a questionnaire sent out in the water bills. It will give them an idea if there is support for some type of overlay in the Vanderbilt area. Question on abandoning boathouses, and if so, do they concur with the existing boathouses remaining. It is an emotional issue. Was not an attempt to sway the board one way or another but to point out what the issues and concerns are. The current issue is to grandfather the ones that were there. 7 April 1, 2004 Would have to establish an amortization period and hard to take it away or get rid of them. Mr. Schiffer stated it is a neighborhood or waterway or canal issue. It showed a lot of structural problems and someone should be checking with whatever is existing. Joe Sehmitt said they discussed boat covers. Followed up on Little Hickory Shores in which they found 47 violations and let the Board know the property owners that have the vinyl covers. Wanted the Board to understand and staff followed their direction in doing what was needed. Mr. Strain stated it sounded like it came out the way it should have. Commissioner Fiala and Coletta have not heard about any complaints in their districts about boathouses. The only complaints heard was from Vanderbilt Beach and tried to recommend the issue be included in the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay but too late to get it in. Mr. Shiffer asked if the results are made public in which Mr. Schmitt responded they will report back to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners so they are all aware of where staff is. 11. Public Comment Item - None 12. Discussion of Addenda - Mr. Richardson asked about topics for a workshop that the CCPC would like to hear. Mr. Schmitt mentioned they will try to get a workshop on the Impact Analysis Model for possibly this fall. The DRI may not be in for Ave Maria until this fall or next year. Discussion followed on: · A workshop in June/July. · Land Use Petitions · Ave Maria showing Fiscal Neutrality and other developments has not. · Dr. Fishkind hired by DCA & Collier Enterprises - worked and developed the model for Collier County. Model is also being applied and implemented for other counties. Model will show Revenues collected - project being economic burden or not on the County. · Ave Maria Project & Budget · Special District was created and requirement of a fiscal component analysis - creating the Special District is beyond the scope of the CCPC. April 1, 2004 E-mail information for FA Model Hiring a Fiscal Impact Analysis Technician · LDC - Staff analyze Model · Vanderbilt Beach Overlay - model was used · Fishkind Representative was in attendance at meeting and stated none of it would be in the Financial Model. Mr. Schmitt stated there may have been a misunderstanding - the entire area is in the model, only the taxes can be assessed. Mr. Budd question whether they are discussing a specific petition that was not announced and the merits of the petition. Mr. White responded to the extent they will have a DRI to look at, potentially yes, but are discussing it theoretically rather than a practical discussion about a quasi judicial matter. It is part of the SRA and SSA discussion that the Board had. Mr. Budd decided not to go any further. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:27 AM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Mr. Russell Budd 9 CCPC RESOLUTION 04- 03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2004-AR-5239 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection 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 57-foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 77-foot boat dock facility in a PUD 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-2004-AR-5239, filed on behalf of Andrew T. Jaffe and Fern B. Jaffe by Turrell and Associates, Inc., for the property hereinafter described as: Southport on the Bay, Unit One, Lot 29, as described in Plat Book 15, Page(s) 51-53, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 57-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 77-foot boat docking facility in the PUD 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. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Page 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 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 ~_~ day of ! ,2004. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: sCeO~ic~sn~[mD~:IrOaPtomrent and Environmental ~~ ~d Legal Sufficiency: patr~l['G.?~hite Assistant County Attorney BD-2004-AR-5239/JE/Io Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT April 12, 2004 Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning. and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples. Florida 34104 Turrell & Associates, Inc. Michael Hawkins 3584 Exchange Ave, Suite B Naples. Fl. 34104 RE: Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5239, Jaffe, Andrew Dear Mr. Hawkins: On '/i~ursday. April 1, 2004, the Pz:!~ion N~,. BD-2003-AR-5239. Collier County Planning Commission A copy of Resolution No. 04-03 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2907. Sii;ccrcly, Joyc~nner~/bO~' Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Review heard and approved J E/sp Enclosure CC: Jaffe, Andrew T. & Fern B. 8150 Las Palmas Way Naples, FI. 34109 Land Dept. Property Appraiser ~/Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File I~honc ~ 2391 41}3-24{){} Fax { 2391 643-6968 or i2391 _ 1. -- ) 16 .