CCPC Minutes 05/20/2004 R
May 20, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, May 20, 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
Bob Viglioti
ALSO PRESENT:
Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services
Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Zoning & Land Dev. Rev.
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Fred Reischl, Principal Planner
Susan Murray, Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Rev.
David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning
Don Scott, Transportation
Mike Bosi, Dept. of Zoning & Land Dev. Rev.
Glenn Heath, Comprehensive Planning
Jean Jourdan, Comprehensive Planning
Jason Sweat, Comprehensive Planning
1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 20,2004, 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED 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 A V AILABLE 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 - APRIL 15, 2004
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -APRIL 20,2004 JOINT WORKSHOP; APRIL 27, 2004 REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1
A. Petition: V A-200l-AR-1706, Mark and Shirley Dowdy represented by Timothy Hancock, of Talon Management, Inc.,
requesting a l4-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 20-foot rear yard setback to 6 feet for accessory structures
and a 4-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback for principal structures to 21 feet, for
property located at 316 Flamingo Avenue, further described as Lot 12, Block U, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit
3, Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl)
B. Petition: PUDZ-2002-AR-2887, Ann & Edward Olesky represented by Joe McHarris, of McHarris Planning & Design,
requesting a rezone from "P" Public use to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a mixture of commercial, residential,
and marine uses including recreational vehicle lodging for property located at 6100 Lake Trafford Road, in Section
35, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Immokalee, Florida, consisting of 5.3:t acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi)
C. Petition: PUDZ-20O3-AR-4395, Hamilton Harbor, Inc., represented by Anita Jenkins, of WilsonMiller, Inc. and George
Varnadoe, Esq., of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, P.A., requesting a PUD to PUD rezone for a portion of the
Hamilton Harbor project for the purpose of reducing the number of dry storage slips from 450 to 325 and reducing the
number of seats in the restaurant from 150 to 100 consistent with the Inter-local Government Agreement between the
City of Naples and Collier County that was approved on May 27, 2003. Approximately 154 acres of this project are
located within the City of Naples and is zoned "PD" Planned Development (Ordinance No. 03-9977) while
approximately 21 acres of the project are within Collier County and is located in Section 23, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows)
D. LDC Amendments, CONTINUED: An Ordinance Of The Board Of County Commissioners Of Collier County, Florida,
Recodifying The Collier County Land Development Code, Which Includes The Comprehensive Regulations For The
Unincorporated Area Of Collier County, Florida, By Superceding Ordinance Number 91-102, As Amended; Providing For:
Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings Of Fact; Section Three, Recodification Of The Unified Land Development
Code, More Specifically By Creating The Following: Chapter 1- General Provisions, Including Sec. 1.01.00 Title, Sec.
1.02.00 Authority, Sec. 1.03.00 Rules Of Construction, Sec. 1.04.00 Applicability, Sec. 1.05.00 Findings, Purpose And
Intent, Sec. 1.06.00 Rules Of Interpretation, Sec. 1.07.00 Laws Adopted By Reference, Sec. 1.08.00 Definitions; Chapter
2- Zoning Districts And Uses, Including Sec. 2.01.00 Generally, Sec. 2.02.00 Establishment Of Zoning Districts, Sec.
2.03.00 Zoning Districts, Sec. 2.04.00 Permissible, Conditional, And Accessory Uses In Zoning Districts, Sec. 2.05.00
Density Standards, Sec. 2.06.00 Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Sec. 2.07.00 Table Of Setbacks For Base Zoning
Districts; Chapter 3 - Resource Protection, Including Sec. 3.01.00 Generally, Sec. 3.02.00 Floodplain Protection, Sec.
3.03.00 Coastal Zone Management, Sec. 3.04.00 Protection Of Endangered, Threatened, Or Listed Species, Sec. 3.05.00
Vegetation Removal, Protection, And Preservation, Sec. 3.06.00 Wellfield And Groundwater Protection; Chapter 4 - Site
Design And Development Standards, Including Sec. 4.01.00 Generally, Sec. 4.02.00 Site Design Standards, Sec. 4.03.00
Subdivision Design And Layout, Sec. 4.04.00 Transportation System Standards, Sec. 4.05.00 Off-Street Parking And Loading,
Sec. 4.06.00 Landscaping, Buffering, And Vegetation Retention, Sec. 4.07.00 Design Standards For Planned Unit
Developments, Sec. 4.08.00 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District Standards And Procedures, List Of
Tables In Chapter 4; Chapter 5 - Supplemental Standards, Including Sec. 5.01.00 Generally, Sec. 5.02.00 Home
Occupations, Sec. 5.03.00 Accessory Uses And Structures, Sec. 5.04.00 Temporary Uses And Structures, Sec. 5.05.00
Supplemental Standards For Specific Uses, Sec. 5.06.00 Signs; Chapter 6 - Infrastructure Improvements And Adequate
Public Facilities Requirements, Including Sec. 6.01.00 Generally, Sec. 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities Requirements,
Sec. 6.03.00 Wastewater Systems And Improvements Standard, Sec. 6.04.00 Potable Water Systems And Improvements
Standards, Sec. 6.05.00 Water Management Systems And Drainage Improvement Standards, Sec. 6.06.00 Transportation
System Standards; Chapter 7 - Reserved; Chapter 8 - Decision-Making And Administrative Bodies, Including Sec.
8.0] .00 Generally, Sec. 8.02.00 Board Of County Commissioners, Sec. 8.03.00 Planning Commission, Sec. 8.04.00 Board
Of Zoning Appeals, Sec. 8.05.00 Building Board Of Adjustments And Appeals, Sec. 8.06.00 Environmental Advisory
Council, Sec. 8.07.00 Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board, Sec. 8.08.00 Code Enforcement Board; Sec. 8.09.00
Community Development and Environmental Services Division; Chapter 9 - Variations From Code Requirements,
Including Sec. 9.01.00 Generally, Sec. 9.02.00 Development With Vested Rights, Sec. 9.03.00 Nonconformities, Sec.
9.04.00 Variances; Chapter 10 - Application, Review, And Decision-Making Procedures, Including Sec. 10.01.00
Generally, Sec. 10.02.00 Application Requirements, Sec. ]0.03.00 Notice Requirements, Sec. 10.04.00 Review And
Action On Applications For Development Orders And Petitions For Amendments To The Official Zoning Map, The UDC,
Or The GMP, Sec. 10.05.00 Amendments To Development Orders, Sec. 10.06.00 Appeals, Sec. 10.07.00 Enforcement,
Sec. 10.08.00 Conditional Uses Procedures, and Appendices A through H, Including a New Appendix "H" of Cross-
References Between the LDC and UDC; Section Four, Repealer; Section Five, Conflict And Severability; Section Six,
Inclusion In The Collier County Land Development Code; And Section Seven, Effective Date. (Coordinator: Russell
Webb)
2
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS:
~ CP-2002-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land
Use MaD to modify Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands, to add "Naples Big Cypress
Commerce Center Commercial Subdistricf', allowing commercial uses for a +/- 9.70 acre parcel
located at the northwest corner of US-41 East and Trinity Place, in Section 17, Township 51
South, Range 27 East. [Coordinator: Glenn Heath]
~ CP-2003-1, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land
Use MaD to expand Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, and to restrict
some uses in this expansion area, to include +/- 15.88 acres located on the north side of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and % mile west of CR-951, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East. [Coordinator: Glenn Heath]
~ CP-2003-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land
Use MaD to establish Livingston/Radio Road Commerciallnfill Subdistrict, allowing commercial
uses in the C-3 district with a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for a +/- 5 acre parcel located at
the northwest corner of Livingston/Radio Roads, in Section 36, Township 49 South, Range 25
East. [Coordinator: Jean Jourdan]
~ CP-2003-3, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land
Use MaD to establish LivingstonNeteran's Memorial Boulevard Commerciallnfill Subdistrict,
allowing commercial uses in the C-1 district with maximum of 50,000 square feet, for a +/- 2.25
acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road North-South/East-West, in
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
[Coordinator: Jean Jourdan]
~ CPSP-2003-10, Petition requesting Phase II amendments to the Golden Gate Area (Master Plan
GGAMP) text and Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series, primarily as a result of the
recommendations of the GGAMP Restudy Committee to include:
A.
Changes to the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map (FLUM):
1. To establish a new commercial subdistrict, the "Collier Boulevard Commercial
Subdistrict", in Golden Gate City on the west side of Collier Boulevard, between Golden
Gate Parkway and Green Boulevard.
2. To establish a second new commercial subdistrict, also in Golden Gate City, to be
known as the "Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict," located generally along the
eastern portion of Golden Gate Parkway.
3. To expand the existing Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict designation one block
further east.
4. To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map to show all
Neighborhood Centers.
5. To amend all maps relative to the Everglades Boulevard/lmmokalee Road
Neighborhood Center to exclude the fire station site at the SW corner of the
Intersection.
6. To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map to correct the title in
legend and map body for the Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict. Also, to
amend the Subdistrict map to correctly show the Estates Land Use pattern extending
north of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
7. To delete Map 17, showing the South Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource
Protection Agency.
3
8. Renumbering of Maps 15 and 16 to reflect order referenced in Table of
Contents and text.
B.
Changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Text:
1. Revisions to text regarding the Conditional Uses Subdistrict to prevent any
new commercial or conditional uses from being established on Golden Gate
Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
2. A revision to exceptions to the Conditional Use Subdistrict, clarifying that
conditional use permits related to model home center temporary use
permit time extensions are not subject to locational criteria.
3. Addition of a new policy related to the 1-75 Interchange at Golden Gate
Parkway, complementary to the proposed revisions to the Conditional Uses
Subdistrict.
4. Revisions to the criteria for the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict recognizing
permitted and conditional uses relative to the Estates Future Land Use
Designation, and establishing landscaping and architectural criteria.
5. Addition of text reflecting the creation of the Collier Boulevard and Downtown
Center Commercial Subdistricts and the expansion of the Santa Barbara
Commercial Subdistrict.
6. The addition of new Goals, Objectives and Policies related to rural character,
transportation, Golden Gate City and Emergency Management.
7. Revising the title of the "Agricultural/Rural Designation - Settlement Area
District" to "Agricultural/Rural Designation - Rural Settlement Area District" to
be consistent with usage in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map series.
8. Revising the text of the Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource
Protection Area.
9. Revising the text of the Everglades Boulevard/lmmokalee Road Neighborhood Center
to decrease the acreage for the southeast corner.
10. Any text changes or revisions necessary for the purposes of format
consistency.
[Coordinator: Glenn Heath]
~ CPSP-2003-11, Petition requesting various "glitch" amendments to the Future Land Use
Element. Conservation and Coastal Manaaement Element. CaDitallmDrovement Element,
TransDortation Element. and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, pertaining to the Rural
Fringe Area and the Rural (Eastern) Lands Area.
[Coordinator: David Weeks]
~ CPSP-2003-12, Petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future
Land Use MaD. TransDortation Element. Conservation and Coastal Manaaement Element and
CaDitallmDrovement Element to include:
1. Amend CCME and CIE to clarify the FLUE determines allowable density in the
Coastal High Hazard Area.
Amend TE and CIE to include review of conditional use petitions, Stewardship
Receiving Area petitions, and FLUE amendment petitions for impacts upon
public facilities.
Amend the Density Rating System in the FLUE to further explain how density
is calculated; to further clarify accessory dwellings not subject to the Density
Rating System; to identify when density may be allowed beyond that permitted
by the Density Rating System; and, to further limit the applicability of the
Conversion of Commercial Zoning Density Bonus.
4
2.
3.
Amend the FLUE to delete the requirement to have access onto Eatonwood
Lane from the Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commerciallnfill Subdistrict.
Add two maps to the FLUM Series, one depicting the Copeland Urban Area
and one depicting the Plantation Island Urban Area, to show greater detail of
these two Areas.
6. Other minor and incidental text changes.
[Coordinator: David Weeks]
4.
5.
~ CPSP-2003-13, Petition requesting amendments to the CaDitallmDrovement Element to update
the Schedule of Capital I mprovements and table of Costs and Revenues, and to add Level of
Service Standards for government buildings.
[Coordinator: Stan Litsinger]
~ CPSP-2003-14, Petition requesting amendments to the TransDortation Element to revise the
functional classification of various county and/or state roads.
[Coordinator: Don Scott]
~ CPSP-2003-15, Petition requesting Phase II amendments of the Community Character/Smart
Growth Advisory Committee, to amend the Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area Master
Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan, to implement the Community Character Plan by
promoting pedestrian-oriented, human-scale development and interconnection of neighborhoods
and developments.
[Coordinator: Jason Sweat/John David Moss]
9.
OLD BUSINESS
10.
NEW BUSINESS
11.
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12.
DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13.
ADJOURN
G/AdminlCCPC AgendaIRB/sp
5
May 20, 2004
1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM and Pledge
of Allegiance was recited.
2. Roll Call- A quorum was established. Mr. Budd recognized the new Planning
Commissioner Mr. Bob Viglioti.
3. Addenda to the Agenda: Summer schedule will be brought up under "New
Business" Item 10.
Mr. Strain and Mr. Budd mentioned they did not feel comfortable forwarding
something they have not had time to read and digest to its fullest. Their packet
was quite lengthy.
Mr. Richardson expressed his opinion of looking at the Land Development Code
as a reformatting and restructuring without any change in content. He is willing
to go forward with the understanding there is a process put in place that allows the
public to deal with any glitches they may encounter. When there is a conflict,
there would be a process to change it back to its original intent.
Susan Murray agreed with Mr. Richardson in stating that's the way the set-up
and schedule has been structured. The effective date is not until the end of
August. It can be reviewed over time and brought forward on any concerns they
might have to the attention of staff.
Mr. Strain responded there have been definitions deleted, combined (new and
added) and would prefer to view it in a public format or more communication
with staff.
Mr. Schiffer agreed on the changes that need to be done in public hearing. It is a
lengthy process and in reviewing it he has many concerns.
Joe Schmitt - Administrator - Community Developmental & Environmental
Services - the vote that they are asking for is the Commissioners find it consistent
with the Growth Management Plan and it moves forward to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Marjorie Student stated it is the finding of consistency along with a motion that
sends a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
She wanted to reiterate that it is a reformatting of what exists. No substantive
changes. Finding of consistency is a legal requirement.
Mr. Abernathy asked why it is to go to the BCC next Tuesday. Ifit doesn't, Mr.
Schmitt stated he would defer it.
Mr. Schmitt said he can reschedule for an all day workshop, or whatever the
Board wishes. He is looking for their guidance. Collier County is in bad shape
with their LDC Amendments and the Industry and DSAC is looking forward to
the document providing some simplicity and predictability to applying it. He
does not want anyone to think it is being rammed down the throats of the
2
May 20, 2004
community or the Planning Commission Board. They would be pushing it out
another six months.
Susan Murray stated they will run into the problem of already having a schedule
for the second cycle.
If it is delayed, it will need to be advertised and look at schedules for dates. Ms.
Murray mentioned she would then schedule special meetings and suggested they
delay the second cycle and not do anything until next year.
Mr. Richardson moved to recommend they hear the item, have the
opportunity to have a finding of consistency with the Growth Management
Plan, stay on schedule and move it forward.
Motion fails for lack of a second.
Mr. Strain moved they continue Item D, LDC Amendments to a time no
sooner than 30 days from now or the next available meeting after the 30 day
period. Second by Mr. Schiffer. Carried 8-1. Mr. Richardson voted "no".
Item "D" will be continued.
Mr. Adelstein moved to add the summer schedule under "New Business".
Second by Mr. Stain. Carried unanimously 9-0.
4. Planning Commission Absences:
Mr. Abernathy will need to leave at 3:30 PM. June 3rd meeting he mayor may
not be in attendance.
Mr. Richardson will not be in attendance at the 2 meetings in June.
5. Approval of Minutes - April 15, 2004
Mr. Adelstein moved to approve the minutes of April 15, 2004. Second by
Mr. Richardson. Carried unanimously 9-0.
6. BCC Report - Recaps - April 20, 2004 Joint Workshop, April 27, 2004
Regular Meeting - The BCC heard the conditional use for the Ann Phillips
pre-school and approved. The Collier Medical Regional Medical Center PUD
rezone was approved 5-0 as well as the Immokalee Senior Housing. The
abandonment of the Twelve Lakes DR! was also approved.
7. Chairman's Report - none.
8. Advertised Public Hearings:
A. Petition: V A-2001-AR-1706 - Mark & Shirley Dowdy represented
by Timothy Hancock, of Talon Management, Inc., requesting a 14-
3
May 20, 2004
foot after-the-fact variance from the required 20-foot rear yard setback
to 6 feet for accessory structures and a 4-foot after-the-fact variance
from the required 25-foot rear yard setback for principal structures to
21 feet, for property located at 316 Flamingo Avenue, Conner's
Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3.
All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
Disclosures:
Mr. Abernathy and Mr. Murray had an e-mail and did not read it.
Mr. Schiffer received and read the e-mail and also had a conversation with
Bruce Burkhard and Commissioner Halas.
Mr. Richardson has had various conversations with members of the
public.
Mr. Strain had conversations with Bruce Burkhard, Ms. Caron, and
Commissioner Halas.
PETITIONER
Tim Hancock - agent for Mark & Shirley Dowdy - this was submitted in 2001 for the
variance shortly after the encroachment and violation was noted. The Dowdy's have had
a temporary CO on the home and been living in it and paying taxes for the past 2 years.
When the home was constructed, under an approved building permit, IT showed the set-
back from the pool deck in the house to the property line. The LDC now requires a sea
wall for a base measuring set-backs opposed to the property line. In this case, the sea
wall is 4 feet inside the property line lying in a canal. The Contractor built homes in the
Vanderbilt areafor some time and approved where the set-backs from Vanderbilt Beach
were measured from the property line. A complaint was filed during construction in
regards to the set-backs and it was discovered that the Dowdy's home, including other
homes in Vanderbilt Beach, had been approved with the set-backs to the property line
and not to the sea wall. The permit was applied for and denied because it did not show
the location of the sea wall. The contractor then showed it on the permit application, and
yet the set-backs were still measured to the property line on the permit. The permit was
then approved and then proceeded with construction. When the spot survey was
completed and submitted, (post construction) the encroachment was then discovered.
It was discovered that the problem occurred in the definition of the LDC when it comes
to set-back lines. "Setback lines may be measured from the legal boundary of a lot and
are inclusive of' etc. That statement is where the contractor cited (as the basis for
measuring the set-backs the way he did) and also other homes in Vanderbilt had been
built under the same standards. The interpretation had been reviewed and changed. The
interpretations are being applied correctly today.
He is not asking for any special treatment that the neighbors have not received. He
pointed out the various pictures and location of the pool deck.
Letters had been submitted to the County, but not in the Commissioners' packet. Mr.
Hancock pointed out the home, pool deck, etc., on a map on the visualizer. Discussed the
4
May 20, 2004
FEMA flood elevations being increased in Vanderbilt Beach and the finished floor
elevations being constructed at a higher level. Don't typically have steps from the pool
deck to the home, constructed at same level.
Retaining wall that has not been landscaped (which will be done) is higher than the
neighbors because of the finished floor elevation. LDC then requires an additional set-
back of 10 feet and why the variance request is 14 feet as opposed to the sea wall and the
pool.
Remedy ofthe set-backs would be the removal ofthe pool and the bathroom - 4 feet into
the setback. Would ask for consideration of staff report and support of their
recommendation for approval of the variance so the Dowdy's can enjoy living in their
home as intended.
There are two set-back violations in the rear yard. The pool is within the set-back 14 feet
and the second violation is for the principle structure. The bathroom encroaches 4 feet
into the principle structure set-back. Requesting a variance on these two violations and
the other two will be corrected.
Fred Reischl- Zoning & Land Development Review - stated stairs are allowed to
encroach up to 3 feet into the side yard.
Mr. Strain asked about the FEMA rules requiring the house at the height it was at - but
not the pool at that height. They could put the pool at a lower height and step down. The
permit submitted for the pool enclosure - the applicant put down 10 feet to the sea wall
and wondered why.
Mr. Hancock responded he is representing the Dowdy's not the Contractor and cannot
answer the question.
Mr. Richardson asked about other structures being out of code.
Mr. Hancock stated the properties immediately adjacent to the Dowdy's were according
to code at the time of construction and not in violation. However there are other
properties in Vanderbilt Beach that are not. He stated the structure does not encroach
upon the adjoining property while an error was made by the Contractor, and the
correction ofthe error will put a hardship on the Dowdy's. It was not a misleading effort
- there was a building permit approved with the set-backs shown as the house was
constructed.
Mr. Richardson felt Mr. Hancock's answers are not as clean as he is describing.
Mr. Hancock did state that it is the responsibility of the Contractor to follow the Code.
Mr. Strain asked about the height of the neighbor's pool cage being at the same height
as the Dowdys. The height dictates a different set-back which has a bearing on it.
5
---
May 20, 2004
Mr. Schiffer asked when the owner and Contractor became aware that it wasn't being
built according to code.
Mr. Hancock responded when the spot survey was denied. He is not excusing the
Contractor or Architect but representing the Dowdys to get the variance.
Mr. Adelstein commented about a letter received from John Murray. The letter stated
Mr. Murray had the same type of problems and instead of going forward, he cut his pool
back. He asked if they are rewarding people for not knowing their job, making errors
and/or not having proper supervision on their job sites. He requested they not receive
their variance. (Tape did not pick up all ofMr. Adelstein's remarks clearly). The design
of the house was too big for the lot. The Dowdy's had an opportunity to see the plans.
Mr. Hancock responded many people trust that their home is going to be designed and
built with the local code. In fact that the permit was issued in error was not the
responsibility of the Dowdys, but they are the ones that have to answer for it.
Mr. Strain stated most homeowners usually have a punch list and hold funds from the
Contractor until the issues are resolved. He asked if the Contractor had been paid in full.
Mr. Hancock responded when the temporary CO was issued the Contractor submitted it
to the Bank and the full draw was paid.
Mr. Schiffer stated the documents they have show the proper set-back just not the sea
wall. He said it wasn't the building dept. that made the mistake, it is the documents
presented that failed to show the sea wall - not showing the proper set-back.
Mr. Hancock said the survey showed the location of the sea wall but continued to show
the set-backs measured to the property line.
STAFF
Fred Reischl- Dept of Zoning & Land Dev. Review - a chronological setting of events
was given as follows:
. First submitted - building permit application - survey of vacant lot that showed
the sea wall and lot line projecting out.
. Showed different lines on visualizer of property line and sea wall. Showed house
and pool.
. Site plan for house and handwritten approval shown - setback requirements side
7 Y2, front 30 and rear 25. (Submitted to the building dept.) Survey had sea wall
on it, but not the site plan. Incomplete information given. Survey was submitted
simultaneously.
. Mr. Schmitt stated an elevation drawing was not submitted as it was not
required at that time.
. Application was submitted when the 20 foot accessory setback requirement was
in effect. But County did not require elevation at that time to show that the pool
deck was in excess of 4 feet above the top of the sea wall.
6
May 20, 2004
. Today the elevations are shown when the building permit applications are
submitted.
. Variance originally submitted was for accessory structures encroaching into the
rear yard and after petition was submitted then discovered the stairs and the
bathroom.
. Original was submitted and thought it was encroaching just the 4 feet in the rear
yard.
. Do not require spot surveys even today. If it exceeds 4 feet there has to be a 20
foot setback from the sea wall.
Mr. Schiffer stated they do not have accurate data on height.
Mr. Schmitt and Ms. Murray stated it is irrelevant.
.
Spot survey for the house - showed notes on the visualizer. Different words
crossed out - denied written in. Stamp, date and initials were re-created.
Showed 10 feet to the property line on the survey, not on site plan, and shows
sea wall. Denied because it showed 10 feet from edge of pool deck into the
property line and they denied it and wanted to see a measurement from the
edge of deck to the sea wall.
Spot survey was denied and later the same day, came back with the
dimension.
Dimension added was from the pool deck to the sea wall at 6.6.
Different tech looked at it and circled the 10 feet. Could have been caught at
various opportunities. The document was discussed.
Mr. Schmitt gave a synopsis of what was done and stated the person
misinterpreted the Code.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Strain stated the tech would have no way of knowing whether it would have been
10 or 20 foot.
The applicant is not excused for not knowing the Code according to
Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Schmitt wanted everyone to understand that a spot survey is required within 10
days of placing the slab. Most will place block within 6-7 days.
.
The spot survey is required for the slab, screen enclosure and also works as the
final survey. When final survey was submitted, the 6.6 was circled and two days
later the variance was applied for. Went to take photos and saw the stairs on the
side which can be configured different ways - but didn't want to get into it as the
stairs are going to go away. He then noticed the deck was over 4 feet and also
noticed the pool bath was encroaching by a couple of feet. Mr. Hancock, Mr.
Schmitt and himselfreviewed other photos along the canal system in the
Vanderbilt Beach area and Mr. Schmitt asked Code Enforcement to do some
surveys of when building permits were issued for certain homes, what the code
was at the time and whether the houses were legal. There were 5 submitted at this
time in the area that they are addressing.
7
May 20, 2004
Mr. Strain asked about the houses on either side being within a foot ofthe screen
enclosure. If it is 4 feet out, how can the other houses not be in violation also?
Mr. Reisch} responded at that time it was legal to measure from the property line even if
it was in the water.
Mr. Richardson asked about the spot survey and felt he shopped until he got a tech that
agreed with him.
Mr. Reisch} stated the techs are given projects by availability.
Mr. Richardson is trying to find out, in the process, why the County would have given
them a CO for the house. Ifthe survey isn't right, it should have been corrected at that
point.
It was believed, at the time, that it was just an encroachment for the pool. The building
department does not give a CO to a house ifthere is an encroachment with the pool or an
accessory structure. It is a temporary CO until the variances for the structure is removed.
They didn't think there was encroachment with the house at that time.
Joe Schmitt mentioned there was a timeframe due to many other issues the County was
addressing at the time. This took second seat and he had asked the Director of Planning
Services do an actual analysis. This took a lot of time. After assessment, changes were
made. The process has been completely revamped. What happened then is not
happening today. He mentioned different ordinances and changes in the setbacks and
criteria. But there was no change in elevation - no requirement to go 20 feet if 4 feet in
height was exceeded. That Ordinance was in 1991. It was basically at the request of the
residents of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay area.
It was a result of complaints from residents with application of the building code and
encroachments. FEMA requirements were changing also at this time. From an esthetic
and use standpoint, most homeowners want to walk out of their lanai. When they looked
at other homes in the area they knew there were problems. Mr. Schmitt showed several
pictures.
Concerning one ofthe pictures Mr. Schiffer asked about a wall on a sea wall and if it is a
sea wall. If someone builds a wall on top of a sea wall did they extend the sea wall, and
did they get proper permits? There is no height limits but he stated the wall would not
qualify as a sea wall. Discussion on what a sea wall is was a concern. Many of the
pictures were discussed of the various issues found.
Some of the research was difficult to do. He had asked Code Enforcement to do an
investigation which was very extensive. Approx. 47 potential problems in Vanderbilt
Beach were identified and were narrowed down to 10 properties. Results were 75
properties, no violations, 40 remaining and 11 had CO's, now down to 6 violations that
currently exist. Had been in contact with Commissioner Halas and thought they may
have to do an overlay to bring it all together. Decided to bring the variances together
instead. What currently exists is a "build it and ask for forgiveness later". Seeing neither
neighbor on either side has any problem or issues with the encroachment and considering
8
'-'-'
May 20, 2004
the properties that exist and those throughout the Beach and Bay area, he recommended
approval.
Mr. Abernathy asked if Mr. Schmitt was going recommend the other properties be
approved also.
Mr. Schmitt has not looked at the others and will all be dealt with on their own merit.
They caught this one prior to issuing a CO.
Mr. Reischl mentioned the ficus hedge on each neighbors yard is heavily disguised of
the pool deck is going to be another issue. Each one of them will be litigated.
Mr. Richardson asked if there were other applicants that have been denied the
opportunity to have the encroachments because they followed the Code.
"Yes." The applicant is getting special treatment under the code.
Mr. Richardson stated the applicant mentioned it is the Contractor's responsibility to
follow the Code. It is everyone's responsibility to follow the Code.
Mr. Schiffer wondered if the surveys were sealed with all the data or with the
handwritten things on it. Answer was "yes."
Error is on the applicant and the Counties side according to Mr. Reischl, and the County
accepted the information.
SPEAKERS
BJ Savard-Boyer - Vanderbilt Beach area - stated she will leave a copy of their
position statement. She stated that it saddens them and they are losing faith in their local
government. The Land Development Code has become laughable. What is supposed to
be followed to the law is defied and easily forgiven. The attitude has raised resentment
among neighbors because some code violations are slipped through the system. Some
homeowners are required to correct their infractions and are unfair and others are
disgusted. She is relating their feelings which are - go ahead and build, nothing happens,
and when it does - they have what is happening today as an example. She showed a
picture of rear of the petitioner's home on the visualizer.
She read a letter from the former president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners
Assn. on Feb. 26 before a hearing in March. It was e-mailed and faxed to the Planning
Commissioners. It mentioned the request for an after-the-fact variance for a new
construction at 316 Flamingo Ave. It talked about the 4 foot variance, the setbacks,
accessory structure, pool deck and lack of precedence for issuing an after-the-fact
variance. It mentioned how the Contractor tore the house down and started over when a
mistake was made.
Another letter was read from a resident living at 288 Flamingo -next door to the
petitioner. It read: As owners of the property at 288 Flamingo Ave. we respectfully
voice opposition to granting any variances to multiple set-back/building violations that
exist at 316 Flamingo that have a negative impact on our views to the East. Kent and
Janet Bob
9
----
May 20, 2004
Another letter from Nancy and John Stewart - Bayside Ave. - written to Mr. Halas-
hoped the building variance in the Vanderbilt area will not be allowed - happening too
often. Talked about abiding by the existing codes. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Mr. Strain mentioned the neighbors weren't complaining and the applicant claimed to
have letters that there were no problems. He wondered if they are being misled.
BJ did not know who the previous owners were. In relation to the ficus hedge - she
mentioned that rather than look at a concrete wall, greenery or flowers be planted.
Bruce Burkhard - Vice Chairman Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee - Coalition
of Neighborhood Organizations in the Vanderbilt Beach area - represents approx.
3,000 households. He recently talked to Mr. Bob, in which he indicated he was a recent
owner of the house, maybe within the last year. When he was apprised of the situation
the hedge was already in place. They can be clipped at any time, and could do that, but
due to the height ofthe pool project, his view is blocked down the canal. If the pool cage
was knocked down to required height, then he would have a view and lower his hedge.
That is the background ofMr. Bob.
Staff, only yesterday, was asked to provide a building permit application with the
standard 25 foot setback for the house and advantage of the 10 foot setback allowance for
the setback structures on waterfront lots for a pool deck and screen enclosure. He
mentioned the clerk at the County may have been confused by the various figures written
in, after a shift change, and the survey being resubmitted to another person. He
wondered if this was intended to gain an advantage. (Speculation) A month later
different numbers were shown and talked about the final survey. He covered the height
of the wall, sea wall and the total feet - again speculating deception. Later 4 violations
were observed. He read over the procedures and purposes of variances and when
granted. Didn't feel it qualified for a variance.
Noted recently, rather than recommend the variance, staff spoke out against them. Read
various summaries dated January 13, 2004, May 13,2003 and September 25,2001
concerning variances and setback requirements. In conclusion, granting the variance
would not be in harmony with the setback requirements intended to reflect the
communities' desires. He asks for denying the variance.
Dr. Richard Bing - President of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay & Chairman of
Vanderbilt Beach Zoning Committee - requesting they deny the variance. Staff has
previously taken a position that hardships only apply to special circumstances only
involving the land. Doesn't relate that has been defined by staff in the past. He showed
slides and quoted parts of the LDc. Discussed criteria for hardships and variances.
Standards have not been met. This is not in the public interest. His final point was the
chronology with 5 other properties in violation, and why has setbacks etc. on that basis.
He felt the Contractor is not naïve concerning the LDC, so felt this is obviously a stretch
to get where they did on this particular property. If the variance is not denied at least 5
will have apparent grounds for flaunting the LDC as clearly being done now.
10
May 20, 2004
Mr. Richardson stated in the finding section, having relevance, the Commissioners
listen to all the testimony and try to judge the competency and relevancy and then can
weight one issue more than another. They are guided by them, but not controlled by each
item.
Doug Fee - North Bay Civic - neighboring Association to the North and working
together with the Vanderbilt Associations - supporting the groups that know the rules
and know their Homeowners. Live in an area in North Bay and have communities along
the water - Lely Barefoot, Hickory Shores, Bonita Shores and Gulf Harbor. He felt the
laws should be upheld in all instances and support the Vanderbilt Beach area.
Mr. Schmitt wanted to have everyone understand, that it was not the applicant that
circled the numbers. They were circled by the technician to validate the numbers that
were approved in the spot survey, prior to stamping and recording the setbacks.
Mr. Hancock provided staff with letters of support. He did not mis-speak as in 2001 the
neighbor did sign the letter that they had no objection, and was unaware until today that
ownership had changed. Property was not for sale in 200 I. The hedge belonged to those
property owners and if a new owner is asked now if he would like the neighbor to move
his pool deck back 4 feet for better reviews ofthe canal- he would be an idiot to say no.
He hopes to have an opportunity to speak with him. He knows many would like to take
the contractor JD Allan and drag him through the streets of Vanderbilt Beach, but it is the
Dowdys he is representing. It was an error, but there was no way for the Dowdys to
know there was an error.
Mr. Murray asked if the pools are lower - stepping down from the main house to the
pool?
Mr. Hancock did not recall, looking into the Dowdys pool cage, the homes were built at
a lower finished floor elevation due to FEMA. The cages are the same height. The
structure and the pool cage combined are identical in height in scope.
Mr. Schiffer thought the pools are actually further back. Pictures were viewed. He
asked for letters on the visualizer. Discussed spot survey - asked if anyone knew if it
was the registered land surveyor that put the number there and came back; and would he
have to do the survey.
Mr. Murray asked about the seawall.
Mr. Schmitt stated it is a registered surveyor that stamps and seals.
Mr. Reisch. found the property owners to the west is Janet Bob Trust, purchased in
February 2004 and to the east is Shetner and Desimone (spelling was not provided
transcriber) purchased in December 1994.
11
May 20, 2004
Mr. Schiffer stated the concerns are the responsibility of meeting the Code, even though
the County signs off, it is still the responsibility of the owner to see that the Code is met.
Mr. Hancock responded the Dowdys were in Michigan and would have been nice to be
here and look over the Contractors shoulder every inch of the way.
Mr. Schiffer said they can hire professionals. Being curious, he asked about the line that
is most restrictive - mentioned it is not in the definition of setbacks.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Adelstein moved that AR-1706 be forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals
for the recommendation of disapproval. Second by Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Strain commented this wasn't the right variance to be issued or approved and he is
in conformance with the motion. He did not know what the solution is but can not go
along with what is being presented.
Mr. Richardson stated it is a difficult situation and has empathy for the owners and staff
has been influenced by the cascade of events of pointing fingers in different directions.
In its entirety, seems it has gone too far and need to draw the line and start applying the
code more evenly. Will look at the others on a case by case basis but the facts and
testimony should clearly be denied.
Mr. Schiffer stated this didn't sneak up on the builder, the neighbors were all over him,
it was flaunted, cavalier approach taken and should be fixed and not let go this far.
Mr. Abernathy has a lot of respect for Joe Schmitt and he has a better and bigger picture
view then he has and will renew that view to the County Commission. In its totality, it is
too malodorous to support and will support the motion.
Mr. Schiffer said it is not a failure of staff, the professional team is responsible and the
fact they got some clerk at the front of the desk to go along with it, does not trigger
acceptance to go along with it.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
BREAK-10:38 AM
RECONVENED -10:48 AM
B. PUDZ-2002-AR-2887 - Ann & Edward Olesky represented by Joe
McHarris, of McHarris Planning & Design, requesting a rezone
from "P" Public use to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a
mixture of commercial, residential, and marine use including
recreational vehicle lodging for property located at 6100 Lake
Trafford Road, Immokalee, FL, consisting of 5.3+/- acres.
12
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
May 20, 2003
Disclosures - Mr. Midney has spoken with the owners.
Mr. Strain has spoken with Barbara Cacchione and Richard Yovanovich
Mr. Richardson had a short conversation with Ms. Cacchione.
PETITIONER
Barbara Cacchione - Certified Planner working on the PUD document representing
Ann & Edward Olesky - the request is to look at a Land Use and Zoning change from
"P" district Public Use to "RT" Land Use designation and to have a corresponding PUD.
The subject property is 5.3 acres and a developed piece of property. It is at the end of
Lake Trafford Road surrounded by a public park - shown on aerial. Property is currently
approved and has existing uses, including a marina, small retail area and boat docks and
64 travel trailers. Been in existence and owned by Olesky's for the past 30 years. This is
their livelihood and improved the property over the years. Has been found to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and thoroughly reviewed by staff. The
transportation analysis - had come in for different square footage and revised their trip
analysis. It basically corresponds with the PUD uses has been reviewed by staff but
didn't get into the packets.
Mike Bosi - Zoning & Land Dev. Review - at the end of the peninsula - Lake Trafford
Road - County owned boat ramp - most western portion.
Ms. Cacchione stated just the developed parcel is part of the PUD request before the
Commissioners. Everything surrounding is County owned park. The existing uses are on
site. There is a plan that in the future there may be some redevelopment on the property.
Master Plan does not have a great deal of detail at this time. Need some flexibility if it
does redevelopment. Has put in a PUD Master Plan, Conceptual Plan and an existing
Land Use Plan to look at and see how it could be developed and allow them flexibility in
moving the restaurant or camp sites if so desired.
Mr. Strain asked who Joseph McHarris is. Barbara responded he has worked on the
property, done the Land Use plan and the graphics, but she is representing the Olesky's.
Mr. Richardson asked about the PUD sunsetting requirements. She responded since the
property has already developed, the sunsetting requirement doesn't come into play. Not
really relevant. The existing uses are fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
may never develop any other uses. The property may stay the way it is. The sunsetting
requirement tells the owner that doesn't have anything on the property that they have a
limited time to begin development. It is already developed and consistent with the Comp
Plan. Mr. Richardson asked why not come in for an RT zone, which allows them to put
in all the uses discussed and not awkward getting into something with no end in sight.
13
,--.'
May 20, 2004
Mike Bosi stated since 1991, with zoning reevaluation, the property was incorrectly
zoned public. Every structure in Lake Trafford is a non-conforming structure.
Motivation behind the PUD rezone is to have existing structure come into compliance
with the zoning regulations which was incorrectly assigned by the County during the
reevaluation program. That is why the sunsetting provisions are applicable to be waived.
This is all from the staffs point of view.
Ray Bellows didn't think "waiving" was the proper term to be used in this case. They
are dealing with permitted uses with a PUD that already exists.
Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney -legally, by operation oflaw,
sunsetting wouldn't be tripped. Certain amount of infrastructure needs to be put in, in a
given year. This is already developed.
Mr. Bosi shouldn't have called it out in the staff report as a deviation but the sunsetting
provision would not apply to this project because of the infrastructure improvements.
Had already been satisfied by the PUD, so should not have been a deviation and
apologized for the misinterpretation.
Mr. Schiffer questioned the uses and asked if the "game room" could be limited or have
the uses limited to the proposed facility Chart Table 1.
Ms. Cacchione responded the limitation on the retail sales applies to all the uses. On
page 33 the limitation tells them what the mix of uses are by SIC Code.
Could she limit 7993 which is game room?
Mr. Schiffer is concerned about a massive game room put on the end and taking away
from the natural uses.
Mr. Strain - PUD on page 3-4 the distance between principle structures is 7.5 feet and
yet goes to 35 feet in height. It is tight.
Ms. Cacchione said there is nothing else around it and nothing can be around it.
Surrounded by County owned park and natural vegetation. Is a mixed use plan and
allows for more intense development.
Mr. Strain asked if they could go to 10 feet. Barbara responded it is a very narrow tight
unique property being campsites and residential tourist type facilities.
Mr. Schiffer told Mr. Strain the fire codes would push them away and would be building
very high rated walls, putting in 45 minute protected windows, and didn't think they
wanted to do that.
Ms. Cacchione said they could move to 10 feet between structures. It has been reviewed
by the fire department and no issues.
Mr. Strain referenced page 4-1, Para. 4.2 second Para. Sub-section stated the developer,
successors, or assigns shall be bound by the Master Plan. There is nothing to be bound
by.
14
May 20, 2004
The Master Plan cannot be separated by the PUD document. It outlines specific uses,
development standards, landscaping requirements, transportation and when reading as a
whole, there is a plan of development that has been approved as part of the process.
Ray Bellows stated what they are looking at is a match line - exhibit "A" tract A -
exhibit "B" remaining portion.
They are and some are not labeled as Master Plan. Barbara stated they have varied the
uses, after discussion with staff, it may be more appropriate. They are referring to a little
4 acre park. No Tract level detail in any PUD review at that level, usually on the Site
Development Plan. They are talking about flipping the campsites to one side and the
restaurant to the other side and not having to come back before the Planning Commission
for a PUD Master Plan Amendment. She would like that type of flexibility. They
usually see larger tracts and a clearer idea of what they may do. She is showing them the
site, how it appears, existing and a conceptual plan on how it may look if developed in
one way, but also how it may look with flexibility of moving some of the uses.
Mr. Schiffer said usually they have a caveat, that it is a totally conceptual plan -
everything is subject to change and nothing can be binding.
Mr. Strain asked about the distance for the setbacks for the external property line. He
cannot find a separate notation for it. He wondered if they were intending 7 Y2 feet?
Barbara responded the front yard would be the street side which is the perimeter and also
there are 10, the roadway and the canal. The County Park is to the west.
Mr. Strain asked if there were any bald eagles on site - there is a paragraph in the PUD
referencing them and wondered why it was there.
Ms. Cacchione mentioned there is one that is on the property to the north which is
approx. 3,000 feet.
Restaurants are included in the general category in the impact analysis and reviewed as 2
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Was reviewed under the district itself and the
other provisions by policy for the density.
She made one clarification in the pennitted uses; asked if they could clarify that Item 10
include land based tours as well. If they were to do tours it would be done through that
facility.
Tour guides are already in there - they did not feel it would have to be included.
Rich Yovanovich - the only concern was they have some limitations under tour guides
saying "airboats and pontoon boats". They didn't want to be in violation oftheir PUD if
they used something else.
Discussion followed on the clarification and ifthere were going to be land trips and boat
trips. They wanted to make sure they were covered.
Mr. Richardson questioned "air boats" and disturbing wildlife - specifically bald eagles.
He asked if the County had any control over the management plan, or is it completely
with US Fish & Wildlife.
15
May 20, 2004
Mr. Bosi understood is in their realm. The mentioning of the eagle is the environmental
reviewers in their site visits in locating the eagles nest being located within 1 % of a mile
of the marina. That is how the eagle was included in the staff report and the PUD
document. The County takes no responsibility; they work with the US Fish & Wildlife.
Ms. Cacchione explained about the land tours. They have had some discussion with
their neighbors to the north who have a nice property in which they may want to do some
nature tours. They have the same land use designation to the north. When looking at the
recreational tourist district, that is exactly what it calls for - nature tours; take advantage
of the beautiful nature and area that is there. That is what the District calls for in the
Comprehensive Plan, putting them incompliance and appropriate use.
Mr. Bosi told Mr. Strain the property to the north is zoned agricultural and within the
current agriculture zoning district, the land based type tour is permitted on a conditional
use basis and a use contemplated by the agricultural zoning district.
If they wanted to enact upon that provision, they would have to ask for a conditional use
for that type of operation.
STAFF
Mike Bosi - Zoning and Land Dev. Review - this is a 2002 PUD rezone and looking at
the size and scope may wonder why it took 2 Yz years. The biggest obstacle with the
request was the consistency in Policy 5.1 stating legal non-conforming uses and a
structure that exists that are eligible for a rezone on the property - but only allows the
same type of density and intensities. The majority of time and review was a gradual
refining of what they were vested in and what they were going to allow in the PUD
document. They looked at the end use and adding to the Immokalee area. This
compliments the other user on the peninsula being a boat ramp or park. The option to
make minor changes right now is not there.
SPEAKERS
Fred Thomas - Ten years ago the Seminoles gave them the impression that Immokalee
would be a tourist destination. They have developed a museum, plus echo and heritage
tours. This could be an enhancement for the area. Anything the Commissioners can do
would be helpful.
Tom Taylor - Ownership interest in the Pepper Ranch - this is the property they were
referring to north ofthe Marina site. It is 2,500 acres and a beautiful piece of property
and ideal for nature based tours. Had discussions with the Olesky's for tours. He
commends them for what they are wanting to do and will be a great addition to
Immokalee. They are also supporting the clean-up and dredging of Lake Trafford and
appreciate their help and ask for approval.
16
May 20, 2004
Mr. Strain asked ifhe understood they will have to go through a Conditional Use permit
to have tours. He also asked if he intended to use the position of adding this use to this
Lake Trafford Marina to have any impact on his leverage, or conditional use.
Mr. Taylor didn't think so - if they went through the process and if the Olesky's would
be the staging area for sale of tickets etc., they wanted to make sure they didn't find
themselves in violation and then come back for another application process.
Marjorie Student stated conditional uses have four criteria and to be consistent with the
Comp Plan and the Code and what might be in another PUD. Other than the
compatibility issue, it should not be a part of the consideration of this Commission or the
Board of Zoning Appeals would make in a determination of a conditional use.
Mr. Midney moved to forward a recommendation of approval for Petition PUDZ-
03-AR 2887. Not with the deviation of waiving sunsetting requirements to the Board
of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval, and with
expanded side yard setback 7 ~ to 10 feet and to include staff recommendations.
(The second one) Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Motion should state 10 foot building separation, not setback.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
Mr. Schiffer stated according to the Land Development Code they should meet in
Immokalee once a year and asked how that would be accomplished.
Mr. Budd stated historically the staff would organize lmmokalee related petitions and
then go to lmmokalee, but cannot remember that being done in years.
Mr. Schiffer felt the last session would have been nice to have held it in Immokalee.
C. PUDZ-2003-AR-4395 - Hamilton Harbor, Inc., represented by
Anita Jenkins, of Wilson Miller, Inc., and George Varnadoe, Esq.,
of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, P A requesting a PUD to
PUD rezone for a portion of the Hamilton Harbor project for the
purpose of reducing the number of dry storage slips from 450 to 325
and reducing the number of seats in the restaurant from 150 to 100
consistent with the Inter-Local Government Agreement between the
City of Naples and Collier County that was approved on May 27,
2003, Approx. 154 acres of this project are located within the City of
Naples and is zoned "PD" Planned Development (Ordinance No. 03-
9977) while approx. 21 acres of the project are within Collier
County and is located in Collier County, Florida.
Those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd.
17
May 20, 2004
Mr. Budd asked Ms. Student to clarify their ability to modify the PUD is limited because
they have to stay incompliance with the Interlocal agreement already established, so
wondered if it would be fair to characterize it as a courtesy review by the Planning
Commission. Marjorie answered "yes" and that Mr. Varnadoe may be able to give them
more information with the Interlocal agreement.
Mr. Budd reminded the rest of the Commissioners that they need to restrain any desires
to make a good agreement better as they do not have that prerogative.
PETITIONER
Mr. Varnadoe - representing Hamilton Harbor Inc. -did not fill out the ownership
interest in their application as the ownership being Hamilton Harbor Inc., who is solely
owned by Collier Development Corp. which is owned solely by three Collier Brothers,
Miles, Barron Collier and Englis Collier.
Disclosures - Mr. Budd discussed this particular issue with Mr. Varnadoe.
Mr. Strain had a discussion with Anita Jenkins on an explanation on why
exhibit 3, the settlement agreement, differs from Section 3 ofthe PUD.
Mr. Abernathy had the same discussion with Mr. Varnadoe.
Mr. Varnadoe continued: Many are aware of the prior controversy regarding the Big
Sabal Bay project and Hamilton Harbor is a spin off of that project. The City and County
entered into an Interlocal agreement that said in order to promote government efficiency
and have one set of development standards for a project both in the County and in the
City, with the main development in the City and the impacts could be reviewed by the
City. As long as they did not exceed in their PD zoning, the standards of the County had
agreed to, the County would then ratify it. They did ratify it and there is an existing PUD
on the project. Later the City Council repealed their approval of Hamilton Harbor. Later
they worked out their differences with the City and the Conservancy and Citizens
Preserve of Naples Bay and now have a new PD approved by the City reducing the size
of Hamilton Harbor. Now they need to have the County ratify the Interlocal government
agreement by adopting a PUD, which is consistent with the City's PD.
The PUD the Commissioners have is the City PD with a new title. There may be uses
that go beyond the agreement. In the Master Plan each of the uses are located within the
city, not the County. The property has 154 acres in the City and 21 in the County.
He showed the area on the visualizer.
Access is through County streets.
Mr. Murray referred to Page 5 of the Staff Report - in reference to rental boat sales - he
asked if that also meant purchase of boats - Mr. Varnadoe responded it should say rental
boat fleet - a prohibition of renting boats out the facility or selling boats.
18
May 20, 2004
Mr. Murray asked about the "no personal watercraft will be berthed or stored at
Hamilton Harbor.
Mr. Varnadoe stated the dry storage facility is in the County and the wet slips are in the
City. It means there will be no personal watercraft coming out the Hamilton Harbor or
stored or berthed.
Mr. Murray again stated that it is confusing since it says "boats berthed at the project
are limited to 60 feet".....
Personal watercraft is jet skis.
Mr. Schiffer wondered what was going to be stored in the dry storage. It will be first
come, first serve. This is also parking for the yacht club.
Mr. Strain - Developer commitments - section 7, page 20 - talks about the use of the
facility with charges incurred and not charged. Also state the contractors retained by the
City of City projects won't be charged - he asked if that would provide the same benefits
to the County. Answer was "yes."
STAFF
There is no staff presentation - Mr. Bellows stated the staff reports indicate they are
adopting a PUD to be consistent with the Interlocal agreement. They have found it to be
consistent. The City of Naples has adopted PD zoning district which was consistent and
staff is recommending approval.
Hearing was closed.
Mr. Strain made a recommendation they transmit for approval PUDZ-2003-AR-
4395, Hamilton Harbor PUD subject to the staffs stipulations and the proviso that
Section 7, of the Developer Commitments, Paragraph 6 where reference the benefits
to the City for the use of the construction dock will be the same benefits to the
County as well. Second by Mr. Murray.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
Glenn Heath - Comprehensive Planning - noted that on the next item there are one or
two public speakers.
LUNCH BREAK - 11:40 AM
RECONVENED - 12:40 PM
Mr. Strain mentioned there was an issue discussed earlier in the morning that he
received further information on. He wanted an alternative motion from what was made
earlier. He HAD motioned to delay the LDC review for 30 days. Ifthey delay it until
their June 17th meeting, time certain at 8:30 AM, in the Board Chambers, they can
19
May 20, 2004
continue it until then. That will give him time to review thoroughly. Possibly have a
workshop with staff in the meantime, but will allow a continuance instead of an open
ended delay. It will help with the advertising and other legal parameters.
Mr. Strain moved to withdraw the motion made in the morning on the LDC
pending a new motion. Second by Mr. Schiffer.
Mr. Schmitt stated legally they are continuing it until June 17th in the Board Chambers
and vote or send it forward. In preparation for that meeting, they will schedule a
workshop.
Carried Unanimously 9-0.
Mr. Strain moved to continue Agenda Item D to time certain at 8:30 AM on June
17th in the same room (Board Chambers) and in the meantime staff will
accommodate a workshop for them. Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Carried unanimously 9-0.
Mr. Schmitt will schedule a workshop before the 17th of June to review the LDC in
detail and be prepared to bring back for its scheduled continued hearing at 8:30 AM on
June 17th. The workshop will be held in the Conference Room on Horseshoe at
Development Services.
D. Comprehensive Planning - Growth Management Plan
Amendments:
CP-02002-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map to modify Rural Fringe Mixed-
Use District Receiving Lands, to add "Naples Big Cypress Commerce
Center Commercial Sub district", allowing commercial uses for a +/-
9.70 acre parcel located at the northwest corner ofUS-41 East and
Trinity Place.
Ron Nino - Vanasse and Daylor - A Planning and Engineering Firm - representing
the Basic Development Company - this is for 9.70 acres ofland immediately east of
property owned and underdeveloped by the Basic Development Corp. He gave certain
highlights as follows:
. Application was filed April 5, 2002
. Then designated rural agricultural and in the state of moratorium resulting from
the Governors Final Order in June 1999.
. Petition filed in anticipation of an eminent DCA approval of the Rural Fringe
Amendments. Decision was appealed and not approved until July 2003.
20
May 20, 2004
.
Pleased with staffs recommendation to amend the (FLUE) the Future Land Use
Element and the Future Land Use Map to establish the Big Cypress Commerce
Center Sub-District.
Staff is recommending to transmit amendment to the DCA should the BCC accept
the Planning Commissioners recommendation.
Since submittal of application - several things occurred. On the property
contiguous to the subject property.
To the west of the property is an existing C4 - 5 acres ofC41and, 4 acres ofC5
land and industrial owned land.
Currently have a site development plan approval and building permit for the
87,500 square feet of retail space which will operate in the manner of a flea
market.
Two buildings are completed, two under construction on industrial owned land
and several acres undeveloped industrial owned land. On the west is a concrete
plant and big salvage yard.
Showed the subject property on the visualizer with the various projects and a
rendering of the flea market.
May be concern for compatibility, but stated is appropriate for the area and
factually provided staff with economic data that justifies more commercial space
for the area.
They have committed to less development on the 9.7 acres in terms of square
footage - asking for 75,000 square feet - opportunity to do 75,000 sq. feet of
additional floor space on the 9.7 acres and are less than 7,500 sq. feet per acre.
Committed them to the condition that they would not be allowed to have any
construction on the 9.7 acres ofland, until the C-5 Zoning district next to them
had 40,000 sq. feet of commercial development.
Comprehensive Plan amendment is not the time to consider concurrency related
issues. Use of the subject property can only occur from a rezoning action and the
applicant has to show they are concurrent with level of service requirements.
Comp plan - good use of planning practices.
Staff report will provide info on transportation analysis - they offered it in their
report also.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Richardson felt transportation has some bearing and noted the analysis by Mr.
Nino's company showed the proposed development would significantly and adversely
impact 41 east in 2005. He did not see an indication it would be improved beyond that
time.
Mr. Nino stated they would deal with that at the zoning stage. The Comp Plan has
changed and provides for another commercial location - doesn't mean it will happen,
they need to come in and ask for a rezoning - will then deal with concurrency issues. He
suggested the Comp Plan process is flawed in the asking of information that deals with
concurrency and has no business asking for it at that time.
21
May 20, 2004
Mr. Richardson replied he has his opinion and just trying to respond to the staffs
information given. He referred to the traffic analysis section 5-C. He doesn't see how
they can ignore, in land use decisions, potential impact that the land use will have on
traffic.
Mr. Nino responded they aren't ignoring it. It's not creating a problem. There are
approval processes to determine ones ability to allow taking advantage of what the Future
Land Use Map allows.
Mr. Richardson stated it is a receiving property under a rural fringe and Mr. Nino is
taking it out of the inventory of possible TDR's. That is the key to the whole Eastern
Lands and Rural Fringe area program. If that is what he is doing, he would rather see it
being used to help promote a new program with the Rural Fringe and steer away from
having it just a commercial area.
Mr. Schiffer asked what the neighbor's position to the East of him was.
Mr. Nino has not talked with the neighbors to the east and not required to poll them.
Mr. Abernathy stated as long as he has been on the Planning Commission he couldn't
say how many times, after amending the Growth Management Plan, then coming in with
a PUD or whatever, they state they are entitled to something because the GMP has
already been amended.
Marjorie Student responded that Schneider vs. Brevard County, 1993 Supreme Court
case talks about this function and the Planning function. If someone comes in for rezone,
unless there is a compelling health, safety and welfare reason to deny it, if it is consistent
with the Comp Plan amendment, it has to be approved. With the change in planning in
1985 Legislation - talks about the plan being the constitution for development in given
local government. That's what the Supreme Court has said - not saying they can't deny
it, but has to be a compelling reason once it is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Mr. Abernathy felt the line should be drawn now at this stage rather than later.
Mr. Nino stated he never suggested to contrary, just saying, it doesn't override
concurrency requirements as Marjorie said. If the zoning application is not concurrent
with the level of service standards, they are required to deny it.
Mr. Schiffer stated his question was a courtesy issue. Thought it would be important to
the neighbor.
Mr. Budd responded that would be handled at the rezone and criteria being health, safety
and welfare with the neighbor having an opinion then.
Mr. Strain had discussion with the County Attorney and since this is across the street
from Fiddler's Creek, he was advised, as a perception of conflict, it is better he not
participate.
Marjorie Student stated the reason being in determining whether there is a conflict to a
person's employer, Mr. Strain is employed by Fiddler's Creek, have to look at the
quantity of the property that is impacted in relation to the quantity of the neighboring
22
May 20, 2004
properties that are impacted. They do not have the complete information about the
surrounding properties; so they are not sure if the impact would be greater on Mr. Strain's
employer and not other properties - which is an appearance of conflict without that
information.
Mr. Schmitt reiterated the process in regards to concurrency, - not supporting Mr. Nino's
argument, but making sure to clarify - even ifhe would go through and have the Comp
Plan approved and have the rezoning approved, they will not issue a local redevelopment
order that is approved the site development plan - unless there is concurrency
requirement that can be fulfilled in accordance with 3.15. That's when they would deal
with the transportation issues.
Marjorie Student had a question ofMr. Nino - in reference to the height of the
buildings, it only says 3 stories - could have differing heights with ceiling etc.- thought
that since it appeared in other parts of the plan, thought it should say the amount of feet
and height.
Mr. Nino agreed to the 35 feet stated in the report. He asked for 20 feet for one floor.
STAFF
Glenn Heath - Comprehensive Planning - this has been held up since 2002. Involved a
land area in the Governor and Cabinet's Final Order. The Rural Fringe Amendments
were passed in June12002 and should have freed the plan amendment. However,
subsequent to the adoption, there was an administrative challenge and the Amendments
weren't effective until the later part of2003. Staff was not able to finish the review of
the Amendments because of other obligations they had with the Evaluation Appraisal
Report and the Transportation Concurrency Amendments.
Petitioner originally proposed the Big Cypress Commerce Sub-District be a sub-district
within the Rural Fringe mixed use District, but the way it was set up it did not have an
appropriateness to have sub-districts. Staff then realized it would have to be moved to a
different district. It was recommended it be moved to the Agricultural mixed use district.
If adopted, it would be a sub-district within the Agricultural mixed use district of the
Future Land Element.
The language staff is planning to transmit to DCA is modified from the language
submitted by the petitioner. They added some design standards, disagreed on specific
wording. Originally applicant asked to include a definition for a flea market uses, and
did not think it was necessary and recommend it be struck.
There is a handout pertaining to one of the public speakers.
Mr. Schiffer asked what zoning is going on the Trinity road.
Mr. Heath responded "residentia1."
23
May 20, 2004
Mr. Nino referred to pictures along with a golf course. There are estate type homes on
both sides. Around the lake is the property that is zoned for recreational vehicle
campground and indicated there is a site plan in for review.
Mr. Midney wondered why it wasn't eligible for receiving TDR credits.
Mr. Heath said it would be if it was part ofa 40 acre or larger contiguous piece of
property.
Mr. Richardson brought up the mixed use being discussed at workshops. He wondered
if they are going to encourage mixed use to include residential with commercial in the
Amendments and asked if they will be incorporated in the Amendments.
Mr. Heath responded they could be going through the process, but it was reviewed prior
to the EAR workshop and staff getting that direction.
Mr. Richardson would like to see some language permissive in the amendments soon.
David Weeks - Comprehensive Planning - the specific discussion at the workshop on
Monday regarding mixed use was pertaining to the Urban designated area. This location
is outside the area. Rules are different -Board could still make changes to promote
mixed use development in agriculture. If it is a desire of the Planning Commission to do
so, it is their prerogative to do. The Petitioner has just asked particularly for a
commercial sub-district.
Mr. Richardson stated this is on the edge and not deep in the rural fringe -it is where
they are having a blending opportunity - that would be his recommendation if the
Commissioners supported him on it.
Mr. Abernathy said there is traffic analyses as part of the petition - page 4 of report-
Vanasse and Daylor - recommend postponing the traffic impact mitigation until the
petitioner files for rezone or SDP. It implies it is a deviation from the normal procedure.
Wondered if he was reading too much into this.
Mr. Heath disagreed and felt it was appropriate to consider transportation impacts. The
analysis isn't as involved or as complex or encompassing as the analysis for a rezone, but
does provide for a "heads up" that a potential problem could exist. Any mitigation
required would come through the rezone process. Not unreasonable to ask for specifics.
Mr. Abernathy said Marjorie stated once the GMP is amended and if someone comes in
with a rezone, they are close to having a right to do so. He stated whatever Comp Plan
and validity to the community is compromised when used as a step one in a two step
rezone process.
Mr. Weeks talked about the review of the Comp Plan and the Future Land Use Element I
covered by CIE Policy 1.1.2. Significant impact test - #1 is 3% of the adopted level of
service standard for the roadway, but only applicable to a deficient roadway. At this
point US 41 is not deficient - not below its level of service standard. Means significant
threshold has not been crossed. Staff is looking at saying no traffic issue therefore can
24
May 20, 2004
recommend approval. Concurrency is different - if only concurrency is considered, then
they wouldn't have to worry about planning. They cannot recommend denial.
Mr. Richardson then asked why they put in significant and adverse impact on US41 if it
doesn't have any relevance to the Growth Management change.
Mr. Heath said if it acknowledges it may be an issue at the rezone stage. Then if
roadway is deficient then the County Commission cannot approve the rezone until the
roadway is no long deficient.
Mr. Richardson asked if this Growth Management change was denied, it is still part of
the Rural Fringe.
It could be purchased as part of a larger project and would qualify.
SPEAKERS
Brad Cornell- Collier County Audubon Society - they are not supportive of this
change in the Comp Plan and believe it is something that will be detrimental to a recently
passed Rural Fringe Policies. Not complimentary, helpful or neutral - will be in
competition with Rural Fringe Receiving Land policies. It's a bad precedence for any
other areas that would want to change the Comp Plan to get it out of the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District. Not a good way to have a project built. No notification of the
neighbors and should not be recommended.
Nicole Ryan - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - is also concerned about the
proposed Amendment. They ask to send a recommendation to the BCC to not transmit.
The property is in the Rural Fringe mixed use district Receiving Lands. On Receiving
Lands commercial can be done only if it is tied to a rural village. Is put in place for a
reason - to direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive land and
also to grow in the rural land areas in a smart growth fashion. If amendment is approved,
it will chip away the rural fringe program and is too soon to do that. She read from the
staff analysis report - Page 7 - is formatted to not allow for sub-districts. Is
inappropriate for the rural fringe mixed use district. She read further - about the sub-
district being inconsistent with the purposes of the rural fringe mixed use district. She
continued with Page 10- again reiterated the proposed commercial uses are not
consistent with the intent of the mixed use district. There is agreement there but staffs
recommendation for the best way to solve it is to take the land out of the Rural Fringe
district. The Conservancy feels that is a dangerous way to solve the problem. Their
concern is the incentive to create villages if just amending the Growth Management Plan
in order to do commercial otherwise not allowed. Taking the land out of the Rural Fringe
is not the solution and asks to not recommend transmittal.
Paul Rodinsky -lives on Trinity Place - he has no problem with the land use except for
using Trinity Place as dumping grounds for the cars and traffic. He compared it to Bonita
Springs with the lines of traffic. It will cause a lot of dissention in the neighborhood. No
one will want to wait for the traffic to cut into the line of traffic to get to their stop sign,
say nothing about getting to 41. He also represents his neighbor, Mr. Garcia, and other
25
May 20, 2004
neighbors. He talked about the parking in their residential area as to the number of cars
they are allowed. Map is out of date - one in the middle is only one that is up-to-date.
Will cause heavy impact on the area. They can develop their own property, but not to
infringe on others that wi1l10se their privacy. He showed his analysis of the map and the
different roads in which alternatives can be made. He showed an easement and a way to
take impact off Trinity Place. He showed where his home was, the golf course and club
house.
Mr. Schiffer asked if there was a bar or restaurant - Mr. Rodinsky didn't think there
was.
Mr. Nino commented on the Audubon and Conservancy's position. He thought it was an
extreme application or notion that nothing is going to happen in the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District unless there is a TDR relationship. There are areas sub-divided into 5 acre
lots and naïve to think those lots are going to be an aggregated facilitated TDR program.
This property is sandwiched between the road, a golf course and a flea market. He didn't
think any prudent homebuyer would want to live in a sub-division on a corner of Trinity
and Tamiami Trail. It isn't conducive to residential development. He hopes the
Commissioners accept the staff s report.
Mr. Midney asked how many TDR's have been purchased in the Rural Fringe so far.
Mr. Heath answered - none have been purchased to date. Many have been interested in
the program, but no one has actually filed to sell or purchase TDR's.
Mr. Schmitt stated the program has only been opened less than 60 days. Two serious
developers have expressed interest and indication from the development industry to
tweak the process.
Mr. Heath now mentioned he was informed 3 individuals have registered with the
County to sell their TDR's.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Richardson felt this should come back at some future date when they can study
it further. He moved to deny the transmittal of the Amendment for the reasons of
potential linkage to traffic impact and the impact it has on the TDR program.
Second by Mr. Midney.
Mr. Abernathy sympathizes to what Brad and Nicole are saying, to apply to this petition
sort of hangs him out to dry. The piece is too small to participate in the program, so are
they going to tell him he can't do anything unless he aggregates? He doesn't agree.
Motion fails with 4 yes - 4 no. (Those voting affirmative not provided for the
record) Mr. Strain did not participate.
Mr. Murray moved to approve the transmittal of the Amendment.
26
May 20, 2004
Second by Mr. Adelstein. Motion fails with 4 yes - 4 no. (Those voting affirmative
not provided for the record)
This will move forward to the Board of Commissioners without a recommendation
from the Planning Commission.
E. CP-2003-1, Petition requesting amendment to Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map to expand Vanderbilt
Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub-district, and to restrict some of
the uses in this expansion area to include +/-15.88 acres located on
the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Y.. mile west of CR-951.
Mr. Budd stepped out for a few minutes in which Mr. Strain presided over the
meeting.
PE TIT I 0 NER
Rich Yovanovich - on behalf of Petitioner - they are attempting to amend the existing
Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub-district to add an approx. 15 acre parcel
to the west. He showed area on visualizer. The comer parcel is Mission Hills. (Shopping
Center) Property is at corner of Vanderbilt Road and Collier Blvd. Requesting to add
approx. 150,000 square feet of retail and office - 60,000 square feet of retail, 90,000
square feet of office. Located next to the Wolf Creek PUD, the Nagel Craig Business
Park has not yet been adopted, but shown on map. Across the street from the Mission
Church, a PUD and Vanderbilt County Club. Going through the process they held
meeting with Vanderbilt County Club representatives and Island Walk to let them know
what they are requesting to do. They were favorably impressed so far with the Comp
Plan Amendment knowing a more specific PUD will be presented in the future. No
opposition from those major communities.
The Wolf Creek PUD is not yet developed with similar people involved in this particular
request to go to commercial use. Obviously they will not put a commercial use next to a
residential development which would in any way hurt that proposed development.
The staff report is recommending approval and made a couple of clarifications.
One provision in the district stating uses limited to single story - they want to clarify that
retail is limited to the first floor only in that multi-level building. If they wanted to do
retail with one or two floors above that, wanted to clarify it is consistent with the
language in the District -
Second - Don Scott has no concerns with 951 north of Golden Gate Blvd, scheduled to
begin construction early next year and no issues with Vanderbilt Road. He knows they
meet concurrency management rules. Not deficient from a concurrency standpoint. Mr.
Weeks and he have discussed how the concurrency management provisions of the Comp
27
May 20, 2004
Plan work with Policy 1.1.2 in a Capital Improvement Element. Agreed to discuss
beyond the meeting to figure out if there is an inconsistency. Need to work on language.
Mr. Murray asked about the loop road - was a requirement of the Mission Hills PUD
and is still valid.
Mr. Strain asked Mr. Weeks if he had any concerns of the clarifications Mr. Yovanovich
is asking for. Mr. Weeks did not - they will discuss further at a later date. The second
thing in which it may be mute is staff wants to look at the traffic information submitted.
As he said earlier, the significant impact threshold of 3% is only applicable if an affected
segment of the roadway is deficient. Staff may have misread some of the information
submitted by the applicant in which the deficient segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road may
not be significantly impacted.
Mr. Bill Hoover - Hoover Planning - held meetings with the neighbors -Island Walk.
They have a committee of 12 he has met with. He had met at the Vanderbilt County Club
with Commissioner Coletta, Mr. Feder and members of Development Services staff of
what they were doing in the neighborhood. Both neighborhoods know what is being
proposed.
Mr. Strain asked how they avoid aggregation. The question was answered due to a
different ownership.
All of the communities will be interconnected with the loop road that will be there. Wolf
Creek will have access to it.
STAFF
Glenn Heath - staffs recommended language is a bit different than that submitted by the
petitioner but discussed the disagreement on the transportation language which is the
primary difference between the two. Other than that they are shown with strike through
and underlines.
Mr. Yovanovich stated they need to clarify the stories and David and he need to work,
before the Board meeting, about the double underlined language in pursuant to Policy
1.1.2. (How the concurrency management system works) They don't agree to the
underlined language.
Mr. Richardson asked if it would be appropriate to add language to make mixed use
permISSIve.
Mr. Heath said it would be hard to put residential on this particular parcel and have
commercial because of size.
Mr. Richardson suggested some incentives be added. Discussion followed on the
Growth Management, the density allowed, guidance on units per acre and height. They
should all be in the plan amendment.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
28
May 20, 2004
Mr. Richardson moved to recommend this Growth Management Plan Amendment
2003-1 be transmitted with the following additions: Those already covered between
the applicant and staff concerning traffic, definition of stories, and further
recommend to put some wheels underneath the direction the CCPC and BCC had
on their discussion on including mixed use and Growth Management Plan changes.
Give direction to staff that mixed use be permitted, residential and commercial in
this property, and appropriate, in order to have an incentive to permit that, that
the density is allowed to go up to 16 units to the acre, which he would say would
include raising the number of stories that would be permitted up to 4 stories.
Second by Brad Schiffer.
Mr. Murray recognizes the density is required in order to motivate but thinking two
things. When getting to the 4th story it becomes an issue with elevators and cost rise etc.
What are the permitted uses in the area that are to be developed and are they compatible
with residential. He asked how they would envision it.
Mr. Richardson said they are trying to provide incentives to the development
community to have residences mixed in with an opportunity with Commercials. An
appropriate density is to get something more affordable than what is available in housing
stock and supply in that area.
Mr. Murray asked about parking - they decided they could be there all day trying to
plan the project.
Mr. Schiffer asked if at least two of the floors are residential; make it a 4 story
element.
Mr. Richardson accepted the change.
Mr. Strain was concerned that they went to the neighborhood and ifthey make changes
those neighbors are not aware of what those changes are.
Mr. Yovanovich reminded them they still have to go through a PUD. Many of the issues
will be dealt with at the adoption hearing.
Mr. Adelstein stated now they could create something that is very, very bad and would
like to take out the number of units per acre and let it be decided at a future date.
Marjorie Student stated they need some kind of guidance and the density and intensities
need to be in the plan. Comp Plan is supposed to be like a constitution and set general
parameters and already expressed her concerns in the past years of getting as specific as
they are. It is not supposed to be that way. She has a concern about every time they want
to change it they get to a long drawn out amendment process and if DCA has a problem,
and then the County has to defend a lawsuit. Not a land development.
Mr. Abernathy said the County has had zero success with mixed use residential over
commercial and fanciful thinking that someone 10 miles from downtown is going to want
to be on the 4th floor. They are talking about what is doable in Collier County.
29
--.---.- .
-----
May 20, 2004
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
BREAK-2:13 PM
RECONVENED - 2:25 PM
CP-2003-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map to establish Livingston/Radio Road
Commercial Infill Sub-district, allowing commercial uses in the C-3
district with a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for a +/- acre parcel
located at the northwest corner of Livingston/Radio Road.
PETITIONER
Robert Duane - Hole Montes & Assoc. - property is located at Radio Road and
Livingston Road and 5 acres zoned industrial. Demonstrated a need for alternate uses in
the location, especially retail uses. There are no compatibility issues and appreciate their
support.
Mr. Strain wanted to know what notifications he gave to the residents of Maplewood,
Briarwood, Foxfire and Summerwood.
Mr. Duane responded he had not given any notification because it is an industrial comer
surrounded by industrial development surrounded by two arterial roadways and did not
provide any other specific notice. No sign was put on the property. The area is now
vacant.
Mr. Richardson wondered ifhe would support the discussion they had on the previous
Growth Management Plan adding residential components to this project.
Mr. Duane had no problem adding that to the mix - not a requirement, surrounded by
industrial buildings, an arterial roadway will carry up to 60,000 vehicles a day, a small
site of 5 acres, not lending itselfto mixed use, but for his support, ifhe wanted to add
similar language that it is a permitted residential development and is a permitted use up to
16 units per acre, and increase the height ofthe building from 35 feet to 45 feet, they will
take it into consideration when they come in for their PUD.
Mr. Strain asked who Radio Joint Venture was - response was John Walklin - 85%
interest and Roderick LeeWynn of Naples has a 15% interest with a general limited
partnership.
The issue is the ownership of Radio Joint Venture is; persons could be someone that the
Commissioners know or have done or do business with.
Mr. Weeks apologized that they did not catch the information.
The staff will work with the petition to gather that information.
30
May 20, 2004
ST AFF
Jean Jourdan - Comprehensive Planning - staff recommends forwarding to the BCC
with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the DCA. Staff has had a lot of time to
work with the agent and has done some modifications to the original language submitted.
Met with Transportation and made modifications to the language that was recommended
by transportation - all has been implemented and in place. Staff has no problems with
the petition.
Marjorie Student mentioned she only received these Monday with exception of the
Glitch Amendments and has some word changes but doesn't change the substance.
Mr. Strain is concerned about the discussion of increasing the density, increase the
height and all kinds of things that was just discussed at a workshop recently and the
direction was to try to work in mixed use. He realizes staff isn't aware of all of the
language yet and wondered ifhe had any comments that he can't comment on?
David Weeks mentioned two provisions were added to the future land use element
regarding mixed use. 1) Residential project to have a small commercial component. 2)
For a commercial project to have a residential component. They have been adopted and
in effect and can be applied through the rezone process. Not sure staff knows what else
to do to the Growth Management Plan to promote mixed use any further than what has
been done from the discussion in the workshop. Part of the direction was to eliminate a
lot of the density bonus' that exist. This has eliminated the competition. There are other
sub-districts in the plan now.
He stated the actions taken so far and is thinking about taking on an individual site
specific basis, and is consistent with what has been done in the past.
Mr. Strain wanted to make sure there were no red flags.
Mr. Weeks commented that they were at the end of an Industrial designated area and
have Industrial zoning and development on two of the sides of the property and storage
use on Radio Road to the south. No harm done to allow residential - would question that
there would be a mixed use development at that particular location.
Mr. Adelstein couldn't remember they agreed to 16 units in the mixed use.
Mr. Weeks said they have the ability to vary the number - the existing provision adopted
last year provides for 16 units per acre.
Mr. Schiffer wondered ifthey were going to set standards for multi-use.
Mr. Weeks said there was discussion, but no final motion. It was a workshop and if
details were discussed it needs to be incorporated.
Marjorie Student stated there isn't such a thing as a "planning in progress" rule where
they would start to implement things that come up at a workshop until it becomes legally
effective. Courts have told them while there is a "zoning in progress" rule; there is not a
"planning in progress" rule. Must go under the plan that is the plan until the new one
becomes legally effective.
31
May 20, 2004
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Richardson moved to forward 2003-2 for transmittal to the BCC and in the
spirit trying to broaden the opportunities for additional housing supply in Collier
County, he would like to offer they enable the Amendment to include a provision for
mixed use with residential on the upper floors where an additional floor would be
permitted if they take advantage of the residential component up to 16 units to the
acre. Second by Mr. Midney.
Mr. Schiffer felt this was too small a site for what they gave the other guys. They really
don't have to state it. Last time they gave them encouragement to do it by giving the
extra story.
Motion was taken - then clarified that the motion included the additional story if
they go residential.
Vote was recalled - Those in favor - 5 - opposed 4 - Motion carried. (Those voting
affirmative were not given for the record)
Mr. Schiffer wanted it clarified that he voted "no" because of the additional story.
Mr. Schmitt clarified those voting against - did so because of the additional story if
residential.
F. CP-2003-3, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map to establish
Livingston/Veteran's Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Sub-
district, allowing commercial uses in the C-1 district with maximum
of 50,000 square feet, for a +/- 2.25 acre parcel located at the
southeast corner of Livingston Road North-South/East-West.
PETITIONER
Robert Duane - small parcel 2.25 acres located at the intersection of the north-south
east-west Livingston Road known as Veterans Memorial Blvd. Data and analysis is
provided and staff agrees to justify the plan amendment to allow office uses on the
property limited to 35 feet in height and 50,000 square foot cap on their area.
Mr. Strain asked if Mr. Duane notified the people in Mediterra. They had not.
Mr. Strain asked ifhe knew who owns the Brighten Radd Assoc. Profit Sharing Trust.
Answer was Dr. Arbitman - who lives in Winter Park, Florida.
Mr. Richardson asked ifthere was a plan to have a northern exit out of the Strand that
would go on East- West to allow them to get to the facility.
32
May 20, 2004
The long term desire of the Strand is to have access on Veterans Memorial Blvd. Neal
Doral shared that information with him. The construction plans are near completion and
will be under construction months after they get approval. Will go to the East and the
flyover over 175 is an eventuality.
STAFF
Jean Jourdan - Comprehensive Planning - recommend to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval to transmit to the DCA. Staff has worked with petitioner's
agent and implemented modifications to the language. Also met with transportation.
Staff has no issues.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Richardson moved to forward the petition CP-2003-3 to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration to transmit to DCA. Second by Mr. Murray.
Motion carried unanimously 9-0.
CPSP-2003-10, Petition requesting Phase II amendments to the
Golden Gate Area (Master Plan GGAMP) text and Future Land Use
Map and Map Series, primarily as a result of the recommendations of
the GGAMP Restudy Committee to include:
Changes to the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map (FLUM):
(Listed per Agenda - Attached)
Marjorie Student asked for time after the staff report to discuss some issues and
concerns she has.
PETITIONER
Glenn Heath - Comprehensive Planning Dept. - this is the second phase of the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Amendments that originally saw in transmittal 2003 and
eventually adopted in September of last year. This is the second phase amendments.
There was confusion in the media and other venues as to what they actually consisted of.
They are derived from the work of the restudy committee - just a number of delays.
Background of staff report goes into more detail and entirely staff initiated. No private
initiatives in this phase. Will do item by item as follows:
. Page 3 - amending introductory portion of the Master Plan for purpose of
updating information -major amendments not covered in introduction and
referencing the most recent restudy committee. (Introductory section)
33
May 20, 2004
.
Page 5 - discussion of the countywide planning process - changed first part -
order of references in State requirements changes.
Page 6 - Golden Gate Area Planning Process in specifics and how it differs from
the county wide planning process. The entire area proper is covered by the
provisions of the GGMP. Shown on the map is separate as the land use
provisions that regulate the areas are in the GGMP and not the countywide Future
Land Use Element.
Policy 1.1.1 - add reference to two proposed commercial sub districts - both in
Golden Gate City. Items G & H - Page 7 - Downtown enter Commercial Sub
District - located on GG Parkway and 951.
.
.
Mr. Richardson asked to what extent, if any, this study has taken a look at mixed use.
Mr. Heath stated there is a study now taking place - members of Comprehensive
Planning staff are working with Commissioner Henning and a sub-committee of
interested Golden Gate city residents looking at establishing a sub-district. Provisions of
the sub-district that are being exampled are contemplating a walking commercial sub
district with commercial buildings having residents' on the other floors.
.
Page 7 - Policy 1.2.2 - staff is recommending deletion. Required the GGMP to
be updated on an annual basis for changes in program public facility
improvements. Delete - 1) GGMP never been updated on an annual basis and 2)
they are covered in the countywide capital improvement element and the five year
schedule capital improvements have never been covered in the GGMP.
Policy 1.2.6 - required GG fire district to examine possibility of establishing
drafting............
.
Mr. Budd mentioned Mr. Heath is doing a good job of explaining each one but
suggested he ask ifthere are questions to any that are being deleted.
Marjorie Student had some clarifications to make and comments she wanted to bring
forward:
. Prohibition on Conditional Uses, but doesn't state which ones. There are essential
service conditional uses so not known what the land use is. Conditional use is a
general classification for certain types of land uses. Helpful to know what the
uses are. In referencing the LDC in different zoning districts, may be okay, but
need to include the essential service ones. Very broad as written. Policy # 4.2.3 -
page 7, (sub-district-okay) and page 22 and 24 (staff report).
. Immortalization period of 5 years - just don't pick a number out ofthe air. It is
usually a 7 year period and has put in 10 to recoup investments. Need to allow
sufficient time for investment depreciation - otherwise could be in the taking of
someone's property. Santa Barbara and downtown center district.
. Policies involving greenways. County is restricting not to pursue eminent
domain. Not the right place to put it. She questioned why this would be in a
planning document. Do they want to limit themselves?
34
May 20, 2004
.
Mr. Strain stated when they talked about this in the Committee; they endorsed
the idea that it would not be eminent domain.
Prohibitions to billboards and newspaper advertising racks - will make sure there
is no problem with the news racks with Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney.
But there is a problem with the billboards. New complicated legislation out now.
If non-commercial speech there are first amendment issues - trying to limit it can
be limited to time, place and manner. Very complicated and needs to look at
more closely and analyzed. Billboard companies could sue.
Reference to standards of different zoning districts - make sure they address it at
the adoption date of the Comp Plan Amendment; otherwise she can make the plan
self-amending.
Public Sidewalks - make sure iflanguage needs to be in there - subject to-
County approval if it is in the public right-a-way.
Melaluca - she understood preventing it on lots - because of flammability, but
"vegetation fuels" was used and not sure what that means.
Mr. Strain mentioned some of the Committee met last night and no one
remembers Policy 6.3.4 being recommended by the Committee. That would
mean all the lots in Golden Gate Estates are going to be cleared. That is not what
the committee would have recommended and did not recall it - nor did he. On
undeveloped lots, that was not the intent.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Budd suggests Mr. Heath read the Policy # and ask ifthere are any questions, if so
elaborate. Also asked the speakers to indicate which item when Mr. Heath announces it.
If no issue, they will move on.
.
Policy 1.2.6 - delete
Policy 1.3.2 - delete
Objective 2.4 - new text on Page 5 - Exhibit A
Policy 2.4.1 - new text
Goal 3 - new text - Golden Gate City
Objective 3.1 - new text - Golden Gate City
Policy 3.1.1 - new text - Golden Gate City
Policy 3.1.2 - new text - Golden Gate City
Policy 3.1.3 - Golden Gate City
Goal 4 - new text - General Growth and Development in Golden Gate City
Objective 4.1 - new text
Policy 4.1.1 and Policy 4.1.2
Objective 4.2 - new text - rural character Golden Gate Estates
Policy 4.2.1 - future Road and Bridge improvements in the Estates
Policy 4.2.2 - eminent domain
Policy 4.2.3 - Golden Gate Parkway
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
May 20, 2004
Mr. Abernathy had a concern - David Lawrence Center - wanted to know if it
affected it because it was not commercial - Mr. Heath responded that was correct -
but doesn't change the provisions discussed.
SPEAKERS
Wayne Arnold - Policy 4.2.3 - references prohibition on further rezoning along
Golden Gate Parkway corridor east of Livingston Road to Santa Barbara.
Clarification - should be language that says: except for excluding that property.
Tom Collins - resident of Golden Gate Estates around the Interchange - the
numbered streets between Livingston & Santa Barbara - he and almost all the
residents support the policy considering the impacts of the interchange improvements.
Important for the County to protect the residential nature of the area. DOT said it was
an unusual situation when proposed. Spoke with restudy committee and is not really
a change - Master Plan prohibits commercial development and conditional uses only
approved if an infill situation. Members of community in favor of it in its current
fonn.
John Dier - 66th street - representing other property owners in the Estates area
concerning the interchange offI75. They have an attractive piece of property with
increased property values. Close to center of town and made a good choice as an
owner. Traffic will increase dramatically but see the positive aspects of the
interchange and looking at it positively. But they are against any possible allowance
of further conditional use or commercial rezoning for properties abutting Golden Gate
Parkway between Livingston and Santa Barbara. A commercial development will
increase traffic and change the character of the neighborhood and undennine property
values. Also a negative to the entrance to the City of Naples. When they acquired
their properties they were aware that it was zoned residential. To allow the change
would be a detennent.
. Page 8 - Exhibit A - Objectives 4.3, Policies 4.3.1 through 4.3.3 - protecting
rural amenities in Golden Gate Estates. New language. Mr. Strain asked to use
consistent language where previous language was used concerning the above policies.
. Page 11 - GoalS - Objective 5.1 - new language - Mr. Stain noted the
Transportation Division - increase route alternatives for traffic moving through
Golden Gate in an east/west & north/south access - intent was to minimize single
point discharges for large volumes of traffic into any single neighborhoods. He asked
ifthere was some language that could be added to 5.1 for clarification. Mr. Heath
said he just clarified it.
. Policy 5.1.1 & 5.1.2 - Mr. Strain stated A & B were recalled - no one
understood C. Mr. Heath reminded him of a discussion by Mr. Scott for an east/west
route going below Golden Gate Blvd. near Golden Gate Parkway across to Everglade.
Was confused on the subject on how it was to be routed.
36
May 20, 2004
Bruce Anderson - East Naples Land Company - Co-sponsoring with Collier County
Dept. Of Transportation - the Wilson Blvd. study which is a requirement of the
Comprehension Plan. Completion dates were recently extended in last round of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Provision sub-paragraph C - prejudges and
foreclosures consideration of a possible route. Not appropriate and inconsistent with the
other provisions of the other comprehensive plan that calls for a study to look at a variety
of routes. He asks that it be struck.
Mr. Strain asked about some special circumstances of the North Belle Meade that he
wanted the panel to adopt through the Rural Fringe process - one caveat provided was a
route that would parallel 175 that would take some of the traffic off Golden Gate Blvd.
potentially Wilson Blvd. area.
Mr. Anderson said that is a possibility. No predetermination made of what the
appropriate route is.
Needs to be researched.
. Policy 5.1.2 - possible I75/Everglades Blvd. Interchange
. Objective 5.2
. Policy 5.2.1 - alternate financing road construction
. Policy 5.2.2 - right of way acquisition and planning
. Policy 5.2.3 - sidewalks and bike lanes
. Objective 5.3 - transportation improvements
. Policy 5.3.1 - transportation improvements
Mr. Strain asked to insert language that the Golden Gate Civic Group be involved -
or is it inappropriate. Mr. Heath didn't think it would be but made more general.
. Policy 5.3.2 - coordinating emergency management officials in the GG area
. Goal 6 - emergency service in GG area
. Objective 6.1 and policy 6.1.1 through 6.1.4
. Objective 6.2 - Capital improvements with emergency agencies
. Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 - coordinating capital improvement with fire officials
. Objective 6.3 - evacuation from Eastern Estates - needs to be plan for roadway
connectivity to let out of the Eastern Estates.
. Policy 6.3.1 - emergency evacuation
. Policy 6.3.2 - national fire protection code
. Policy 6.3.3 - Building code
. Policy 6.3.4 - issues on vegetative fuels
Mr. Strain asked if it isn't part of the Code now to clear exotics, why do they need
6.3.4. Mr. Heath responded they shouldn't intend to let the brush on a lot get to the
point where it may be a fire risk to an adjacent developed property.
Marjorie Student stated the way it is worded it could be construed to bulldoze all the
lots. As long as there are bushes, they could catch on fire.
Mr. Strain suggested leave the LDC language which is already there and handle it
like it has in the past. This will cause a lot of trouble.
37
May 20, 2004
Marjorie Student would like to remove the "County liability for" and just say the
"reduced damage cost by wildfires". Wouldn't want it to be construed as a waiver of
sovereign immunity. Add "originating from County and property".
. Land Use Section - Item #2 - deletion of parenthesis - clean up amendment and
language. Recommended to split the commercial infill sub-district into two sub-
districts - one in the Estates and one in Golden Gate City. Was done. Language
that had been in one, was in the other, and needed to be deleted and not needed at
this point.
. Items 4 & 5 - minor changes to existing sub districts now known as the Interstate
Activity Center Sub-District at Pine Ridge Road and 175. The Pine Ridge Road
mixed use sub-district was pointed out to him that it had not been adopted yet.
When ready for submittal, it had not been changed. The language referenced is
older text - not the text in the plan. Changing the wording "Interstate Activity
Center" to "Interchange Activity Center". Only change.
Mr. Richardson asked about public access to Livingston Woods Lane - would it
preclude private entrances with gates to keep traffic off that road. Yes - if language
was put in it would keep that capability available subject to them wanting to do it. He
is trying to differentiate between public access and the capability of private access
from the residents. Need to provide interconnection to other residential areas to keep
them off the arterials.
Mr. Anderson represents that property owner and done zoning along Pine Ridge for
last 10 years or more. The residents don't want any access on Livingston Woods
Lane, with no ifs, ands or buts.
Mr. Schmitt mentioned they are negotiating an issue that is not part of the item.
Mr. Richardson withdrew his comment.
. Santa Barbara Commercial Sub-District - changing the number of the sub-district
to concur with the current numbering system and expanding the boundaries one
block. Addressed the map in their packet. Restudy Committee proposed to
extend it one block east across the alley - provision to allow a business to expand
across the alley way and provide alternate means of rear access. Mr. Strain
commented on the language being "one block" instead of "two blocks" to the east
ofthe former boundary. Needs to be changed.
Mr. Richardson commented on the 7 years - asked ifthis was a taking if someone
has a residence. Mr. Heath stated the basic provision was already in the GGMP - this
is an existing sub-district. Marjorie stated it was 10 years. Again the issue was
researched and had been discussed as previously noted earlier.
. Proposed Downtown Center Commercial Sub-district shown on the 4th map in
their packets.
Marjorie noted in paragraph 12 - on variance provisions applicable - she didn't
think they have any variance provisions for - that aren't accepted out. Also
questioned removing sign variances - everywhere else in the County they are allowed
to have them. Why treat this sub-district different than the other ones. May need to
visit with staff, but is a legal issue.
38
May 20, 2004
Mr. Strain stated the idea was a setting for a mixed use, stroll along the sidewalk,
shop and eat with sidewalk cafes look. Encouragement to see it redevelop.
. Item C - Mr. Richardson asked about access for residents from ground floor.
Mr. Heath stated it does not prohibit a walk up or elevator. Mr. Strain said they
are trying to get away from the ground level residential - causing a lot of
disharmony in the community.
. Page 21 - Item G - says "shall be no parking requirement for outdoor restaurant
area" - Mr. Heath explained there would be a general parking provision for
entire area - park in the lot and walk around.
. Item 8 - Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub-district. It allows C-3 and C-4 uses to
cookie-cutter out into residential areas existing now -Mr. Strain asked if they
will have to provide the same buffers for different use criteria that are required by
the LDC? Staff intent they would. Not addressing different buffering
requirements. Allow the businesses to move back as Collier Blvd. is expanded.
. Residential Estates Sub-district - Item #1 - change an old error referring to
Estates mixed use sub-district - actually mixed use district.
. Neighborhood Centers Sub-District Estates - adopted an expanded area Wilson
Blvd., Golden Gate Blvd. Neighborhood Center and adopted two at Everglades
and Immokalee Rd and Everglades and Golden Gate Blvd. These are revised
standards.
Mr. Strain - page 23 - no building footprint shall exceed 5,000 square feet - wasn't
recalled by committee. Thought that would be left up to the development standards
and PUD process.
Mr. Heath stated he can show Mr. Strain the minutes.
Mr. Strain responded that was not the intent. They thought it would be approved
through that process. Change language to "unless brought forward to the PUD
process. "
Asked about "architectural theme" - Mr. Heath said it should refer to new
development.
Prior page - 75 foot buffer was taken out - Mr. Strain asked why. It had been
replaced by the one below. Mr. Heath said it should have been underlined and he will
have to double check on it for clarification.
SPEAKERS
Bruce Anderson - representing LDJ Associates - owners of previously designated
neighborhood center at southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Collier Blvd. - new
language - found out it was not the intent of the GGMP Committee to apply the new
standards west of Collier Blvd. (Correct) Read a brief e-mail from Karen Acquard
stating her nor Linda Hamilton, indicated that it was not the intent of the Committee
to apply to the area west of Collier Blvd. Building height, square footage and the
drive-through businesses - does not apply west of Collier Blvd.
39
May 20, 2004
Rich Yovanovich - page 24 - all buildings should have tile roofs. Can't understand
why they can't have Old Florida metal roofs - not an issue for the Committee - metal
roof should be okay. Architectural Theme - building design and signage - is there an
intent all four quadrants be the same? If so, on Wilson and Golden Gate Blvd there is
a project that set the trend.
Would apply to new development not something already existing. More discussion
followed on all four quadrants having the same theme.
Should read "all buildings and projects sharing a specific quadrant of a sub-district."
The 5,000 square feet was touched on - wanted flexibility - put "no use will be
greater than 5,000."
Drive through - banks - didn't remember being a limitation at the Committee
meeting - Mr. Strain didn't feel they need to change it.
Page 25 - clarification - Item A - 75 foot buffer - wants to change - "additional
water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro period unless it is
proven that such be beneficial - instead put "detrimental."
Paragraph B - Clarify that "if the project is permitted by the SFWMD - the project
will provide a letter" - would like to see that in that paragraph.
Wayne Arnold - agreed with some of the issues Mr. Anderson and Mr. Yovanovich
brought up and appreciate the changes. Reiterate in Collier County projects that a
certain threshold receive County approval and do not have to go to the Water
Management District - need clarification they do not have to go to the District and do
not need to produce a letter from them, saying not going to affect the vegetation.
.
Item 4 - Commercial western states infill sub-district - 2 changes - text change
the reference to the map number showing the sub-district, current reference is
incorrect. It is Map 16. The other - GG Area Future Land Use Map, the word
"commercial" was added.
Item 5 - conditional uses sub-district Part B - reiterate about Policy 4.2.3 - be
consistent with it.
#1 - Grace Bible Church request - expand for possible conditional use in the
future - never had permission from the property owner to run the conditional use
over his property - 5 acres to the east. So should they be amending the map was
asked by Mr. Strain. Mr. Heath said it has been there and already in. They would
have to look at the expansion of the church and subtract the rest of the area off
that. Mr. Strain felt that was the wise thing to do.
.
.
Mr. Arnold talked about provisions for properties adjacent to neighborhood centers and
permitting them to be utilized for conditional uses. He didn't know ifthere needed to be
a clarifying reference under the conditional uses sub-district or entirely different.
Mr. Heath stated it is already in the existing language from last year. A conditional use
can be in or adjacent to a neighborhood center.
Mr. Arnold asked for a clarification - not subject to a change - just so he understands.
There are buffer requirements that are reference under the neighborhood sub-district
40
May 20, 2004
adjacent to residential properties. Is it fair to assume that a property that was used as
conditional use is not a residential use for purposes of buffering etc.?
Mr. Heath mentioned it is in the Code now.
.
Part E - same sub-district - Special exceptions to conditional use location criteria.
This is a clarification of what staff was trying to say.
Mr. Strain mentioned at the meeting last night they felt the temporary use provisions
that are currently allowed, 2 years with a 1 year extension - was a conditional use not
to exceed another 2 years and then ends it for a total of 5 years. That is the wishes of
the community.
.
#3 - rural settlement area district - Orangetree PUD - in the Future Land Use
Element it is not Rural Settlement District but in the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan was know as the Settlement Area District - correction for internal
consistency.
Map changes - received handout - Map #1 - GGAMP - identifies the study area
with divisions of the Estates of Golden Gate City as (C) - just adding Golden Gate
City as Study Area 1.A - to show relationship to Study Area 1.
Map #9 & #13 - #9 is a general map of the neighborhood center designations in
Golden Gate Estates and #13 was corrected to show correct orientation of the
Everglades Blvd. Immokalee Road Center. Deleting the area occupied by the Fire
Station.
Last map - correction to the specific map for the Commercial Infill Sub-district.
Previously portion of Estates offset to the west extending one block north of
Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee. Amended map to show it.
.
.
.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Strain moved to recommend forwarding the transmittal of CPSP 2003-10 with
the following stipulations:
1- The Downtown in Santa Barbara Commercial areas go from 5 years to 7
years for the conversion or removal of the residential components.
2- The billboard and outdoor advertising areas be reviewed by legal
department and become made consistent with the law.
3- The standards for the zoning district in effect that the adoption of the GMP
Amendment can be changed to be in effect.
4- Policy 4.2.3 will be omitted from the policy will be the northwest corner of
Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway.
5- Objective 4.3 - add language to the end of it to be consistent with the
language in Code 4.
6- Add language to Policy 5.1 - concerning traffic.
7- Policy 5.1.1.C - drop the last sentence.
41
May 20, 2004
8- Policy 5.3.1 - add language to the effect that Civic Groups will be contacted
concerning road improvements.
9- Delete Policy 6.3.4
10- Policy 6.3.5 - remove referencing the Countywide building
11- #6 - Santa Barbara Commercial- one block east instead of two blocks
12- Neighborhood Centers in the Estates - sub-section - will be a new
development of themes will be for each quadrant.
13- The 5,000 square feet applies unless a PUD is submitted.
14- Standards are to apply east of 951 in reference to the height, square footage
and the drive-through businesses.
15- Roofs can be Old Florida style metal roofs in addition to those others listed.
16- Under buffer areas "A" - the Water Management areas referenced in the 75
foot buffer in regards to the hydro periods - the words "not to be detrimental
to the vegetation."
17- Item B -" if the project is permitted by SFL WM - then the project shall"
18- Staff will look at adjusting conditional use for Grace Bible Church to omit
the east 5 acres.
19- Model homes will be limited to 5 years total. Three years as a temporary use
under current LDC rules and then two years as a conditional use. After that
it ends as a Model home.
Second by Mr. Adelstein.
Marjorie mentioned there are parts that may not be changed in substance but need to be
clarified. Noticed - Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub-district has a limitation on
commercial traffic after certain hours. She wants to make sure they can do that on public
roads.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
CPSP-2003-11 - Petition requesting various "glitch" amendments to
the Future Land Use Element, Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, Capital Improvement element, Transportation
Element, and Golden Gate Master Plan Element, pertaining to the
Rural Fringe Area and the Rural (Eastern) Lands Area.
David Weeks - Comprehensive Planning Dept - will be presented by Marti
Chumbler, Carleton Fields. Errata Sheets were passed out to the Planning
Commissioners.
Marti Chumbler - gave background - fall 2002 - BCC adopted amendments to the
Growth Management Plan relating to the Rural Stewardship Lands - summer 2003
Amendments adopted for Rural Fringe - was a challenge so not into effect until
summer 2003 - since Land Development regulations were adopted implementing
each Growth Management Plans. Today there are "glitches" - things in the 2 year
42
May 20, 2004
process they have been reviewed and re-reviewed and discovered some errors that
needed to be corrected and some confusion that needs to be clarified. Will now
address those errors and items of confusion. Not to introduce new policy issues.
Errata sheet handed out. These are recommendations of staff and items they have
noticed since the draft went out. Some did get incorporated in the book and will be
pointed out.
Revisions pointed out: (There was much confusion of Ms. Chumbler's report, staff
reports, the handouts and locating the reports)
. TDR's - Transferred Development Rights - referred to as TDR Credits-
change has been made and terminology. (Made throughout document)
. Overview - See underlying concepts - deleted reference to "interim" and
insert terms - FSA's, FHA's & WRA's.
. Future Land Use Map
WILD LIFE AMENDMENT
. Policy 7.1.2 - (2) - Make language consistent with the language that appears
for the Stewardship Lands. No attempt to change meaning.
. Policy 7.1.2 - (3) - Last sentence stricken. Mr. Schmitt clarified that the BCC
gave direction that this is in agreement with language to use the term "an
interim" solution.
. Document title revision recommended to EAC - they recommended (3) be
amended as shown. Staff does not recommend CCPC pass that
recommendation. Clarification of Paragraph 2 relates to instances in which a
wildlife management plan shall be required. - Sub-para 5.5 - relates to when
and how County Environmental staff is required to use State and Federal
comments.
Bill Lorenz - Environmental Services Director - when EAC presented the
change, staff said they would look at it and evaluate it and had no answer for them
at the time.
SPEAKERS
Brad Cornell- Collier County Audubon Society - seems to be confusion about
language. Was proposed at EAC meeting and doesn't have an objection but
would object if there is going to be other objections. Thinks they should get it out
and go with the BCC in deleting second sentence of Policy 7.1.2 (3). Supportive
of change of glitch amendment. He is referring to "containing listed species
substituted with that as capable of supporting wildlife and can be anticipated to be
occupied by listed species." Showed up since EAC meeting. Recommending
going with staff's recommendation. Need to look at Comp Plan consistencies.
Nicole Ryan - Conservancy of Southwest Florida - 7.1.2 (3) echo Brad's
comments, supports the staff recommendation of removing the last sentence.
43
May 20, 2004
Bringing into compliance. Want it to go through - was Boards direction and hope
they pass it along with transmittal.
John Vega - On behalf of Francis Hussey Jr. & Mary Pat Hussey - owners of
land in the North Belle Meade - Sending Lands - they would object to the
EAC proposed amendment Policy 7.1.2 & Policy 5.5. No objection to the staff
proposal. The expansion of protection from lands containing listed species to
potential land, not fixing a glitch, would be a change in policy - is under
examination by Wildlife Stakeholders Group and should not be adopted under the
glitch at this time. Is far beyond what Chapter 9J5 requires. Conservation
element of9J5 is .013, (2) (C) and prescribes restriction of activities known to
adversely affect the survival endangered and threatened wildlife. Is consistent
with current language containing listed species. Inconsistent with possibility of
anticipated to be occupied with particular species in the future. (Panther & bald
eagle) Needs language between potential and critical habitat for survival. Hope
that comes out of the Stakeholders Group.
Doug Fee - North Bay Civic - supports the staffs recommendations for the
listed species 7.1.2 (3) - read a guest commentary that had been written several
months ago. Talked about duties of local government -one being wildlife and
wildlife habitat and species protection programs. North Bay Civic involved with
other groups who are part of the Stakeholders Group and will develop further
protection policies on each of the species.
Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation - urges them to adopt the staff
report which mirrors the County Commission direction. Accept staffs
recommendation and reject EAC's.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Strain moved to recommend they transmit Petition CPSP 2003-11 for
recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Policy
7.1.2 and Policy 5.5. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 8-0.
10 MINUTE BREAK TAKEN
Mr. Budd left. Vice Chairman Strain conducted the meeting.
Continuing with all of Exhibit "A" language changes with 9 different
Amendments. Mr. Weeks explained the Elements they will be discussing in
their packets after some confusion.
Changes made:
. Being consistent to TDR Credits and Receiving Lands, Sending Lands,
Neutral Lands and TDR Credits being generated by severing residential
44
SPEAKERS
May 20, 2004
.
Density from sending lands. These changes are made throughout the
document.
Overview - strike interim - included references to flowways stewardship
areas, habitat stewardship areas and water retention areas.
E - Future Land Use Map - added references
Density rating system - clarification to term "base" underlying density on
property - clarifying density can be blended between properties straddling
receiving and Neutral Lands under certain conditions.
Agriculture Rural Designation - most stricken - added language - Page 5
- relating to conditional use application filed prior to July 22, 2003. Read
from Errata Sheet.
Page 7 - Receiving Lands - B.l.A Receiving Lands - clarifying
maximum doesn't include density. . .. . . density blending.
A.1.B - density bonus provision neglected to address and now pointed out
that 6.2.5 (6B) gives density bonus for wetlands litigation but also for
habitat protection. Change to read: a density bonus of no more than 0% of
the maximum density per acre shall be allowed as an incentive - as
provided in Policy 6.2.5 (6).
Golf Courses - TDR' s would be used for any golf course development
regardless whether there was density blending. Came up with language on
the Errata Sheet. Different word changes.
Neutral Lands - change to allow multi-family residential structures under
the Residential clustering provisions of the GMP.
Added - Parks, open space and recreational uses. (As allowable uses)
Clarifying density blending permitted within Neutral Lands.
Errata Sheet - changes relating to public and private school uses and
neutral. Public educational facilities and private schools should be listed
as an allowable use with no caveat.
Sending Lands - added language - oil and gas field development is a
conditional use while oil and gas expiration is a permitted use. Consistent
with policy decisions made with the BCC during the LD regulation
adoption process.
Rural Villages - strike "encourage certain types of wetland litigation".
Errata Sheet - (E) Open Space and Native vegetation - 70% changed to
40% minimum - more consistent with rest of the County.
BCC has considered TDR Bank, but decided not to fund a TDR Bank.
Strike reference.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation, Bruce Anderson and David Ellis,
CBIA Discuss TDR Bank - she has a script to follow for Mr. Anderson. Collier
Counties TDR program is having problems and has stalled. Developers having problem
45
May 20, 2004
finding enough TDR's to do the type of development they would want to do.
Landowners are hesitant to participate in the program. Need to think of ways to jump
start the program and raise confidence with landowners and developers. GMP authorizes,
and Dr. James Nicholas recommends the County establish a TDR Bank. Reference on
Page 11. She read from Dr. Nicholas' 2001 report in discussing the TDR banks. Stated it
wasn't a requirement to have a TDR bank, but a good idea. Also stated ifTDR's are not
available at economical feasible prices, or not available at all, should trigger a
reconsideration ofthe program. (TDR Futures). On behalf ofFL Wildlife Federation,
Bruce Anderson and David Ellis of CBIA request to recommend to the BCC establish a
developer funded TDR Bank to make the Rural Fringe Amendments work and sensitive
lands properly preserved. She gave example of how it would work. The County would
administer the program. Would like to see the BCC pursue this.
Discussion followed on the TDR program and the Bank funded program.
Mr. Schiffer asked ifthe problem is with the price, or are the land owners holding out
thinking they can get more?
Nancy felt they could get more if they hold out longer, some are uncomfortable with the
program because it is new and not familiar with it and some not interested in
participating.
Mr. Schiffer was concerned about the future. Nancy stated the County needs to look
more closely at a TDR funded bank. Mr. Schmitt stated the lands have already been
chosen and defined.
Amy Taylor - Collier County Public Schools - concern in regard to Receiving Lands
within the Rural Fringe in having opportunity to go through established process through
the County before purchasing property and see if the property is consistent or not with the
Growth Management Plan. Language written prior had to be in education facility plan.
Second concern is Rural Lands amendment with the SRA application. (Handed out an
amendment to Commissioners-was not made part of the record)
Ms. Chumbler stated the language to the amendment she handed out would be inserted on
Page 16 of the Glitch Amendment. 4.15.3 - new policy number to appear. She felt staff
was satisfied with the language.
Amy continued in stating the basis was in trying to address of how to review for the
ability for schools to locate within the rural areas. This provides that opportunity.
Brad Cornell- Collier County Audubon Society - extending support for reducing the
open space requirements for rural villages as outlined to 40%. The width of the Green
Belt - ifreducing the open space requirement - wondered if the Green Belt is a subject
also.
Ms. Chumbler stated they can look at that further. Would go back through the process if
an inconsistency. The 70% is in aggregate of the Green Belt.
Brad continued in stating there is a wetland protection provision in the policies now that
uses performance criteria's and not buffering distance. Cannot dig a ditch or any water
46
May 20, 2004
management that would affect a wetland. He also stated they support anything to help
support the TDR program work for whatever it may include.
. North Belle Meade - Receiving Area - clarifies - not subject to many of the other
goals, objectives and policies for Future Land Use Element. But are subject to
those provisions for density and allowable uses.
. TDR's can be transferred into urban areas as provided in the plan.
. Inconsistency in referring to quarters rather than halves - made.
. Page 13-14 - Density Bonuses - clarified how utilized in the North Belle Meade
Receiving areas.
. Sending areas in NBM - stricken language
. Neutral Lands - Errata Sheet - performance of an RCW study - were going to
strike, but now completed, results not all considered yet.
. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay - striking Okaloacoochee Slough and
Camp Keyes Strand as interim.
. Page 16 - Rural Stewardship Lands - issue of incidental clearing - the percentage
was questioned. An SSA has to go before the BCC and be approved. A whole
process to go through.
. Rural Stewardship Lands - consideration of public facilities during SRA process.
. Policy 4.1.7 - capital improvement elements change.
. Policy 4.16 - infrastructure capacity considered - serve stewardship receiving
area at build out.
. Policy change - numbering change
Mr. Strain stated during the last round of approvals for the Ave Maria University,
the Town Core, University portion - was a debate over parks, schools and law
enforcement being included in the fiscal neutrality analysis as well as the University
itself. Wondered ifthat was cleared up - the Planning Commission made it clear they
wanted to see the studies.
Ms. Chumbler stated there was no attempt to clear up that language in that provision.
Mr. Varnadoe responded he did not know what concerns the schools would have as
they are included. The question they had was whether Ave Maria University would
be included in the fiscal neutrality analysis or just the town. They agreed with the
Board it would be considered during the DR!.
Mr. Strain said they came without that neutrality analysis and said he had done it but
did not present it to them. He felt it should be presented with language that
specifically says this will be provided.
Mr. Varnadoe responded he told them it would be more meaningful to look at the
entire SRA than opposed to the PDA phase to determine fiscal neutrality. Would be
more meaningful when they got to the DRI phase to look at fiscal neutrality as a
whole of the project.
Mr. Strain said someone on his side felt that parks, schools and law enforcement did
not need to be addressed based on one set of language that was found in the
Stewardship Lands criteria and another paragraph that did include it.
47
May 20, 2004
Mr. Varnadoe said there is a section that deals with concurrency. Parks, schools and
law enforcement was not included - dealing with schools is a planning issue. The
issue dealing with fiscal neutrality is a separate issue. There is no debate that they are
included in the fiscal neutrality.
.
Policy 5.5 - changes made on page 18 - stricken language on priority given to
listed species habitat first.
Page 19 - only proposed by South Florida Water Management had not been
adopted - since then the assessment has been adopted and in effect. County
will continue to accept the assessment as long as already approved by the
Water Management District.
Page 20 - Errata Sheet - Policy 1.1.9 -language reflects policy decisions
already made and now reflected in the LDR's. The oil and gas access road
language - last sentence in provision. Forgot to put the C after Chapter 62.
.
.
Mr. Richardson asked how they can be protected from unauthorized use being further
out in the sticks.
Mr. McKenzie stated when operations is under way there is a 24 hour card and it is gated
- swinging over the road with a 24 hour guard. When operations are not undertaken, they
have to have a key to get in the gate - otherwise locked. Also have a CB Radio with a
code and are being tracked. Have to call before any turn so they know who to expect.
Talked about the landing strips.
There are two phases - expiration is the permitted use, and production is conditional use.
.
EAC recommendation - staff is not recommending it. EAC recommends policy
1.1.9 - 3rd line - recommended "non-environmental" are stricken. Word was
added during the LDR process by the BCC.
Policy 1.3.1 - removes outdated language relating to moratorium. Redundant
language relating to the preservation to native vegetation. Clarification language
indicating areas to be by listed species receives the highest priority in terms of
preservation.
Capital Improvement Elements - pages 24 & 25 - amendment to make sure the
SRA designation applications are referenced in the appropriate places.
.
.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Adelstein moved to make a recommendation for approval for transmittal
CPSP-2003-11 subject to the Errata Sheet, the corrections to the Errata Sheet, the
insertion by the School Board and any other corrections discussed with Ms.
Chumbler with exceptions of corrections from EAc. Second by Mr. Murray.
Carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Abernathy had left at approximately 3:30 PM.
48
May 20, 2004
Discussion on continuing the meeting.
. Mr. Schmitt wanted everyone to know about the follow up on the LDC provision.
The CCPC voted to continue - potential date - June 11,2004 workshop at 609-
610 Conference Room at Community Development Environmental Services
Building on Horseshoe Drive at 8:30 AM to noon.
. Sent an e-mail pertaining to the Community Character Smart Growth Advisory
Committee - an Amendment CPSP-2003-15 - asked Board to vote to continue
item. Was withdrawn but would like to continue it - the last item in the book.
Mr. Richardson moved to continue Amendment CPSP-2003-15. Second Mr.
Murray. Carried unanimously 7-0.
It will be continued until the June 3rd meeting - will be a regularly scheduled item.
CPSP-2003-12, Petition requesting amendments to the Future Land
Use Element and Future Land Use Map, Transportation Element,
Conservation and Coastal Management Element and Capital
Improvement Element to include:
6 Items listed in Agenda of which Mr. Weeks addressed as staff
initiated Amendments and Board direction as well as clarifications -
they are as follows:
1. Amend CCME and CIE to clarify the FLUE determines allowable density in
the Coastal High Hazard Area.
2. Amend TE and CIE to include review of conditional use petitions,
stewardship Receiving Area petitions and FLUE amendment petitions for
impacts upon public facilities.
. This is to add conditional uses in the plan to type of petition for public
facilities impact. CIE & Transportation speak to rezone and Future Land Use
amendments - now adding conditional uses. Amendment includes SRA under
consideration for public facilities impact.
3. Amend Density Rating System in the FLUE to further explain how density is
calculated; to further clarify accessory dwellings not subject to the Density
Rating System; to identify when density may be allowed beyond that
permitted by the Density Rating System; and, to further limit the
applicability of the conversion of Commercial zoning Density Bonus.
.
Density rating system - put in sync with LDC - gave example of when a
project comes in for residential rezone and portion consists of commercial or
industrial component - the land area will be excluded from consideration for
the density calculation purposes - adding any other land use that has
residential density. (Adult living facility -ALF) Further clarification to
49
May 20, 2004
various accessory dwelling units and structures are not considered when
calculating density. (Mother-in-law quarters, guest houses, cabanas etc)
Another change - organizational change - more clear to the reader of the
Future Land Use Element - what areas are not subject to the density rating
system when it comes to determining residential density allowed.
For the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Density Bonus - just to clarify all
properties zoned commercial that are deemed consistent with the plan, the
property is not eligible for the conversion of commercial zoning bonus.
4. Amend the FLUE to delete the requirement to have access to Eatonwood
Lane from the Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Sub
district.
. Was a Board direction - had public hearing and explained in staff report.
5. Add two maps to the FLUM Series, one depicting the Copeland Urban Area
and one depicting the Plantation Island Urn Area, to show greater detail of
these two areas.
. Amend FLU Map creating two inset maps - clearly see Urban Area of the
Copeland Urban Area. Not changing boundaries.
6. Other minor and incidental text changes:
. 5.1 Transportation element - adding conditional uses for consideration of
public facility impacts. Also SRA designation.
. Page 4 - BEBR High Range taken out - what based on? Projections for
first 5 years and then 95% of the BEBR High Range.
. Page 5 - Item E - "Conservation & Coastal Management Element also
CIE - speaks to the density in the CHHA - staffs position is: other
elements do not dictate what the allowable density is. Future Land Use
Element does.
Marjorie Student mentioned it is a requirement in the State Statute that the
FLUE is the place to do that.
Discussion on last sentence to clarify the CCME and referred to their previous
workshop discussions.
Marjorie mentioned the density rating system has been amended over time
and it has never come up about the CHHA with DCA or anyone else that
wouldn't be applicable. A later amendment, a planner handled, involving
some density south of 41. That was the first time DCA ever addressed it.
When they did the EAR based amendments, it they would have time for
proper review, the language in the Conservation Element would have been
fixed so the plan wouldn't have been internally inconsistent. Now there is an
argument that it could be. She gave the history of the first hand person that
worked on the Comp Plan.
50
May 20, 2004
Mr. Strain said to leave it alone - don't need to support either side at this
point. Not to approve any changes.
If the EAR is adopted with the direction of the workshop - then this and other
changes will occur.
SPEAKERS
Doug Fee - North Bay Civic - talked about a proposed Amendment and stated this is
an important language change. He heard the BCC and CCPC agreeing to limit density
in the CHHA during the EAR workshop meeting. He read from a transcript from
December 10th Board meeting from Tom Pellum. It referred to the density issues in
the Coastal High Hazard Area, limiting it to 4 units per acre. Mr. Fee is speaking in
reference to 12.2.2.
Mr. Weeks referenced the different policy numbers with similar language.
Doug continued - 9J5.010 one policy says designating CHHA and limiting
development in these areas. That's why they find specific limiting conditions in the
Coastal Management element. They came up with language for 12.2.2 and saying the
calculated needs for public facilities will be based on the adopted level of service
standards and future growth projections within the CHHA. He mentioned it limits new
residential density in the CHHA to 4 units per acre. It was put on the visualizer.
Concerned they have not implemented the policies or guidance from the Board. He
also received a copy from Mark Strain today, some questions he raised in regards to the
EAR. One of his policy questions - 10.3.8 - talked about density on barrier islands be
restricted to the lowest density in the FLUE. Staff would like to have it clarified to
mean 4 units per acre. Lowest density in the FLUE is 1 unit per 5 acres - he asked how
4 units per acre are consistent with the lowest density. He showed a Policy on the
visualizer.
Mr. Strain said they can't be rewriting language today.
Hearing is closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Midney moved to recommend transmitting CPSP-2003-12 with the exception
of section CIE 1.3.2 and CCME 12.2.2. Second by Mr. Richardson.
Carried unanimously 7-0.
CPSP-2003-13 - Petition requesting amendments to the Capital
Improvement Element to update the Schedule of Capital
improvements and table of Costs and Revenues and to add Level of
Service Standards for government buildings.
51
May 20, 2004
Jason Sweat - Inclusion of language to reflect new impact fee regarding government
buildings, replacement of the current 5 year schedule of Capital Improvements and
updated schedule. There was a handout of additional language regarding public utilities
projects not included in the 5 year schedule. Asked for the approval of the CIE and
information just handed out.
Mr. Schmitt explained they do their AUIR, months pass, and then utilities do an update
of their Master Plan.
Mr. Schmitt stated the buildings are for non-enterprise fund activities. His building is
not paid for out this. Development Services and other fees paid for it. This is for the new
courthouse, new clerk expansion, not jails or correctional facilities.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Richardson moved to approve CPSP-2003-13 for transmittal. Second Mr.
Murray. Carried unanimously 7-0.
CPSP-2003-14, Petition requesting amendments to the
Transportation Element to revise the functional classification
of various county and lor state roads.
Don Scott - update of functional class consistent with the new census data and roadway
such as Livingston Road. Reviewed criteria based on traffic volumes, speed limits, future
volumes, area type land uses, connectivity, trip lengths and spacing between routes.
Mr. Strain asked if they change the classification, does it change its level of service
automatically. Mr. Scott responded - no there are some roads included in the AUIR
because they were never classified.
Hearing was closed for motion and discussion.
Mr. Adelstein moved to approve CPSP-2003-14 for transmittal. Second by Mr.
Murray. Carried Unanimously 7-0.
***Mr. Schmitt again clarified for everyone they are not continuing the UDc. They
are holding a workshop for reviewing how they converted from the LDC to the
UDc. Item D will be continued to June 17, 2004.
9. Old Business - None
52
May 20, 2004
10. New Business: Vacation schedule for the summer - will remain with their
regular schedule of two meetings a month. The July 15th meeting will be the
review of the EAR.
11. Public Comment Item - None
12. Discussion of Addenda - None
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Mr. Russell Budd
53
-_..n.. .._-.
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFl-JCT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-.\¡ JDDLE NA)'\E )
(",1-1 A I~.j "\) ," \(.. ivA ,Yt.1 c., c...
MAIUNG ADDRESS
~C:--7 £ ~r.) I\~ N
CITY {
ì\J
NAMEOF,BOARD. COUNCIL. CO~,ISSIO~. AUTl-IORITY, OR. COMMITT;E
Cel It'.- COllI" Y\ {¡..>JJ\.I1 'N (.....1'," I S~IÒrJ
ïHE BOARD. COUNCIL. CO ISSION. AUTHORI R COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT 0 :
0 CITY COUNTY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: \
C On I Ie r (0 t>- Ñ"t
MY POSITION IS:
0 OTl-lER LOCAL AGENCY
0 ELECTIVE
APPOINT1VE
I
I This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or ejected board, council,
, commission. authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, FJorida Statutes.
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOKCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
I A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mca-
. sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a reiative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disCIOSI1. the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, yóu otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
, by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
....--...
I APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
I
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your cont1ict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
5w.p..:.\-J , hereby disclose that on (\ \. ~~j 2.ö ""'-
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
I, Jf\ ¡1). VL ç> '-
,20~:
- inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
- inured to the special gain or loss of
, by
whom I am retained; or
.../ inured to the special gain or loss of r\<\(\\<?v'~ (V¥'("(..lb,v\~ P-,Gl'--'
j
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
. wnlch
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
\\",,\::- ').\.):;.)"--'-\-'-j \,,:) 6(rt:-=>~...\\.\..R..s-\(.oe-\-+'rr>-h, (I.... 10.",.<:)<-
!í'U~(i<\- ~\\.e '1. 0-1'\" .QI'^-r\~rj Þj C{)-d fu C'-ÙDt'J, A
.h rJ\ (c, ~ G \ ~ w ~.LA o.-k. s \o..A\J -r n¡ ,'"'--- ~ Qt((. j V, tJ V ..
~).A.cep~,;'r-. -'b åOv--~û,f;:)+'t\.....
I
I -b -- '20
I Date Filed
.~ DU
LL~l¡~ðu
SignatLte
"-- )
NOT1CE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVil PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF 1/2000
PAGE 2