Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/03/2004 R June 3, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, June 3, 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: Russell Budd, Chairman Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney (Absent) Dwight Richardson (Absent) Kenneth Abernathy (Absent) Brad Schiffer Robert Murray Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Kay Deselem, Planning Mike Bosi, Planning Jason Sweat, Planning Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 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 MAY BE 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 AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that two (2) members of the Collier County Planning Commission (Dwight Richardson and Bob Murray) are also members of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 11,2004, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3648, Stuart Kaye, of Kaye Homes, Inc., requesting Conditional Use #9 in the "E" Estates zoning district, per LDC Sections 2.2.3.3.9., and 2.6.33.4. to continue the existing land use as a model home and sales center for five years on 2.57± acres located at 910 Oakes Boulevard, further described as the south 165 feet of Tract 28, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 96, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4997, John J. Nevins and the Diocese of Venice represented by R. J. Ward, P.E., of Spectrum Engineering, Inc., requesting Conditional Use 2 and 3 of the RSF zoning district for a church, school, gymnasium, and accessory uses per LDC 2.2.4.3. Property is located at 2760 5200 Terrace S.W. Golden Gate Unit 6, Blocks 204 and 205. Property is in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.2± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4788, Robert A. Soudan, Sr., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from "PUD" and "RSF-4" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Goodlette Corner PUD for the addition of a 0.32 acre parcel lying immediately west of the current PUD for commercial land uses consisting of office, service and low to moderate intensity retail. Property is located at 1191 Pine Ridge Court, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.8± acres. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) D. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3561, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Hiwassee, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district to "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to be known as the Hiwasse PUD. This project will consist of a maximum of 91,000 square feet of professional office area, and a maximum of 200,000 square feet of indoor-self storage area. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the west side of Livingston Road approximately one-quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 12.5± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) E. CPSP-2003-15, Petition requesting Phase II amendments ofthe 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. Note: Continued from May 20, 2004. [Coordinator: Jason Sweat/John David Moss] 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN G/Admin/CCPC AgendaIRB/sp 2 June 3, 2004 1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 PM, and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Roll Call- A quorum was established. 3. Addenda to the Agenda Mr. Strain I have previously received agenda item 8E and I didn't see 8E on the agenda. I wanted to confirm that everybody is aware of item 8E on the agenda. Ms. Student confirms that 8E is listed on the agenda. It is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It is the smart growth objective and I had received that for review and made some revisions because it wasn't too clear as it was previously worded, so there are no substantive changes. Mr. Adelstein moves to add item 8E to the agenda. Mr. Strain seconds. The motion carries 6-0. 4. Absences - Paul Midney, Dwight Richardson and Kenneth Abernathy 5. Approval of Minutes - Not available at this time. 6. BCC Report - Recaps - May 11, 2004, Regular Meeting Ray Bellows: Bosley PUD approved by a 4-0 vote; commission Hollis was absent. Community school approved. Colonnade approved with stipulation of no overnight parking. 7. Chairman's Report - None 8. Advertised Public Hearings A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3648, Stuart Kaye, of Kaye Homes, Inc., requesting Conditional Use #9 in the "E" Estates zoning district, per LDC Sections 2.2.3.3.9., and 2.6.33.4. to continue the existing land use as a model home and sales center for five years on 2.57± acres located at 910 Oakes Boulevard, further described as the south 165 feet of Tract 28, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 96, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Disclosures - None All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Mr. Stuart Kaye - Kaye Homes, Inc. We are here to continue with the conditional use of the site as a model home. We have been here for some time and feel that we have been good neighbors we are not aware that there is anyone that has had any issues with us. We seek this so we can continue 2 June 3, 2004 to serve the public we provide what we believe to be the most affordable and attainable non- government and non-subsidized housing in Collier County at this time. Mr. Murray asks for clarification on operating hours. Application states 9-5; the staff report indicates 10-6. Mr. Kaye confirms the hours of 9-5. He also requested 5 years though the recommendation is 2 years. Staff is in the process of trying to establish some confusion of the language I would like to go with the 5 years pending the analysis of staff. Mr. Strain: Last meeting this panel recommended 2 years consistent with the golden gate master plan committee's recommendations. The previous 2 or 3 models that came through in the Golden Gate Estates area were limited to 2 years. I don't see any reason to make an exception I would have to agree with staff that 2 years is the way to go. Mr. Kaye: Item number 6 stipulates for a sidewalk. I would like to request that there is no sidewalk. We do want to continue to be a good neighbor and suggest that if staff determines at any time that a sidewalk is needed we would be more than happy to put it in given any amount of reasonable notice. Mr. Strain: There same provision was placed on the previous I or 2 models that came before us and there is a sentence here that you can provide a fee in lieu of the sidewalk to offset the sidewalk cost so when sidewalks are feasible, you are already covered. I think to treat you differently would be unfair to the others. ST AFF Kay Deselem: Staff is recommending that this petition be found consistent with the comp plan and also that it is compatible with the neighborhood as stipulated. Weare recommending approval with the 8 stipulations that are contained in the staff report. We have adopted the 10-6 hours with the other models but do not have a problem with the 9-5 hours. I think the 2 years is appropriate given what the planning commission and the board have adopted in other petitions. Item number 6, I think the petitioner has an option if he does not want to put in a sidewalk now. Mr. Strain points out that the current model status expired January of 2003; it has taken 18 months to petition. Ms. Deselem: There have been some issues that the petItIOner had to address with code enforcement because of a driveway and parking area that was put in on this site without proper permits and as part of getting here to the hearing process they resolved that issue first Ray Bellows explains that this is not a policy would continue. It happened but it could be a code violation so it would be reported. It may have been an arrangement with code enforcement Mr. Strain: So the action by code enforcement is proffered as the reason that this model operated for 18 months without a conditional use. 3 June 3, 2004 Mr. Bellows: Typically what we would like to see is that the application be applied for concurrently with the code enforcement action improvements. I'm not sure what happened in this case; typically we would not allow them to remain in operation without submitting an application. This is part of the code enforcement action to have them come in here to make it legal. Mr. Strain: Are we looking at a retro-active conditional use back to January of 2003, or are we looking at a 3 Yz year conditional use? Mr. Bellows: Technically it would be longer but since they are applying as of today to extend it. We can still bring it up to that 2 year time limit that we approved all of the others. Mr. Strain: The applicant is obviously wanting 5 years and is receiving 3 12 because of failure to comply with some previous code enforcement actions. I think that's more than generous. I understand 2 years to wind down the operation that he has there; which is not a small operation. I'm not objecting to the two years. I just don't understand why it was produced this way and I'm hoping we can protect the public from this happening again in the future because it isn't fair and is not the way it was designed to be. Ms. Deselem: This particular petition was submitted on January 24, 2003. The petitioner was notified on occasion that they needed to proceed. They did then bring it to hearing. Mr. Strain: Do they start the process when the conditional use expires or is the process supposed to be complete by then? Mr. Bellows: We can look into and report back to you, but it is my understanding that they have to file before it expires. Mr. Adelstein: In regards to the driveway on Oakes Boulevard, I see three recommendations. Which one are we proposing? Ms. Deselem: Normally we would not approve a site that had 2 access points very closely located to one another because of the confusion it could cause. In this particular situation they have preserved many large tall pine trees that provide an aesthetic quality. We recommended that they be allowed to keep the 2 accesses. To lessen possible confusion we recommend signs to state that one is an exit and one is an entrance. Mr. Murray: Is it a standard that we give them 90 days to erect signs? Ms. Deselem: I'm not sure if there is a particular standard. Staff believed that was an appropriate time frame. Mr. Murray: Transportation planning staff has accepted a fee in lieu of payment to offset the sidewalk costs could you explain what the really means? 4 June 3, 2004 Ms. Deselem: They set a predetermined amount of money that it would cost to make that improvement and the petitioner then pays that and it is held in a fund until the time that the sidewalk is actually appropriate to place. We do not want to see the sidewalk to go in now only to be torn up when they make the improvements. Transportation allows the fee in lieu of the sidewalk so that they can arrange for the sidewalk to be put in with the improvements Mr. Murray: The amount of money is essentially the amount it would cost to put a sidewalk in and then transportation would put a sidewalk in, is that correct? Ms. Deselem: That's my understanding. Mr. Schiffer: Regarding the signs, I pass this property often and it is in beautiful condition, does this mean we are going to have big signs in the front of this residential neighborhood stating no exit and enter? Ms. Deselem: Hopefully they would be very small tasteful signs that would make it clear to the traveling public to avoid confusion. Mr. Schiffer: It kind of comes across as a typical circular drive which many people have in front of their house. Do you think people are really confused? I think it is fine the way it is and the signs could start to make it look like a commercial establishment. Ms. Deselem: I think once the roadway improvements are done here and there is a centerline that prohibits left turn movement into this site it will be much easier to understand, but while you have north and south bound potential movements into the site there can be some confusion. Mr. Schiffer: I'm familiar with the site and it just looks like a nice residential property. They've been in operation for a while, have they had head on collisions on the driveway? Ms. Deselem: I'm not aware of any. Mr. Vigliotti: Regarding the employees that will be working there, who is allowed, not allowed and are they real estate sales persons? Mr. Kaye: Sales people and a sales assistant-receptionist answering the telephone, sales oriented employees, real estate sales agents. Mr. Vigliotti: Can I ask for additional information on the code violation? Mr. Kaye: We did apply for this at the same time and the request was to wait Long before we purchased the property the rear had been cleared for a home that was going to be built there upon inspection, the county wanted us to do some mitigation for that land. The county had also notified us that they would be taking some land that required some of our signs to be moved. Plans have also changed again. That's part of what took this time. 5 June 3, 2004 Mr. Schiffer: Was the accessory building part of the original conditional use? Ms. Deselem confirms yes. No registered speakers. Mr. Budd: I live in that neighborhood and I know that Kaye Homes had an office a few miles away and it is absolutely only a sales center. Regarding the driveway, I pass that a few times a day and although it may look confusing on paper, in the real world I've never seen any problems. I agree with Mr. Schiffer that commercial signing to solve a problem that doesn't exist is not conducive with preserving the residential nature of the neighborhood. I would confirm Mr. Kaye's comments that they have been good neighbors; very clean, appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of CU-2003-AR-3648 with the stipulations as recommended by staff. Second by Mr. Adelstein. DISCUSSION Mr. Schiffer: Let's discuss the signs. Mr. Strain: The sign is not the one that bothers me. I'll amend my motion to recommend removal of stipulation 8. Mr. Adelstein agrees. Motion carried 6-0. B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4997, John J. Nevins and the Diocese of Venice represented by R. J Ward, P.E., of Spectrum Engineering, Inc., requesting Conditinal Use 2 and 3 of the RSF zoning district for a church, school, gymnasium, and accessory uses per LDC 2.2.4.3 Property is located at 2730 52nd Terrace S.W. Golden Gate Unit 6, Blocks 204 and 205. Property is in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.2±acres.(Coordinator: Mike Bosi) Disclosures - Mr. Strain called the representative of the civic association to see if they had any problems out there and they were actually in support of this petition. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER R. J. Ward, President of Spectrum Engineering, Inc.: The proposal is to add an activity building to the existing school site, right now the children play basketball out in the parking lot and this would give them the opportunity to do that indoors. I presume you've read the staff report. 6 June 3, 2004 Mr. Strain: On the site plan, exhibit C, there's a reference there that I would like the county attorney to comment on. See where it says 'future site of rectory' the language says that the existing conditional use be decided a future rectory will remain in effect and is hereby reaffirmed. Ms. Student: I don't understand why that would be in there and I don't think it needs to be there because that is not the subject of this petition. Mr. Ward: The site of a future rectory has been approved, we simply wanted to maintain that it would not be eliminated and would remain as is. Mr. Strain: You reference it being reaffirmed. That is strong language and that does mean something. It would be like a re-endorsement of a conditional use. I'm not sure I'm prepared to vote on that today. Ms. Student: I don't think it should be stated that way, if you want to make a reference to it then you should just state that the rectory site was approved by the certain resolution number, and leave it at that. Mr. Budd: We'll clarify that in our action. Mr. Ward: In the staff recommendations, there is a requirement for wetland impact permit. I think that must be a mistake; there are no wetlands on this site. I'd like to get clarification. STAFF Mike Bosi: In terms of the wetland impact stipulation that is a standard caveat of conditional uses that applies to the site development plan. That will follow after the approval ofthe conditional use if there are no wetlands on site. I would agree with your statement, there are no wetlands on site. The environmental reviewing department had suggested that this caveat be placed upon it. I think what I should have done was eliminated the wetland permits and just retained the exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plan because that will be required of this site. At your recommendation we can modify it before it goes before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Strain: There are redundancies in numbers 2 and 3. The only one that is relevant is number 4, an alternative to the land development code. If we just eliminated the things that are not needed it would save time for the commission and the public. I would just assume that numbers 2 and 3 were struck. Mr. Bosi: I agree with you that there's no need for duplication and in the future I will be more attentive to that area. When I looked at this petition, the interior placement of the gymnasium on the subject parcel will bring activities that are associated with the school indoors. This is beneficial not only because of the placement and location but for the noise reduction to the overall area. The end result of the petition will be additions or improvements to the landscape buffer that currently exists around the parcel site. I saw this as an overall benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the community in general. 7 June 3, 2004 SPEAKERS Ms. Judy Mankowski: I'm just here to speak for the school. I was principal there for 14 years and so I initiated this project and we're looking forward to having a gymnasium on our property. We've been there for 23 years and the neighborhood has grown up around us. We have good relationships with our neighbors. The people that we didn't hear from on our petition were generally law firms that own property in the area and they just didn't respond even though we sent registered mail to them. Mr. Strain makes a motion to recommend the approval CU-2003-AR-4997 with staff stipulations subject to striking numbers 2 & 3 not because they are not applicable but because they are redundant language from the LDC and also with a stipulation that the reaffirmation language on the site plan exhibit C is corrected to strictly just reference the resolution. Mr. Murray seconds. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Adelstein reminds the committee that the finding of fact that needs to be turned in. C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4788, Robert A. Soudan, Sr., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a rezone from "PUD" and "RSF-4" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Goodlette Corner PUD for the addition of a 0.32 acre parcel lying immediately west of the current PUD for commercial land uses consisting of office, service and low to moderate intensity retail. Property is located at 1191 Pine Ridge Court, in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida, consisting of 8.8± acres.(Coordinator: Mike Bosi) Disclosures - None All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Mr. Wayne Arnold: We are adding a 1/3 acre parcel that is zoned RSF4. it is completely surrounded by commercial zoning presently. we would have added this to PUD when we came through the process about a year and a half ago but the owner wasn't willing to sell at the time. It did contain a single family home, which has since been razed. There were also some minor clarifications that we have made to update the PUD. Staff was recommending deletion of item 31 on our list of uses, which is a statement, that references that any other comparable use that could be determined would be allowed here. The more standard language that staff is now using says that other comparable uses that were deemed consistent and compatible by the board of zoning appeals would be permitted. So I think we would like the insertion of that typical standard language to add an element of flexibility that wouldn't necessarily require a full PUD amendment to say there is some other minor use here that is not specifically called out in our list of permitted uses. The other clarification that I wanted to make was a condition for water management. Item D under 4.6 says that discharge rates shall be limited to 0.15 cfs per acre or in accordance with ordinance and I guess 8 June 3, 2004 my only concern is the word limited to because it may not be limited to subject to provisions of the ordinance that will allow us to have professional engineering studies that actually determine the discharge rate. I think the ordinance references .015 cfs but it is not limited to that subject to engineering studies. We have prepared a water management report and I would like the words limited to stricken for that sentence if we could. Mr. Strain: We'll wait to hear the staff report. Mr. Murray: There seems to be contradiction in the PUD. It reads "also the fragmented ownership of the PUD" and on the findings for the PUD it says documents submitted with the application provide evidence to "unified control," which is true there? Mr. Arnold: I think they are both true I think there is unified control to the portion of this project that the subject amendment is applied to. There are also multiple ownerships of this PUD that exist today. The substance of this amendment will only apply to the 1/3 acre. Mr. Schiffer: The side elevation that is shown here, is that on Goodlette Road? You have a front and a right side. Mr. Arnold: Those elevations were in the existing ordinance and were of the existing storage facility that has been constructed on Pine Ridge Road. They were meant to be specific to the existing storage facility but they will carry out in the architectural elements for future buildings. Mr. Schiffer: Will there be overhead doors on Goodlette Frank Road? Mr. Arnold confirms that there are none. Mr. Schiffer: You have some landscape deviations and I am concerned as to why you are requesting that. Mr. Arnold: Staff agreed to the 10 foot wide buffer in lieu of the 15 feet. With that we offered to plant trees at a heavier spacing than the code normally provided. In my last conversation with Nancy Siemeon earlier this month she stated that she would like to see us go back to a 30 foot spacing, as it is healthier for the canopy trees. We were agreeable to leave it at 25 feet but she had recommended that we change it back to 30. Mr. Adelstein: Does that mean you are going back to a 15-foot buffer? Mr. Arnold: No sir. It stays at a 10 foot wide buffer under this proposal. ST AFF Mr. Bosi: It may have eliminated some of the confusion to relate that staff supports the deviation. It's contained within the original PUD document within section 2.A. Also, the end result of this petition, and it was highlighted in the staff report, is that elimination of the .32 acres that was surrounded by commercial, allowing for a more consistent land use pattern in the future.. 9 June 3, 2004 Mr. Schiffer: Have you discussed the spacing of the trees with Nancy? Mr. Bosi confirms that he was party to the conversation between Nancy and Wayne Arnold, Wayne had offered to reduce the spacing of the trees but Nancy indicated that in 4-5 years any business owners within that corner would not appreciate such close spacing because of the visual blockage. Also, 25 feet is not a good spacing for large canopy trees. That was how the 25 got to be back to 30, which is what the standard IS. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the PUD process and streamlining to reduce many redundancies. Mr. Strain asks about reducing redundancies in the future; the standard is that if the PUD is silent, the LDC prevails. Mr. Bosi and Mr. Bellows offer that this process is currently under review and they hope to streamline the process in the future. This process is also complicated by the fact that many different departments are involved in the reviewing process. Ms. Student offers some history on the topic. This matter has been dealt with on and off throughout the last 16 years in the county and there are some issue that individuals would argue that ifit was not in the PUD they shouldn't have to comply. As a result there were redundancies put in there as a type of checklist or reminder so the person would have it in one document before them and know what was expected of them. This has come up before and that is why the PUD documents contain those matters. It's something that can be looked at again. Mr. Bellows: We have put together a committee of principal planners and planners to study the PUD document process and we're looking at other counties to see how they do things. We are trying to streamline and even possible eliminate the PUD document and just go with the ordinance, that has the deviations from the code, the development standards and the number of units, density and use. Everything else can fall back to the code. Mr. Strain: If you could simplify that process I think that would be a great accomplishment. We'd save a lot of trees too. Do you have any objections to Wayne's request to add the standard language in for any other uses that could be on the site, the item 31 that was crossed out, usually it's replaced by additional standard language but it didn't get in this one? Mr. Bosi: The traditional language is "any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of principal uses as determined by the board of zoning appeals." We have no objection to this. Mr. Strain: Can we alleviate Wayne's other concern, 4.6 D, by dropping the sentence through the word "or" and include after the word "or" - "in accordance with ordinance." Furthermore, we can remove the language altogether because it has to be "in accordance with." Alan Oliferi: I was reviewing the storm water at the time when this application came in I do not have any problem with the removing the language. No Public Speakers 10 June 3, 2004 Mr. Strain: moves to recommend approval of PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4788 subject to staff stipulations the revision of item 31 under section 3.3 to include the new language as we heard a few moments ago and that we drop 4.6D. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Motion carries 6-0. D. Petition: PUDZ-2003-AR-3561, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Hiwassee, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural zoning district to "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to be known as the Hiwassee PUD. This project will consist of a maximum of 200,000 square feet of indoor-self storage area. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the west side of Livingston Road approximately one- quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County Florida. This property consists of 12.5± acres.(Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Disclosures - None All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Richard Yovanovich: This is a rezone to PUD to implement the Livingston Road, Eatonwood Lane commercial infield sub district. This comp plan amendment was the result of an eminent domain action between the county and the property owner, when the county took approximately 100 feet of width and reduced the property to a practical width of 155 feet which would not support a residential development. To avoid expense to the county we agreed to go through the comp plan amendment process to allow the types of commercial uses we're requesting the PUD document.. The uses in the PUD document are essentially the uses in the Cl zoning district plus indoor self storage which the comp plan amendment originally called for. We had originally contemplated the full range of Cl uses plus office uses in the C2, C3 or even C4 district would be eligible under the comp plan. One of those uses is a bank. Staff has now taken the position in your report that a bank is not an office use and is therefore not consistent with the comp plan. We think there is a practical solution to the issue because we think a bank, which would be located on the northern portion of the property, makes sense and should not be objectionable to anyone in the area. We think a practical solution is to include in the comp plan amendment the simple addition words of "depository institution." We could actually put the SIC codes in there, it's listed in the LDC as depository institution groups 6011 through 6099. I don't think there's any planning reason to not to allow a bank on this partial property. Mr. Murray: The trips that are planned of 2365 per day; did that exclude the banking? Mr. Y ovanovich: Our TIS of 2365 trips per day that we submitted to the county included a 4000 square foot drive in bank. Mr. Strain: You requested numbers 6011-6099, that's 88 numbers. Which one is the bank? Mr. Yovanovich: I don't have my SIC codes. That is the LDC provision that deals with depository institutions. 11 June 3, 2004 Mr. Bellows: We can stipulate it "subject to" and get the SIC code for that particular use. Mr. Yovanovich: I was interested in 88 codes as they were a conditional use under the Cl zoning district I assume since the C 1 zoning district is the least intensive of the commercial districts that they were relatively harmless. Mr. Strain: So you're intention with this property is to stay strictly to Cl uses? Mr. Yovanovich: No, we are Cl along with the other office uses that we might find in the C2 or C3 zoning districts. I believe most, if not all, of the uses, are permitted uses in the C 1 zoning district or conditional uses in the Cl zoning district. Mr. Bellows: There may be a solution to list banking or financial institutions as noted in the comp plan for this commercial sub district. Whatever the board approves would spell out the specific commercial uses that they deemed appropriate. That way we won't have an inconsistency with the PUD document. Mr. Yovanovich: We are also willing to establish location requirements on the master plan, if necessary, that being on the northern portion of the property not by Eatonwood Lane. Other than that I thought the staff report was very thorough. Mr. Schiffer expresses concern about some deviations requested from the architectural design standards, to remove the entry feature in the storage buildings, citing some of the new architectural standards and the boxy nature of storage units. Mr. Y ovanovich confirms that they didn't think that was actually a necessary feature to a storage facility. The project includes aesthetic buildings and no evidence of self-storage units from the road. Mr. Bellows previously discussed it with the architectural review staff and as long as it is clear that it is only for the self storage, planning supports the deviation. Mr. Strain understood the elimination of the patio but wanted to clear up some of the redundant language to express the deviation. Mr. Strain asks about the setback from the back of the curb to edge of pavement. Mr. Bellows confirms that the 10 foot setback falls under the general permitted uses and is really for the internal circulation road. Mr. Strain clarifies some permitted uses. Number 9, miscellaneous person services (group 7291 and 7299) are C3 uses. Security and commodity broker (6211 to 6289) and veterinarian services (0742) are possibly C2. Mr. Yovanovich confirms that these are permitted uses. Mr. Strain asks about the acceleration and deceleration lanes for the entrance on Livingston Road. Mr. Yovanovich confirms that these lanes will be included. Mr. Strain asks if the landscape rendering is to be part of the PUD. Mr. Yovanovich confirms that it is referred to in the PUD as exhibit C. Mr. Strain asks staff if the landscape design is consistent. Mr. Bellows states that the plan was referred to Nancy Simeon. She worked with me and the applicant to come up with something we could see as a benefit. Because of the sensitive nature of 12 June 3, 2004 the site we wanted above mmlmum code requirements and that's why if it were just code requirements we probably wouldn't have this detail in the PUD. Mr. Adelstein asks if Eatonwood Lane a public or private road. Mr. Yovanovich states that it is a private Road. Mr. White confirms this information. Mr. Strain: Mr. White we are here today to discuss something that is going to come up for review when the GMP has to be changed to reflect whatever happens here today. By our vote today aren't we predicting what our vote is going to be in the future and is that something we should be doing? We're supposed to listen to all the input from both parties and then render our decision. it seems kind of fruitless to make a decision today knowing we have to make a the same decision in order to be consistent with today in the future. Is something amiss here? Mr. Bellows: There's no difference between one or the other going first. You still have that same dilemma whether you approve the comp plan amendment first and the zoning action follows or if it is the other way around. You still can follow if new information arises or new concerns come to your attention that you didn't know at the time the comp plan amendment was passed. You can still rule differently on the rezone. If you do something differently they may force the applicant to come back and the zoning to be consistent Mr. White: The traditional notion of not pre-considering a matter is limited, in my opinion, to matters that are traditionally considered to be quasi-judicial in nature. As you know, comprehensive plan amendments, even the small types of text amendments that we are talking about here, are considered to be legislative in nature. So legally, there is no problem and there isn't anything that appears to be amiss. You are not bound simply by what action you may take today with respect to what action you may take in the future as far as a comprehensive plan amendment goes. There is nothing that demands an outcome in a particular direction. ST AFF Mr. Bellows: This PUD rezone petition has been in house for a while now. As I mentioned previously we had some concerns expressed from the residents of Kensington about compatibility. Because of the concerns raised by the residents we had several additional meetings with the residents and I personally met with them in my office several times to try to make the project as compatible as possible. Some of the things that came out are the elimination of the access to Eatonwood Lane and to provide an access at the northern property line. We also have been working with the applicant to develop an additional landscaping buffer along Livingston Road and Eatonwood Lane. As you can see in this job report the comp planning department reviewed the document and they found it consistent subject to the elimination of the financial uses. They provided the SIC code groups 6011 through 6099 are not consistent with the intent of the sub district. However the petitioner has indicated that they feel it is consistent. To clarify it they want to make that part of their comprehensive plan amendment in addition to eliminating access to Eatonwood Lane. I think if we could provide some type of language in the document, we can have them spell out the SIC codes and we'll just reference whatever commercial uses are listed specifically in the sub district. 13 June 3, 2004 Mr. Murray: What is the rationale behind prohibiting the banking and financial institution from being allowed at that location? Mr. Bellows: I wasn't involved with the comp plan amendment when that was created. It was intended during that meeting to restrict it to the professional office type uses. The memorandum I received from them stated basically that they felt it was not consistent. I received a letter dated May 29th from the Brynwood Preserve residents association. They are supportive of the petition subject to prohibiting the financial and banking institution uses. We have some public speakers that may also want to speak. SPEAKERS Mr. Robert Moore (President of the Brynwood Homeowners Association): I wrote the letter that was just referred to. Brynwood has 85 homes and representing them I wrote this letter to Mr. Bellows and I carbon copied Mr. Smith, Don Scott and Commissioner Coyle. I think in the interest of brevity the best thing to do is read the letter I wrote. "My name is Robert Moore. I'm President of the Brynwood Homeowners Association representing the interest of the Brynwood Preserve owners. Relative to the subject PUD the Brynwood Preserve Residents Association is in full support of the Collier County Planning Commissions recommendation to eliminate banking and depository institutions from the list of permitted uses contained in the Hiwasse PUD document. We strongly feel that such use should definitely be prohibited for the following reasons. 1. Such use would considerably increase the daily traffic trips to such a facility. 2. Brynwood Preserve in and out traffic flow is already impacted in as much as we need to make a u-turn to proceed from our location to go south on Livingston Road. It is further impacted in early morning hours from traffic entering Livingston from Pine Ridge Road. During the hours from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm traffic backs up the entire length of the Brynwood preserve property to make a right turn on Pine Ridge Road. According to the study made by the Metro Transportation Group, Inc. from Fort Myers the 1100 daily trips can be increased by a 4 to 1 ratio in these hours. (I don't know if the 1100 trips is actually the what the numbers are but that's what they reported.) 3. Brynwood Preserve is a family oriented development. Many of our owners have small children. Many of owners that have small children utilize the Collier county school buses. Increased traffic flow could affect the operational safety of the school buses themselves as well as those children. We therefore fully support the planning commission's staff recommendations to eliminate banking and depository institutions and disagree with the petitioner's contention that such institutions are similar in nature to professional offices." Thank you for the opportunity to submit our objections. We have to make a u-turn when we come out of our property. We cannot go left on Livingston Road" we have to go right. There's a turn around and where they are going to put the access at the northern end, I understand there's going to be a traffic light up there for access into the proposed shopping center. Now if we have to contend with making a u-turn with heavier traffic, we're just going to be stuck there. We're not on Eatonwood Lane. We are in Brynwood across the street. Mr. Strain: So when you come out of Brynwood you have to take a right and go up and make a u- turn at the next cut up there? 14 June 3, 2004 Mr. Moore: We cut across any traffic flowing north, plus any traffic flowing south when we make the u-turn. So we could all be stacked up at the u-turn. Norman Harris (President ofthe Kensington Park Master Association): We would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. We have been following this PUD application and re-zone of the Hiwasse tract very closely as you might imagine since it is on our eastern boundary. I would like to at this point thank the staff and particularly Ray Bellows for keeping us informed and for their cooperation. We've had several meetings with them and they've worked with us to try to keep us apprised of exactly where the application was in the process and what the application contained. At this point I'm glad to say that the majority of the concerns of the Kensington residents have been met. We would like to at this point go on record saying we support the staff recommendations for the PUD rezone, we have no problems with the recommendations as presented, with one caveat, we would like for there to be some consideration for hours of operation limitation for the storage facility. If it could be limited in some fashion to reasonable hours perhaps from 7:00 am until 8:00 or 9:00 pm, it would help with some traffic noise that might impact the residents of the Sheffield villa section of Kensington which is the closest to the Hiwassee tract. Further we agree with the staffs recommendation that depository institutions are not the Cl classification as office buildings and beyond that we would support the recommendation as presented. Mr. Strain: If the bank on the north end was limited to a drive through bank only do you still carry the same objection? Mr. Harris: Yes, because of the traffic. The traffic coming around Livingston from Pine Ridge Road, particularly at rush hour, is pretty heavy. And adding a major traffic generator, such as a drive through bank facility, would just compound what is already becoming a very busy intersection. Obviously with it being located on the northern side it has the least amount of impact for Kensington. So if it is going to go in we would prefer to see it go there. Mr. Strain: Right now we are requiring that to work off the northern end of their property they have to do an interconnection agreement with the property to the north. I'm wondering, how much of that property is going to be developed, and how far north? If they are going to agree with that property owner to use his property for access anyway, does the access point have to be where it was discussed today? Could it be further north? Mr. Bellows: The master plan that we have is conceptual, it can be adjusted but it would be subject to the transportation department review and approval along with any agreement reached between the property owners. Mr. Yovanovich: That is actually a county retention pond on that corner. There already is a cut for La Costa. It lines up with a full median opening that ultimately will be there. We have an agreement with La Costa, Baldridge which is the commercial corner on the south east corner and us, and with the county, to make that a full median opening there. If that ultimately comes about we would be giving up our access on Livingston Road so we would be reducing cuts onto Livingston Road. 15 June 3, 2004 Mr. Strain: What's the potential of that going to a full median cut and if it is, will there be a light there, making u-turns easier as well? Don Scott: One of the things that was discussed even previous to all of this was the possibility of getting a signalized full median opening in the future. Mr. Strain asks about limiting the storage activity. Mr. Yovanovich requests the hours of 7 am until 9pm. Mr. Yovanovich: The gentlemen who read the letter had a number of 1100 trips; it is actually 110 trips during the peak afternoon hour. I think we've gone through and answered the concerns of the residents of Kensington. I believe the bank going on the north is an acceptable alternative to them. We have worked with staff and everybody to re-direct our traffic. I think we're going to have a full median opening up there; the u-turns should not be a problem for people coming out of Brynwood and wanting to go south. Ultimately it should be better because they may have a light instead of the directional left that is there right now. I think it would be a better controlled u-turn with our project than without our project, even with the bank. Mr. Strain moves to recommend approval of PUDZ-3-AR-3561 with the following stipulations: 1. Any recommendations by staff. 2. Storage activity is limited to 7:00 a.m. through 9:00 p.m. 3. Section 4.17.C in the PUD be struck and be replaced with the following sections to be eliminated from application (2.8.3.5.11.2.1 A 1 through 4/2.8.4.4.10.2.1 A 1 & 2) for the indoor self storage buildings only. 4. Approval of banks as noted in the comp plan in the north portion of the property subject to a full median opening with a traffic light. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Don Scott: We don't put up traffic signals if they don't meet warrants; even if it is a full median opening it might not meet the qualifications for that. Mr. Strain upheld his position that the bank should not be permitted until the traffic signal is in place. Mr. Y ovanovich expressed concern because he could not control the factors that would lead to the installation of a traffic signal. Mr. Strain pointed out that, with several other traffic generators in close proximity to the project, a signal would be warranted with or without the bank. Once the signal is in place, a bank can be permitted, until then, another allowed use can be utilized. The discussion ended with neither party convincing the other of his position. Mr. Budd acknowledged this and called for any other discussion on the motion. Motion carried 6-0. A 10-minute break was permitted. When the meeting was called to order Mr. Budd addressed the commission: Members of the Planning Commission, for our first agenda item today there should have been a finding of fact in your package, there was not. Therefore I am passing it down to you, we don't have enough for 16 June 3, 2004 everybody so staff will provide one if you did not receive it. You need to fill out a finding of fact on that one item. E. 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. Note: Continued from May 20, 2004. (Coordinator: Jason Sweat/John David Moss) Mr. Budd: This is a legislative issue therefore we will not be swearing anyone in and we will not be providing disclosures but the requested action would be a transmittal of the conclusion. Jason Sweat: this is part of the advertised cycle one amendments that was carried over form the may 20th hearing. I passed out a copy of exhibit A. Its basically the same thing that was in your original staff report however policy 7.2 has been changed policy 7.6 has been wordsmithed a bit, this was after meeting with staff and with legal. We would like your recommendation for transmittal of approval on these community character smart growth amendments. Mr. Strain: I've read all of these several times and why are we doing this, is there anything in 7.1 through 7.6 that we are not doing? Mr. Murray: the intent of the changes was to motivate and give opportunities to focus on the need for mixed use and provide opportunities to these at least for a developer to come in and look at something as an alternative to the objectives in this case. They are loosely written, but we could not find a way that we could offer any incentives beyond encouragement because of the nature of where we are in the code today. And so unfortunately while we would have preferred that they be more precise and concise with clearer points this was what we were able to provide with the help of staff. Mr. Strain: again I'm not objecting to it I'm just surprised that there are not really any teeth in it, it's really vague. I'm flexible I just felt that we're already doing these things. Mr. Sweat: yes sir we are and I believe that one of the reasons we wanted to start with this and work with the committee on some future land development regulations to somewhat sure up our efforts and put additional teeth into this. The fact that we wanted to amend the future land use element for inclusion of this language is to show or display the Collier county commitment to smart growth strategies and alternate techniques. We will be meeting continuously with the smart growth / community character committee. Weare going to bring down Wayne Daltry from Lee County who is a 'smart growth planner' for the county, we will be working with him. We are continuously working with a transportation staff, we have also touched base with the NPO to receive some feedback on them so we will prior to adoption put some additional teeth into this but we wanted to get his in. Mr. Murray: the committee that I serve on we unanimously agreed to extend it for another year so that we would have the opportunity to get in to more detail. This was a long time coming, this 17 June 3, 2004 information. Weare hoping to become much more effective. The lexicon as it were needs to be changed, integrating this with the new land development code so that the planners can use it effectively. Ms. Student: I want to comment about the "teeth." The comp plan is like a constitution, its not the LDC and so you don't find the detail in the comp plan that you find in the LDC. The LDC is to implement the comp plan and the comp plan is to set goals, objectives and policies of what you want to do, but the implementation comes with the code. I fear with the sub districts that we have in the future land use summary already, they are way too specific for what a comp plan should have in it. I've been saying that for six or seven years, they continue to get more specific. That's not what a comp plan is supposed to be. Its supposed to be very general with looking towards the implementation and the teeth coming in the LDC. I just wanted to put that on the record and draw your attention to 7.2. it was changed because the way I read the original 7.2 I didn't understand exactly what it meant and I didn't know why we were breaking PUD's out when we have other types of development that we also need to connect. That's why that was changed. Mr. Strain: The Dover Cole Community Character Plan, when was that done, originally? Mr. Sweat: that was completed in 2000. Mr. Strain: is there a need at some point to consider updating it if there are any trends that have changed since that was written. Is the committee going to be working on that? Mr. Murray: I think we're still wading through an awful lot of details. There are a number of points yet that we have to address within that plan. We're now beginning to work on LDC language, so that there are a whole number of things I'm not sure that the plan itself can be updated. However, with the assistance of the smart growth committee, staff is working on ways to take what was given to us in that plan and working from there. So progressing onward, if you will, but not creating a new plan. Mr. Schiffer: How does someone get a copy of that? I have a reproduction of it but is it something that is available to the public rather easily? Mr. Sweat: I can check on that. I know we have limited numbers of hard copies available but I know we have some diskettes available as well. Mr. Schiffer: is it posted on the website? Mr. Murray: it had been, it's off now. Mr. Murray offers the motion for acceptance of the CPSP-2003-15 future land use element. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Motion carries 6-0. 9. OLD BUSINESS None 18 June 3, 2004 10. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Schiffer requested 24X36 exhibits be provided in the packets again. Mr. Budd directed staff to use discretion and get larger copies when the smaller 8 Yz X 11 IS indecipherable. Mr. White: Just a status update in anticipation of your workshop and ultimate consideration of the UDC revisions later this month, I would encourage any of the commissioners who have comments and want to share them with either myself or Russell Webb to please do so. Weare looking to resolve any questions you may have and to move this thing to a timely completion. Regarding communication, as long as you are not tendering your position with respect to a matter prior to a hearing or a public meeting that is something that can be done. It gets very close to the line. Typically only counsel committees and commissions talk about procedural things amongst themselves before hand but even an electronic communication can constitute an impermissible meeting if there are subject matters in that communication that would not be allowed. Mr. Murray: I would be safe if I directed my comments to you. Mr. White: Absolutely, in every circumstance you would be. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT None 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA None 13. ADJOURN There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:42 AM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Russell A. Budd 19