Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/01/2004 R July 1,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July I, 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 (Excused) Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Robert Murray Robert Vigliotti Dwight Richardson (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Chief Planner, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 1,2004, 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, WRITIEN 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 PRESENT A TION 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 corning 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- PAUL MIDNEY WILL NOT BE PRESENT DURING THE JULY 2004, MEETINGS. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 6, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -JUNE 8, 2004, REGULAR MEETING; JUNE 9,2004, WORKSHOP 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: BD-2004-AR-5335, Calusa Island Village, L.C., represented by Jerry Neal, P.E., of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a boat dock extension for a SO-slip residential dock facility consisting of a marginal dock protruding up to 26.8 feet into the waterway. The property is located at the intersection of State Road 29A and Sunset Drive in Goodland, further described as Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block E, Goodland Isles Subdivision, and the west 129.5 feet of undivided Block X, Goodland Isles Subdivision, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5798, James and Connie Adams, property owners, represented by Richard Rundle, requesting a 1.98-foot variance from Section 3.5.2.E of the Imperial West PUD (Ordinance 82-80), which requires a distance between principal structures of 20 feet or one half (1/2) the sum of the heights of the adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 18.02 feet on the east side of Lot 46. The petitioner also requests a four foot variance from the distance between principal structures of 20 feet or one half (1/2) the sum of the heights of the adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 16 feet on the west side of Lot 46. The subject property is located at 1155 Imperial Drive, further described as Lot 46, Park Place West, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 32-33, consisting of 6283.46 square feet (.14 acres). (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) C. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4978. Julio Del Risco represented by Pamela Stewart, Esq., requesting Conditional Use 6 of the RMF-12 zoning district for a Group Care Facility. The property is located at 4470 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as Lot 16 and the west 1/2 of Lot 17, Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 81. The property is in Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of .34± acres. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) D. Petition: PDI-2004-AR-5386. SJG Land Trust, represented by Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting an insubstantial change to the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD Master Plan, to shift the location of Target or Non-Target Use Area "B" comprising 1.11 acres and located on the south side of the access road and relocate it to the north side of the access road on a lot comprising 1.07± acres and then re-numbering lots accordingly. The property is located in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. (Coordinator: Michael J. DeRuntz) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN CCPC AgendaIRBlldlsp 2 July 1, 2004 1. Chairman Russell Budd called the meeting to order at 8:30 AM and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Roll Call- a quorum was established with Mr. Richardson and Mr. Midney being excused. 3. Addenda to the Agenda Request by Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White, regarding a proposed meeting on Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 5:05 PM. Mr. Strain moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Mr. Abernathy. Carried unanimously 7-0. 4. Planning Commission Absences - Paul Midney will not be present during the July 2004, meetings. 5. Approval of Minutes - May 6, 2004, Regular Meeting Mr. Adelstein moved the May 6, 2004 minutes be approved at presented. Second by Mr. Murray. Carried unanimously 7-0. 6. BCC Report-Recaps-June 8, 2004, Regular Meeting June 9, 2004, Workshop · BCC voted 3-2 to deny the request for the Variance for Dowdy property. · Naples Craig Business Park was continued indefinitely. (Problem with advertising concerning building heights - petitioner wishes to bring back to the Planning Commission on August 5th) · Approved on the summary Agenda the PUD for Lake Trafford rezone. 7. Chairman's Report - None Assistant County Patrick White - do a Scrivener's Ordinance for the Board of County Commissioners on July 27th. There was an additional item that was continued to respect of the political signs. An initial vote of 3-2 in favor of proposal and then discussion in which that motion was rescinded and a decision to continue until July 27th meeting for further information be provided to the Commissioners and address their concerns. They are ongoing and will have a discussion on it on the 27th of July. In addition and part of the same Ordinance, there was always anticipated that any additional Scribner's errors found, since it was adopted, would be corrected as allowed by the adopting Ordinance itself. Another provision based on Board action in the meeting of June 22nd, required them to make a substantive and preemptive change to the existing LDC that will not go out of effect until September 26th at midnight. That is to delete, before that time, provisions pertaining to solicitations for charitable contributions within the public rights-of-way. Board action, at their June 22nd meeting, required them to make the change prior to the effective date to allow for that type of activity. They will do that by effectively deleting a small portion of the still, effective and existing LDC provisions in Section 2.1.15. In abundance of caution they believe it appropriate to have the CCPC consider the Super-Scribner's 2 July 1, 2004 Ordinance prior to the Board voting on it. But for the last provision pertaining to the charitable solicitations, everything else could have gone forward to the Board under the prior authority of the adopting Ordinance, as quote "Scrivener's Errors". Since the Board will have to consider an Ordinance on the 27th of July and because of the last provision based on the Board action on June 22nd, involving charitable solicitations - he asked for an abundance of caution asking for their indulgence to have a meeting on July 27th, Thursday at 5:00 PM. Reason to ask early in the Agenda is because they are required to make advertising requirements of 15 days. Had to place the ad yesterday by noon. They did so, with a hope to achieve the July 27th 5:00 PM date and time - ifnot appropriate he needed to get to the Naples Daily News the information today. Mr. Abernathy asked Mr. White ifthey will consider the LDC change concerning charitable solicitation in the medians of highways on its merits or just pass it along. Mr. White responded he has always asked the body to consider the merits with respect to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He did not know if that was an issue because effectively, they are talking about an Ordinance that is referenced in the provisions that he mentioned earlier. It effectively talks about the original Ordinance for rights-of-way, 76-11 as amended. The reason it will not appear after September 27th, is that it is going to be in the Code of Laws. They are in concert with the deletion out of the LDC of the provision, looking to create a part of another ordinance the Board will hear on the 27th of July which they are calling an omnibus Code of Laws Ordinance and packaged in with all the things they were taking out of the LDC and transplanting more properly into the Code of Laws. There are a series of provisions - all appendix H's had the listing of sections - anticipating to the Code of Laws - (red tags) going into the Omnibus Ordinance and includes the revised provisions for the charitable solicitations in rights-of-way. They do want their substantive consideration. Mr. Murray moved to hold a CCPC meeting for Scrivener's Errors on Thursday, July 27th, 2004 in the Board Chambers. Second by Mr. Strain. Carried unanimously 7-0. 8. Advertised Public Hearings A. BD-2004-AR-5335 - Calusa Island Village, L.c., represented by Jerry Neal P.E., of Hole Montes, Inc. requesting a boat dock extension for a 50-slip residential dock facility consisting of a marginal dock protruding up to 26.8 feet into the waterway. The property is located at the intersection of State Road 29A and Sunset Drive in Goodland, further described as lots 33, 34, and 35, Block E, Goodland Isles Subdivision, and the west 129.5 feet of undivided Block X, Goodland Isles Subdivision, Collier County, Florida. 3 July 1, 2004 Disclosures: Mr. Strain spoke with Mr. Hermanson concerning his concerns and response to a letter he received for objections to the project. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. PETITIONER Jerry Neal- Hole Montes - representing the owner. They have an existing old site that has been there since the 60's and is now being developed. The subject area was shown on the visualizer. He also showed the area in discussion of the proposed marginal dock. The shoreline is in question - it is consistent with some mangroves and a lot of Brazilian pepper. Photo shown was taken before the removal of the exotics. They are proposing having the 35 foot slip for each unit. The slip is 35 feet - the anticipated boat length is between 18 & 25. There is no provision stating they have to put a max on that. A boat with a maximum of 35 feet can't get in the slip. The 18-25 is general size boats in the area and expectant size in that area. In the past they have always put down a range, not meaning to be minimum or maximum rather than what was just anticipated. He requested the CCPC look at that with one of the conditions being the 18-25 is not a minimum/maximum - just a range of what they expect. The letter sent to Steve Lenberger in reference to the Manatee Protection Plan was discussed. The table for the Plan was filled out and agreed to by Mr. Lenberger stating they are proposing a total for the entire site - existing 500 feet of dock, plus the proposed additional extension is 50 slips and allowable under the Manatee Protection Plan. They are under the maximum of the Plan. Has a letter from David Weeks after going through Environmental and Natural Resources. Stated they were consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Conservation and Coastal Management and the Manatee Protection and in-compliance with the local set-back regulations and building codes. Issued by the County on May 24th. Has a permit from Dept. of Environmental Protection (State Agency for permit to construct). Showed typical 35 foot slip they are requesting on the visualizer. Showed the line showing the 25% into the waterway line based off the property line. Should be a drawing in their packets of the docks coming together for the existing and new docks. The waterway width from the property line is 120 - 19 for existing and 28 for proposed- leaving 73 or navigational area of 61 %. The application pamphlet shows the building and station number - the width of the waterway, the protrusion they are requesting and the percentage of the waterway. Exhibit 34 - summary table - showed 2 points - Building 11 & 12 - percentage is 25.4 & 25.8. The remainder is under the 25% protrusion rule. Staff report states they meet all other criteria except two buildings they are asking for over the 25 up to the 28%. Exhibit 7 of 34 was shown on visualizer. 4 July 1, 2004 Mr. Strain asked why he measured the existing dock measuring from the corner, but showing 120 foot from the waterway width - why measure it there instead of further left on the map going further into the channel. Mr. Neal stated what they are reviewing today was pointed out on the map - and not the portion Mr. Strain referred to. They talked about Building #11 and the corner lot and getting the aerial off the website. Mr. Neal bought a disc from the tax assessor in 2003 and mentioned that is where they acquired the aerials. Mr. Strain said that particular Homeowner wrote a letter to the CCPC with questions that needed to be answered today. Mr. Neal displayed an aerial and pointed to the boat and dock on the interior finger. (The aerial photos were discussed as to being older photos) Showed another dock and stated the water width is 103 feet. They are taking 25%...... Under the rule - 25% on either side is allowable and need to maintain navigable water of 50%. There is now 25% on their side - and if they do 25% on the other side - it would remain the 50 feet navigational- meaning they could have their dock and whatever boat they tie up - up to 26 feet under the rule. Mr. Strain referred to the chart Exhibit 34 - buildings 11 & 12 being marginal in regards to the protrusion - he asked if that would affect any of the numbers on the chart. In assuming they will, would it make it any worse in relationship to the way staff has evaluated it. Mr. Neal stated they could pull 11 & 12 in a little bit - in filing the petitions, sometimes it takes one to two years getting it through the system - when they were filed they were not there. They could tighten them up to make them back to the 25% instead of going over it. George Hermanson - Hole Montes - the particular area where the dock has been added are entitled to another 25% - which would be about 26 feet. He didn't think they were below the 50% navigable even with the dock being added. Mr. Strain's issue is that the staff takes this into consideration and will discuss it with them. Mr. Neal showed the existing dock and mangroves etc. With the relationship between the dock and mangroves is why they are trying to push it out as far as they could so as not to damage the mangroves when the dock is installed. Bringing it in another foot would be no problem. Would just have to be more careful in installing the pilings next to the mangroves. He showed one being 24 of 34 cross sections - top showing 20 feet from property line - talked about the 25% rule getting the outside edge of the mangroves and the inside edge ofthe docking facility and being installed without a lot of damage to the trees. 5 -- July 1, 2004 Mr. Schiffer asked about the last slide in measuring the width of the canals and asked if he is measuring at low tide, high tide or property line? The East side is measured to the seawall- if a dock/or dock and boat, they measure to that. The property line is a fixed line. Mr. Schiffer asked how they measured the width of the waterway - seawall to what? Mr. Neal answered to the property line in what they had filed. He showed what they proposed in minor dredging, after all cross sections presented, there is a stretch across from the first canal that needs to be dredged a bit under the dock and another stretch from the 4th or 5th building to the end. Exhibit 30 of 34 is an example of the dredging proposed to get depth of water at the dock for the boat at low tide. Not mean low water - but low tide. Mr. Strain asked about the property line.. ...Mr. Neal showed it on the map - Exhibits 5 of 8 shows what is across the water way at the seawall and shows what the 25% is. There is a 25% line for the mean high water calculations with the two lines showing the waterway and the other the property line. 7 of 8 showed the boat line, the grey line and the high mean water line and the property line on inside and mean high water being on the outside at 25%. Showed both percent to the staffto show the relationship between the two. Mr. Hermanson mentioned they track close together - south end of canal, the mean high water goes inside the property line. Referred to 8 of 8 is that the bold line shown is the property line and behind it the mean high water is 10 feet inside the property. At another point it is 38 feet inside the property. (Rather out to the mean high water line).... Mr. Neal summarized - showed what the dock would look like. No outside mooring piles - if anything builds, it would come from the dock itself according to Mr. Neal. Would be docking parallel to shoreline, that's where the marginal term comes in. Mr. Murray asked about the boats during a hurricane. Mr. Neal responded during hurricane warnings, they are to pull the boats out, put on a trailer and put in a storage yard or facility. If they can tie it up and have enough spring lines, they can then leave their boats there. In this case they would probably relocate their boats. No intention at a future date to put any piles outside. There is a launching ramp close by. Mr. Strain asked ifthey had a Corp. of Engineers permit. Mr. Neal was hoping to have it before today as it was submitted, but they had some questions to respond to. On February 26th the County was to write a letter to them to show consistency in the Growth Management Plan, Manatee Plan and the Coastal Element. The letter was written three months later, which put them behind on time. Fish & Wildlife wrote a request for information in which the applicant was not part of. They responded back to the May 25th letter to the Army Corp. and had a request that came from Fish & Wildlife in which he responded back on June 22,2004. The comment 6 -..- July 1,2004 from Fish & Wildlife was verification from Florida Fish & Game or the County that this is consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan. They waited for the County letter, submitted it and the question they had was then cleared up. Mr. Strain stated the package states they are going to work with between 15 & 25 length boats. That range is not a limitation or minimum or maximum according to Mr. Neal. If they need to set a maximum of a 35 foot slip - since it is parallel, meaning the motor, the pulpit and everything, it would have to be within the 35 feet. The letter from Fish & Wildlife - April 12, 2004 - received by the Corp. only question they had was about the Manatee Protection Plan. Mr. Schiffer asked what utilities can be brought out to the dock. Mr. Neal responded possibly for water and electric for lights. The slips are for the particular unit purchased and cannot be leased or rented out. He had a letter from the Goodland Civic Association written to Ross Gochenaur, written on March 30, 2004. Says they have no opposition and a vote was taken in favor of allowing it and parallel to the dock is approximately 35 feet. A 35 foot boat would not be able to get into a 35 foot slip. ST AFF Ross Gochenaur - Zoning and Land Development Review - addressed the question of conflicting aerial photos and waterway width. The petition has been under review for 6 months. Showed aerial photo that was used to assess. Showed the area and lot 24 - author of the letter, didn't show new dock. Checked with property appraiser with the GIS website being updated showing the aerial. With the waterway that is 100 feet they have 20 feet to work with regardless that no facility is to protrude more than 25% unless they go to the CCPC with a petition. They can't build the dock any further than 20 feet into the waterway. They have a valid building permit for the dock. If extending it, would be limiting it to the 25%. Have minimal precedence for protrusions beyond the 25% - typically whoever comes in on opposite side of the waterway is going to have to build to maintain the 50% navigation criterion. He apologized for not checking the aerials, and does not make a difference in his evaluation. Other questions: State & Federal Permits - · Stipulation in the Resolution that says they will not approve the Site Development Plan until they present copies of approved permits. No permits, no SDP, no SDP, no building permits, no building permits - no docks. Will not approve SDP until the Corp of Permits is gotten. Is a lengthy process. Waited for a letter from staff, part of that time was staff waiting for documentation from Mr. Neal so the environmentalist could complete their reviews. No permit no SDP. · Vessel range - normally they deal with single family docks, people can be more specific. In this case they do expect a range. Petitioner provided them with one range and was reduced to what they have now. When the slips are occupied, they have no control over the size of the vessel the owner can put in that slip. They 7 July 1, 2004 ask for a range that will accommodate what they think the owners will have. They do normally expect a range with an approx. minimum and approx. maximum. Doesn't make a difference here. He did not consider the original 32 feet unreasonable. When reduced, he did not question it. If the boat has a greater beam that can be accommodated, under the protrusion granted, it is then illegally moored. Mr. Murray asked ifthere was any liability to the County if they asked them to give those ranges, and there is an accident, is there anything that impacts on them? Mr. White -Assistant County Attorney - responded ifhe is referring to Collier County he didn't think there was any liability to the County. There is a condition to the permit and if the condition is not followed, any result in an accident, the County shouldn't be put in a position of any liability. Assuming there was compliance, there wouldn't be liability either. Doesn't mean there wouldn't be a suit filed. Mr. Strain asked about the 18 slip - saying there is a non-conforming legal dock in the report and asked Ross what made it non-conforming. Mr. Gochenaur said it was built at a protrusion greater than 20 feet into the waterway at some point in time. The Code says any dock that was constructed prior to 1990 and found on the property, aerial photograph or survey is basically grandfathered in. They established it existed the way it is today, prior to 1990. Mr. Strain noticed on the staff recommendations - 1, 2, 3 & 5 seem to be redundant policies in the Code - asked if that was correct. He referred to the Manatee signage and reflectors and house numbers - thought they were already in the Code. Wondered if they needed to be redundant in the recommendation. Mr. Gochenaur said they don't need to be redundant, but those stipulations have been in both dock resolutions since he has been doing boat docks. It was intended to reinforce the requirement by reminding the applicant those things needed to be done. An owner of a single family home may not be aware of those regulations. Mr. White commented additional support for having them as conditions of a specific permit are that, there is a potential that the rule in the LDC may change prior to the permit being implemented. If it were to change, staff feels the recommendation of approval is condition, only, upon the permitee performing those functions. In this instance, the rule that would otherwise apply should be followed. The rule that was in effect when the approval was granted is the one that should be applied in order to resolve to ensure compliance with the Code today, or if it changes. In order to assure the approval is given, meets all the sets of criterion, staffs position is that is an appropriate condition to attack. Mr. Abernathy said to give the applicant actual, rather than constructive knowledge of what the law says. 8 July 1,2004 Mr. Strain referred to #4 - stated if they put a pile down to support the dock, 10-12 inch diameter pile, wherever the base of that pile hits the clump of oysters, they would have to dig them out and move them. Thought it strange they asked that. Stipulation reflects the requirements of the Code. Mr. Schiffer is still concerned about the width of the boat and asked if Ross felt a 32 foot boat would be less - only 10 feet to the center of the pile - not against the pile - so maybe 9 foot wide - and wondered if that was reasonable to expect a boat 32 foot long to be 9 foot wide? Mr. Gochenaur said it was possible, but not sure what some ofthe racers are, but are relevantly narrow beam. Does not have the expertise to answer the question, but didn't see it as a concern. They will moor it there without running into the boats moored on either side, or the beam not able to protrude beyond what they mayor may not grant them. Mr. Schiffer is worried about the width - if a 10 foot wide boat was gotten, they would be into the 50% - his concern is the width of the boats may not be reasonably considered. Mr. Gochenaur didn't feel there was a direct relationship between the length and the beam. Example is a party barge is a garage with a hull- and can be up to 15 feet wide. Cannot control what a property owner does when he breaks the law. Mr. Schiffer said they can control it by tolerance if they leave it where there is tolerance so that a guy has a wider boat that is not in the 50% - that is how they can control it. Mr. Murray asked ifthey were allowed to install whips on the dock. They can install anything that would not protrude beyond the granted protrusion. Probably not practical as it is only going to be a 5 foot walkway. They can have anything to moor or lift the boat. Mr. Murray felt they invite all kinds of problems for the future by the absence of some kind of control. · Has a single letter of objection in which the author asked it be read in it's entirety into the record. It is two pages long, everyone had received a copy, the petitioner has a copy and with the CCPC's permission Mr. Gochenaur would like to accept the letter as part of the official record and move forward. · They are recommending approval. The single criterion that it does not meet the 25% protrusion, they figure it meets the 50% waterway width for navigation, therefore recommending approval. SPEAKERS Connie Fullmer - President of Goodland Preservation Coalition - wanted to read the letter into the record out of concern that it wouldn't get read into the vocal record rather 9 July 1, 2004 than just being part of their packets. She wanted to read it to bring out some of the issues she wished to discuss with them. Mr. Budd stated they receive thousands ofletters every year and is legally and factually in the record if it is received by them and if she could just address the issues they can discuss them. Letter is fÌom Debbie Pappie. Mr. Strain mentioned his questions had been centered on that letter and the reason he asked the few he did was they had not been answered by the discussion. She asked about the protrusion into the waterway with the request being 26.8 foot protrusion. Not only is Mrs. Pappie concerned, but has received other phone calls from other individuals along Sunset - showed map - protrusion into the waterway of 26.8 feet would come from the mean high water line. Discussed the allowance of 8 feet out to meet the current County Code of 20 feet. They are asking for an additional 6 feet into the waterway - concerns from folks living along that canal is how do they know that the canal isn't 100 foot wide all along the way. That living on Sunset and one individuals concern is the traffic coming down their canal and larger boats going up the canal where the dock exists. She showed pictures of the area and the current extension of the walkway. By approving the extension down the width of the canal, the concern is the addition ofthe walkway coming out and allowing the petitioner to go further into the canal- 8 plus 8.6 feet. The turnaround and maneuverability will be difficult. Will protrude further than the 25%. The concern is the extension, the additional 6.8 feet into the canal. One way to remedy the extension of the boardwalk is maybe have it set back closer to the shoreline so they don't need the extra feet. The other item is the request for dredging - a concern on why are they looking at this now as the Fish & Wildlife and the Corp of Engineers haven't put their report in for approval. It may not be approved. Concerned about the protrusion because of the maneuverability and the dredging. Earl Cowles - President of the Goodland Civic Assoc. - Connie and Earl were sworn in at this time. A presentation had been given to the people of Goodland and they took a vote on the issues. No one at that time was complaining. He is also a Dock Master and has a Captain and Masters license. He knows of no boats that are sold over 8 foot 6 wide because of the DOT hauling it down the highway. When the docks are completed they are part of the Condo Assoc. Also he knows of no Condo Doc Assoc. that during a hurricane they must remove the boat from the dock. Mr. Calhoun has a wide dock plus a boat lift on the outside. People bought to overlook the water or have access to the water. The person objecting has a dock over 100 feet long. He referred to the canal and that this particular canal is one of the largest. Anyone that wants to invest in a condo should have a right to the water and the rest of people of Goodland should also be good neighbors and get along. If the boats are limited to a 35 foot dock and talking about a 25 foot boat (not including the engine) it would be almost impossible to dock boats if everybody had 25 foot boats on 35 foot docks. Could be something put in the Condo Docs. 10 July 1,2004 Mr. Strain responded to the lady's comments - the one about moving the docks closer to the shoreline. Mr. Gochenaur responded according to the petitioner it is not. They are trying to preserve mangroves, and if possible, the petitioner would have done it. Mr. Strain came to that conclusion but wanted the question answered on record. He also asked if dredging can occur without agency approval. Mr. Gochenaur stated he didn't think the water is under County jurisdiction. Mr. Neal said the classifications of water are State owned, man made or man altered. If it was a platted waterway in a plat, then the dedication would have gone to the County. It it was not platted then the County does not own it. The County does not need to be involved in the dredging permit for this property. The State issues the permit. Mr. Strain asked ifthe County would monitor to make sure the permits for the dredging have been obtained from the State. They wouldn't do it in the context of this petition - the State or Federal permits that are necessary to allow the dock to go where they want to put it, are stipulated in Resolution. Dredging is optional- they grant them the permits to build the dock, if they need to dredge the way they want to - that is a separate issue and permit. Joe Schmitt said the only way the County would get involved was if the dredging was impacted someway in the mangrove areas etc. or where disposal material was placed. Public hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of BD-2004-AR-5335 with the following stipulations: 1 - There will be no leasing or sharing of slips. The slips will remain with the units on a one to one basis. 2 - They will maintain the 50% navigational rule. 3 - The vessel length will not exceed 32 feet. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Schmidt wondered if they can enforce as far as no sharing. Mr. White assumed this is not a recommendation of approval but an actual CCPC approval. Mr. Gochenaur agreed it is a motion for approval by the CCPC. Mr. White stated based on the testimony they had from the gentlemen in regards to the covenants and restrictions for the Condominium - was an appropriate condition. If they 11 July 1, 2004 were to think about changing it, they would have to take into consideration that condition. They can impose it, if not challenged, assuming the Condo Docs were changed, he felt they lawfully could continue to enforce it. He is with the understanding that it is already in their Condo Docs. Mr. Murray asked if there was a maximum length of boat in the Condo Docs. He would offer that 32 feet at 35 is pushing it. In waters in a quiet canal with wind - is inviting a potential for accident. Mr. Hermanson didn't believe there is intent to lease or share - clients are out of town and he did not know if it were in the condominium documents. He stated if they put it in as a condition, that's what they will have to do. Mr. Budd stated they have a clarified motion of approval at this stage - not a forwarding to clarify the appropriateness of tying the lots into the units. He said they discussed the width of the boats, and if they are inviting wider boats to show up - it seems to him that it is an enforcement issue. If the protrusion is violated, it is an enforcement issue. The issues they have seen over the years it has not been coming back as a problem that there is an excessively wide boats more than what is permitted. Mr. Adelstein said they need to amend the motion as made. They are taking it out of forwarding it to - and asked if Mr. Strain accepts that. Mr. Strain stated "yes". Mr. Schiffer asks about the width again and asked if Code Enforcement is going to measure? Mr. White attempted to indicate earlier that the ideas that these are conditions for this permit, that may be legally enforceable, does not mean that it is a practical matter that can be enforced readily. That is Mr. Schmitt's concern. Need to balance the factors as a matter of consideration; if series of complaints are not resolved. If the provisions in the Condo Docs have violations, then they are posted as conditions of the permit. The County could enforce based on those conditions. Mr. Abernathy called for the question. Mr. Murray recommended Mr. Strain consider revising the length to 28 feet. The Question was called and Mr. Budd said the motion is clear and stated - they had discussed it and called for the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Strain repeated his conditions for Mr. Gochenaur. Mr. Bellows called to everyone's attention that the Petitioner for 8. (C), the Conditional Use 6, has asked for an indefinite continuance. There was a problem with the advertising. They are not able to present today. 12 July 1,2004 Mr. Strain moved to continue Item 8. (C) indefinitely. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 7-0. BREAK-I0:0l AM RECONVENED -10:13 AM B. V A-2004-AR-5798 - James and Connie Adams, property owners, represented by Richard Rundle, requesting a 1.98 foot variance from Section 3.5.2.E of the Imperial West PUD (Ordinance 82-80), which requires a distance between principal structures of 20 feet or one half (112) the sum of the heights of the adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 18.02 feet on the east side of Lot 46. The petitioner also requests a four foot variance from the distance between principal structures of 20 feet or one half the sum of the heights of the adjacent structures, whichever is greater to 16 feet on the west side of Lot 46. The subject property is located at 1155 Imperial Drive, further described as Lot 46, Park Place West, in section 15, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6283.46 square feet. Disclosures - None. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. This petition has 2 variances. PETITIONER Connie Adams - she and her husband would like to build a home in Park Place West. (A private sub-division) They are asking approval for 2 variances before they can have the building permit approved. The first variance is to add a 2 foot bay window onto the side of the home as the other three homes to the east of them. 1143 Imperial Drive has a bay window, 1147 and 1151 have bay windows and their lot being 1155 would like to have a bay window to be consistent. They will have the same builder. It will not be the wall- just the window. The other variance is to stay within the guidelines of Imperial of Park Place West - of staying 10 feet in for setback line on the side of the home. Lot 47- pointing to the map - home was moved over by 4 feet years ago when built in 1996. The other homes were all 10 foot - theirs being the last lot in line is kind of sandwiched. They don't want to stay within the 20 feet, but within the 10 feet and not have to move their house over. It would not be in line with the integrity of the entire area. Mr. Adelstein understands there are two area sizes for homes. The one at 2,820 feet and the other at 2,293 feet. He asked if they would need the variance if the home was 2,293 feet rather than 2,820. Mrs. Adams stated their home is approx. 1,700 square feet under air. 13 July 1,2004 Mr. Abernathy asked what window it looks out of. It is the dining room as in all the other homes. The other homes look nice with the bay and would like theirs too. Keeping up with the integrity ofthe neighborhood. Mr. Abernathy noticed the neighbor on the other side is complaining and has a lot of nerve. It seems it is his building that caused the problem. They are the third homeowner of that property. Mr. Adelstein asked if the variance 1.98 is the window. Mrs. Adams stated it is. STAFF Mike DeRuntz - Planning and Land Development Review - the development is Imperial West and in the PUD regulations there are not sideline setbacks. There is a 20 foot separation between structures. When the homes were developed, the Master Plan identified - on the map shown - the setbacks starting shifting down. Mrs. Adams' lot was undeveloped, the houses located on Lots 40 & 45 were built with a 10 foot separation. There is substantial distance between existing structures. Staff is recommending this be taken into consideration. Mr. Schiffer said it wasn't fair to pile on Lot 47 because it was actually built according to the Master Plan. Looks like they were setting up a 6 foot on one side and a 14 foot on the other side. This house could be shifted over 4 feet and not be violated at all. The neighbor that actually built it on the wrong place is the guy on the other side that built it 10 feet instead of 14 feet. In following the subdivision Master Plan they did approve covenants to identify 10 foot separation. The PUD applies to the regulations. It is similar to multi-family zoning classification. They have to follow the PUD. There will be multi-family in the PUD. Mr. Schiffer asked why they are holding Mrs. Adams when she is a single-family part of the proj ect. Mr. DeRuntz said it is platted as a PUD and they have to follow what the PUD regulations are. Mr. Schiffer mentioned he would rather honor the plan on the screen then the 20 feet. If she would shift the bay window over, when the people built on lot 47, he thinks they were expecting a 14 foot set-back on the lot on 46. Mr. DeRuntz stated they purchased the property "as is" - and when the house was built, it was built to the Master Plan. The guy the other way built his at 10 feet rather than 14 feet according to the plan causing her to be in a non-compliance situation. The entrance to the house is towards the street. Mr. Schiffer felt they need to come to some conclusion that there isn't a problem with Lot 47 and the people on Lot 47 expect to see 14 feet separation. He thinks they should average it to 2 feet on each side. 14 July 1,2004 Mr. Adelstein said the staff report says if they approve it - if the home gets destroyed in any manner more than 50%, they are back to starting it again and thinks it should be eliminated. Mr. Murray needed to get something clear in his mind - the people rrom England state that it is clear from their purchase documents that their building is correctly located. That being a fact was confirmed. Mr. Strain stated Brad's point was well taken - if Lot 45 was the house that became inconsistence with the whole program - it is not Lot 47. The imposition of Lot 46 should really be more towards 45 than Lot 47. Lot 46 is a vacant lot. They have applied for a building permit but on a hold status depending on this variance request. If they moved 4 feet closer to 45, they would have the clearance that 47 expected. 45 would be reduced, but their own worse enemy since they created the problem more than 47 did. Mr. Abernathy mentioned in assuming 45 people (owners) didn't know any more than 47 did. He wondered if they have an advertising problem putting 45 on notice that they are about to change their set-back. Discussion followed on 45 out of whack, the covenants and the set-backs etc. Mrs. Adams stated 43-44 & 45 are all 10 feet on each side. Mr. Schiffer said if they moved her over and made it 12 feet, the people rrom England are expecting 14, would mean she wouldn't even need a variance. Not sure the 20 feet is the issue or applies to this track. Can have single family in Multi-family zoned district. He was referencing that multi- family residential as a compatible type zoning district. Mr. Schiffer didn't feel it was compatible and ifthey are going to violate 2 feet of something, the 2 feet is a large set-back for them. They are just window areas, views in their yards. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Adelstein felt the 2 feet was a better idea. Mr. Schiffer moved to approve a 12 foot set-back on the western side. A 6'.02 set- back on the east side. Mr. Strain felt this was an advertising problem because people on Lot 45 probably didn't think "they had a care in the world" and if the section ofthe PUD presented today is applicable, and he's wondering if it is or not. Where do they go from here? 15 July 1, 2004 Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - suggested they continue the item until the next meeting. They can have the PUD Master Plan before them and be satisfied all the requirements are met and a variance is necessary. Mr. Abernathy asked to make sure there are not standards for single-family homes. Mr. DeRuntz's testimony stands for that. Doesn't commend itselfto common sense to have multi-family standards and then have single. Marjorie Student stated this is an ancient PUD with a 1982 PUD with later amendments. In the older PUD's they were not like they are now. Mr. Bellows asked to look at the Master Plan. It will show that the tract is in a multi- family tract so the set-backs required are the distance between structure set-backs. It is confusing because they are talking about single-family but is in a multi-family tract. Mike is saying that is where the 20 foot distance between structures - that is what they need to look at. That is what the PUD says. They showed Tract "D". They are selling as "fee simple." Mr. Strain then asked how they can be a condo. Mr. Bellows stated it is an older project and the market changed and platted to create single family "fee simple" lots. The PUD was never amended to develop set-backs for the single family. Can only go on what the PUD says. Mr. Schiffer suggested waiving the 20 feet and making it 18 feet - achieving the same thing. Mr. Strain said they don't have any standards that apply to this other than what the LDC says for single family homes - which is 7 1'2 feet. Mr. Bellows stated the subject site in question designated a tract on the Master Plan- which is the legal document they go by. It's a multi-family tract. Setbacks to be applied for all structures in the tract or the 20 feet between structures. They are not meeting that. That is the purpose of the variance request. Marjorie Student said this is bringing up some issues they have and would like to bring it back to the next hearing and evaluate the PUD and also bring up the plat approval on a multi-family lot. Would like to continue until the next meeting of July 15th. Mr. Budd supported Ms. Student's suggestion of a continuance and not continue debating. Mr. Murray moved to continue until July 15th. Second by Mr. Strain. Mr. Adelstein wanted to know what they are going to find out between now and the next meeting that they don't already know. 16 July 1, 2004 The County Attorney will research and give them clear legal advice. Ms. Student is interested in how it was platted when on the Master Plan it is designated multi-family. May be a bigger issue. Motion carried unanimously 7-0. Mr. Budd complimented Mrs. Adams on the fine job she did in her presentation. C. PDI-2004-AR-5386 - SJG Land Trust, represented by Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc. requesting an insubstantial change to the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD Master Plan, to shift the location of Target or Non-Target Use Area "B" comprising 1.11 acres and located on the south side of the access road and relocate it to the north side of the access road on a lot comprising 1.07 +/- acres and then renumbering lots accordingly. The property is located in Collier County, FL. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Budd. Disclosures - Mr. Strain had a conversation with Mr. Duane and Tony Pires. PETITIONER Robert Duane - Hole Montes & Assoc. - before beginning his presentation he mentioned on behalf of staff he renumbered the lots in and the PUD Master Plan does not show the lots renumbered. It is important because Lot #9 is the tract that Marsh Industries is going to be developing in the near future. Has been before the CCPC several times regarding the Naples Research and Technology Park. The Comprehensive Plan was amended years ago and was the first park in under that land designation for the zoning approval. Marsh Industries will close on their property today. They are taking the existing Master Plan - currently it designates target or non-target use areas shown on the visualizer. They are taking the non-target area and going from one side of the street to the other. They are allowed to have 2.5 acres in this PUD. The non- target use area is allowed C-3 related kinds of uses. Several years ago there was C-2 Commercial located in the corner and was always contemplated for some kind of non- residential use. There is opposition - he made a few points. When zoning the property in 2003, they had concerns from the North property owner in Lee County. They incorporated a lot of safeguards into the Ordinance at that time and had their support. They have a 35 foot preserve area along the North property line. They were required to place palms 12-20 feet high - 10 feet center. This creates a very dense vegetated area. Also required to put an 8 foot wall along the North property line. Supposed to be put in 17 July 1, 2004 place prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued for any of the technology park related uses. They put limitations on loading and unloading in the Ordinance. They limited the height to 35 feet and also pared down a number of uses permitted in the Research and Technology. This is more compatible with the neighbor to the North. At that time they were comfortable with that standard, but they are back with another hearing. Last point - there is a requirement that residential development be constructed in the Technology Park on non-target use area "A" or "B" - up to a maximum of 12 units. Not sure it will end up on lot "1" or "2" - the residential component, but getting it off 41 would be logical to him. There are standards in the PUD that when mixing the commercial and residential uses together, consideration needs to be given on noise, directing lighting away from commercial use, separating pedestrian and vehicular use areas. They are not going to end up with residential development above a 24 hour fast food restaurant. He and staff believe it is compatible and recommend they (CCPC) support the proposal. Mr. Adelstein asked about the substantial change - if it wasn't useable would it be different in what they have to prove or show? Mr. Duane responded the insubstantial process is a more abbreviated process. They just go to the Planning Commission, not amending the Ordinance. Just changing the Master Plan map. Previously they were building 12 units Mr. Adelstein said. He didn't understand how this becomes an insubstantial change. Mr. Duane said the Master Plan is changing by putting a use from one side of the street to the other. Mr. Strain stated they are then moving some uses that could have different intensities from one side of the street to the other. Some may not be as concerned on one side as on the opposite side of the street. The uses were discussed. Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney - there is a list of criteria that is up to the Planning Commission to make for determination of whether it is substantial or insubstantial. There are 10 criteria on page 3 and 4 of the staff report. That is the guide. Staff has addressed them and today they are to hear testimony to each one in making a determination as to whether they are or are not. Mr. Schiffer asked about the separation ofthe two non-target lots - if they were put together, he wondered if someone could buy both lots, combine them, and do non-target on a larger tract - perhaps a two acre tract. The two lots according to Mr. Duane could have target or non-target use, being an option. Could develop for related uses. 18 July 1,2004 Mr. Schiffer is focusing on the non-target. He asked if a non-target use could buy the lots and in essence of a 2 acre non-target development on the corner. Mr. Duane answered "yes." Within limitations established. He is reducing the size of 2.54 acres to 2.5. It is a reduction for the retail component of the project. The reason is to have the ability to combine the lots to have light uses and they also have the preserve area to deal with on the south side ofthe road - 25 feet. Impedes ability to develop that lot. Being no aerial provided, Mr. Strain asked what was to the immediate north non-targeted area - "A and B." It is in Lee County and zoned for RPD - residential and vacant. STAFF Mike DeRuntz - Zoning and Land Development Review - staff reviewed the insubstantial change to a PUD and has found it meets the insubstantial criteria. No additional impact to traffic or environmental or other issues related to the LDC. One issue with the original plat in the exhibit is the numbering of the Lots. When they shifted the non-target areas from side to the other, the one exhibit is not correct. They had to drop Lot 3 in the numbering sequence. Where Lot 9 is located, would stay Lot 9. In speaking with Ms. Student and Mr. White, it should not be a problem in dropping the number in the sequential numbering of the lots. The PUD has many specifications relating to activities on Lot 9. It would remain the same with the proposal. Mr. Schiffer stated if someone bought both lots they could build a much larger use - the scale would be much larger than if they were separate lots. Mr. DeRuntz agreed. SPEAKERS Tony Pires - representing the property owner to the North - Developer McArnold Trust and Oakbrook properties. Mr. Pires was sworn in by Mr. Budd. Mr. Pires stated when this application came before them originally, a year ago, there was a residential development called Spanish Wells to the North. Spanish Wells has been there 30 years. It is an established community which is not all built out. The property to the north is part of the Spanish Wells, residential, golf course community in Lee County. They are not trying to stop this - believe the request is substantial. The types of uses on a non-target areas are car wash, drive through facility for any permitted use, food stores, drug stores, pharmacy group, restaurants, fast food, hotel, motel and convenience food and beverage store with fuel pumps. Everyone was use to living with commercial in the past. They have now, along US 41, increased 200 linear feel and along the northern property line is some very intensive commercial uses. The convenience food and 19 July 1,2004 beverage store with fuel pumps are very intensive trip generated traffic uses. He felt the rationale by staff was switching uses and lots within a particular development. They are now shifting the intensity to another area. The impact is being shifted to another area, abutting a residential community and in going through the bullet points in the analysis on whether it is an insubstantial change or not, there is no traffic analysis in the staff report. It says - there is a proposed change in the number of dwelling units for intensity of land use for height of buildings in the development. In the overall development, there isn't any. But there is a change of intensity on that piece of land. Such as non-target uses - 24 hour drug stores, 24 hour convenience stores, drive-through, car washes, food stores, restaurants and fast food 24 hours. Question 5 - whether there is a substantial increase in the impacts of the development - may include but not limited to, increases in traffic generation - he stated maybe for the overall development it isn't, but the answer is "yes" as proposed to "no" by staff. Question 6 - changes will result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based on the Trip Generation Manual - staff says land use activities will remain the same - therefore no increase in vehicular traffic. He says that is wrong. The land use activities will change. Question 8 - change will bring a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with san adjacent land use. He thinks that is clear - when the original rezoning came through, they all recognized, along US 41, the non-target area to the east was historically commercial. It is difficult to argue with that. The piece to the west, non- target area, was not commercial and believes it brings about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible. The staff's analysis was that the change would have no affect on abutting land uses. He believes that is incorrect. Part of the confusion, what is in the file and or noticed - he referred to the map - showed the existing Lot 9 and showed where it shifted. It substantially increased in size. The new site plan will not show the remaining lot line he referred to on the map. He mentioned the County Attorney's office would submit they could submit a different site plan today for consideration - but wants to make sure if it is approved, Lot 9 still is identified as the lot he referred to on the map. He believes the proposed change is a substantial change to the Master Plan that affects the property to the north. He again, stated it is a residential community of long standing. The Comprehensive Plan requires it be complimentary to - adjacent contiguous property. (Referring to Lee and Collier Counties) He submits this is not compatible with - or complimentary to - by switching to more highly intensive uses to the northern piece. He submits that is a substantial change and requires public information and a public hearing before the necessary advisory bodies including the CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Abernathy asked Tony as far as buffering and other requirements that were imposed on old Lot 9 - he now wants to be imposed on new Lot 8? Mr. Pires responded they 20 July 1, 2004 would have to open the whole PUD document because it is through the text of the PUD in referencing Lot 9. Marjorie Student inquired of the applicant whether this change would bring any changes needed in the PUD document because of the references to the lot numbers. She was told they would not. Mr. Pires disagreed - there is a memorandum from Planning Staff, long range planning, that says on April 13, 2004 David Weeks provided a memorandum. Section 4.19, Items 5 & 6 - in Section 6.5 E & G all referred to Lot 9 located along the north property line and north of the internal road. It contained certain development standards applicable to Lot 9. The standards are intended to protect the residential development to the north of this project in Lee County. With the PDI Lot 9 will no longer be located along the north property line or north of the internal road. Former Lot 9 will be renumbering as Lot 8. Thus some references to Lot 9 may not make sense, other references may suggest a development standards applicability and to Lot 9. The projects impact actually extends along Lot 8. (*Memorandum was not provided for the record) Part of the criteria imposed along northern Lot 9 was no metal facade on the north side. Lighting standards - does not have spillage into the residential community, height limitations - those were substantial. Site plan they see, from standpoint from changing the lot designation, but primarily switching a non-target lot from the north side creates a substantial impact on the neighboring residential community. They request to go back to the whole public hearing process. Mr. Abernathy mentioned Marjorie stated the applicant/petitioner told her there would be no such impact - and asked if she was bound by that. She responded unless she misunderstood him, she had asked him the question and would like a clarification and address the particular provision Mr. Pires raised. Mr. Duane addressed Mr. Pires stating he gave him a plan and has the correct Lot numbers on it. He asked ifthat was correct as it was the same plan he gave to County Staff. He was sorry there was some confusion over Lot 9, but it is a non-issue. The other point - intent to keep the Marsh Lot 9 as Lot 9 - the plan he gave to Mr. Pires and staff depicts it. Discussion followed on which Lot they were looking at as far as Lot 9 and which one was correct. Mr. Schiffer asked Mr. Duane ifthere were any requirements established for Lot I in the PUD. He responded - there were uses and height and set-back requirements. There were special requirements because of the residential development to the north. For buffering was the 12 -20 foot trees, the 8 foot wall, the 35 foot buffer area, the limitations on loading and unloading and a number of uses they took out at the time of zoning. The car washes only permitted as an accessory use. They would also apply to Lot 2. When the CCPC approved the standards in 2003, it was of his opinion they found those 21 July 1, 2004 standards appropriate to protect the abutting residential development to the north. After they went through a round of negotiations with the property owner to the north, and a number of meetings held at which time they opposed the development, he thought they were then comfortable with those standards. They have spoken for themselves today as he has done also. Mr. Schiffer asked the same question ofMr. Pires, if old Lot 1 and old Lot 2 standards were set as the same. By moving it up to Lot 2 - is there any standard that Lot 2 had. Mr. Pires responded it was Lot 2 & 3 proposed to become the target area. The application has a different numbering scheme. It goes 1-2-4. Map was shown with widths of lots. There was discussion among them. Mr. Pires said as to the types of uses that were proposed on the sites along the northern property line, the buffering requirements for the proposed target area uses were appropriate. Lot 1 historically had been commercial so difficult to say they didn't know anything of a commercial convenience beyond that particular lot. He repeated the uses again and said it is deeper and the scale of the development could be bigger by combining the lots. Mr. Murray asked what is to the south. It is Agriculture. Mr. Strain said the non-target area B was not conducive to the plan because of the wetland set-back from the preserve. Mr. Duane said it was the ability to have "like uses" next to "like uses" rather than separated. More severe set-back from the preserve area. Mr. Strain asked him if the set-back for Lot 13 is the same as it would have been if the use area "B" be left. That will be for technology related uses which is a little less intensive than if it would have been retail. Mr. Strain said it will be a bigger percentage of impact on that lot with that setback than it would have.......... .. Mr. Schiffer asked about a copy of the PUD. He asked if someone could buy more lots and use it to make a larger development on the non-target lots. He asked what if someone bought lot 4 & 5. Could they use it for parking for lots 1 & 2? Mr. Duane stated parking is not a principle use - only an accessory use. He cannot just put a parking lot to serve some other lot. The whole purpose of amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow these uses is to try to give incentives for more economical development in Collier County. To encourage economic development and diversify the economy and also the two acres of commercial they are requesting is designed to serve the residents of the park. Up until the time they changed the PUD last year, there was always two acres of commercial use permitted on the property which could have also 22 July 1, 2004 supported a convenience store. They might develop separately - he can't say how they are going to develop. Wayne Arnold - Grady Minor & Associates Mr. Arnold was sworn in by Mr. Budd. Mr. Pires touched on the issue - and the primary issue has been addressed - Lot 9 - north side ofthe access road - second issue - Lot 2 - becoming non-target industry use. Their concern was the intensity ofthe non-target uses and lack of restriction on hours of operation etc. Also an issue of potential compatibility and welcome opportunity to limit uses of hours on the lots. Mr. Strain thanked him for the aerial and said it brings a series of issues. He knows now why the south side doesn't have concerns as it has commercial. There is a preserve in the front - Mr. Duane mentioned it is a scrub oak habitat area. Mr. Strain asked how close the homes in Spanish Wells will be to the property line according to the Master Plan. No golf course? Mr. Arnold does represent the Oakbrook properties known as the Lakehurst Property. There is no definitive land planned but worked on the zoning and has residential proposed that is served from the loop road shown on the map. They will have residents in close proximity to that road - consequently close to potential umestricted hours of operation, convenience stores, restaurants etc... They do realize the one part has always been commercial, which was fine as part of the original agreement. Now lot 2 & 3 have combined to become part of a non-targeted industry group having another acre extending it further back. Mr. Strain asked Mr. Duane the need for this. He responded his client thought this gave him more flexible options for the development ofthe two target and non-target use areas by not separating from the commercial. The additional non-flexible use is what is creating the concern from the neighbors from the north. They are behind an 8 foot wall and a preserve with trees 20 feet tall. Mr. Duane didn't think they would see anything. Mr. Bellows stated that was staffs position - looking through the staff report and the criteria of what a PDI is, has to be approved by the Planning Commission and not taken into a regular PUD amendment. The project wasn't adding additional square footage, just relocating from the south tract which is Lot 13 to the north. It will not result in any additional traffic. The landscape buffer and wall treatment is a suitable buffer and residents from the north would not be able to tell what kind of uses was occurring. Mr. Strain asked with them being a combination, would it be more intense than the two separate lots as previously designed. The total square footage would be the same; they are just talking about the nature of the use. That is "big box" vs. two "smaller boxes." 23 "'-_.- July 1, 2004 Mr. Bellows commented the intensity being the same could be argued both ways. The two buildings are still within the same project, just taking the impact perceived to the north. That's why the criterion was created for the sub district for the Growth Management Plan and was required. With the Buffer for the project and types of uses proposed in the PUD he didn't think would create any problems. Mr. Schiffer said if they combined the lots they wouldn't have the set-back requirement at the property line they combined, so would be able to build a much larger building and no length limitation on the building. Mr. Bellows said that was possible. Mr. Duane is willing to make a concession ifhe is going to lose someone's vote over the potentiality by combining the uses. They somehow might end up with more square footage on a combined lot than two separate ones - he can limit developments to free standing only on the separate lots. He would prefer not to do that, but if that's what it takes to get someone's support, and if someone will ask him - he would make that conceSSIOn. Mr. Strain asked him again why he is doing this in the first place and leave it with what he has. What is the purpose? Mr. Duane's client wanted to move that use to the other side of the street - they paid their fees, been in the process for some time and that is the request. Jim Goldie - part of the SJG Trust - appreciated all their cooperation and the first time he came before them he said there was a chance to get a company from Michigan that would bring about 40 jobs into Collier County. Thanks to the cooperation by the County staff, by Economic Development etc., that they should be closing possibly today and start construction. Their goal now is 50 jobs due to their growth. His main job in trying to move this was simple. In the beginning of the process they were told by the County that they needed to have one workforce housing unit. As they went though the process, they are now required up to 12 workforce housing units. Their idea was the first floor being retail etc., and the living units on the second floor. He thought that Spanish Wells would like that because they would then be facing residential units. As they went through the set-backs they lost the front commercial lot to the preserve. They have an additional set-back line and when adding the parking required for the residential units, it makes the second target a lot less usable. They are having trouble fitting the residential units that is required, on top of it. Seemed simple to him to just move it over. They had a design for a little strip center - he said they aren't going to put a gas station on Lot 2 or a convenience store. Those will face on 41 which are logical. They are just trying to find a way to comply with what they want them to do. He tried several times to get Ron Dillon of Oakwood Properties and has not had return calls. The information was sent to Wayne Arnold in the past months of what they are doing and they hadn't heard anything from them until this morning when they walked in. He didn't feel that was fair. He hoped he enlightened everyone and answered Mr. Strain's question. Mr. Goldie mentioned they want to be good neighbors and recently worked out an easement with Spanish Wells that saved them from moving all their transmission lines 24 . "n_'__.._._...._ .__. '. .,,___.__ July 1, 2004 along their south line. Had they not done that they would have had to replace all their lines. There was a water problem in the back of over spillage of their water outlet- impacting them from a wetlands issue. They sold most of their things to the Homeowners and they took a sign down by request and had done so willingly. They are trying to get along with their neighbors. Mr. Strain commented the workforce housing units are tied to the amount of square footage not to exceed 12 units and if they build less, they don't have to build so many workforce housing units. He wanted to make sure the requirement wasn't 12 - its 12 depending upon what they build. The public hearing was closed for motion and discussion. Mr. Strain moved to recommend approval of - or they approve the insufficient change PDI 2004-AR-5386 contingent on two stipulations. One) that the hours of operation are limited from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and Two) there will be no combining of the lots "A & B" for any cross building purposes. The motion will include the Amendment to the plan that does not need to make any changes internally to the Document. Mr. Bellows stated they will re-number it not to confuse the Lot numbers. Also he clarified the stipulation be listed on the Master Plan. Second by Mr. Adelstein. Carried unanimously 7-0. 9. Old Business - None 10. New Business - None 11. Public Comment Item - None Patrick White gave an update on the BCC' s action to the UDC in which he stated it was adopted. On September 27th they will have a newly adopted, re-codified Land Development Code. Based on the action earlier they will have a meeting on Thursday, July 22 at 5:00 PM in the BCC Chambers to consider the proposed revisions to those adopted provisions that are essentially Scrivener's errors in nature and one substantive revision with regards to charitable solicitation that was mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Strain thanked Patrick and Russell Webb for producing the document and he has started using it and finds it extremely helpful. 12. Discussion of Addenda - none 25 July 1, 2004 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :26 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Russell Budd 26 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 July 28, 2004 Hole Montes, Inc. Jerry Neal 950 Encore Way Naples, Fl. 34110 RE: BD-2004-AR-5335, Calusa Island Village Dear Mr. Neal: - On Thursday, July I, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2004-AR-5335. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 04-09 is enclosed approving this use. Please be advised that Section 2.7.2.3.2(3) of the Land Development Code requires an applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-2911. Si~~ Ross Goch aur, Senior Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review RG/sp Enclosure CC: Calusa Island Village, L.C. 6630 Rowan Road New Port Richey, FI. 34653 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics v-Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File c o l :¡l~ e y c o .. n t .v Phone (239)403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 2 ¡ 3-29 ¡ 6 www.colliergov.net CCPC RESOLUTION 04- 0 _ q A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2004 - AR-5335 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 91-102, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 6.8-foot foot extension for a boat dock from the 20-foot length allowed by LDC § 2.6.21. to authorize a 26.8-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 2.6.21.; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commissioner of Collier County, Florida; that Petition Number BD-2004-AR-5335, filed on behalf of Calusa Island Village, L.C. by Hole Montes, Inc., for the property hereinafter described as: Lots 33, 34 and 35, Block E, Goodland Isles First Addition, as described in Plat Book 8, Page 1, of the Public Records of Collier County, and the west 129.5 feet of undivided Block X, Goodland Isles Subdivision, as described in Plat Book 6, Page 7, of the Public Records of Collier County Florida, be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 6.8-foot extension of a boat dock from the 20-foot length otherwise allowed by LDC § 2.6.21., to authorize a 26.8-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 1. Corresponding pennits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to Collier County prior to Site Development Plan approval. 2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed at the outennost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Page 1 of 2 3. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one "manatee area" sign shall be posted on the dock in a conspicuous manner, and at least one pennanent manatee awareness sign shall be maintained at the docking facility and placed facing land on the walkway or dock. 4. Based on the results of the Biological Opinion Assessment of the site, there is the potential for impacts to a few small (1 sq ft) clumps of live oysters and various benthic invertebrates. In order to avoid impacting the oyster clumps, prior to any construction, the oyster clumps shall be relocated to the applicant-owned submerged land that will not be impacted by the proposed dredging, to the south of the southernmost mangroves on the property. 5. All prohibited exotic species, as such tenn may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. 6. All of the 50 boat slips shown on the dock plan approved in conjunction with this petition are to be for the sole use of individual unit owners and may not be shared, sold or leased separately. 7. No vessel shall be moored at the approved facility in such a way as to protrude into the 50% waterway width required to maintain safe navigation. 8. No vessel shall be moored at the approved facility that is greater than 32 feet in overall length. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this I ..r r day of JZ, / (/ , 2004. / COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIEë:2 FLORIDA BY: lei I/ðwi/ RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Jo e K. Schmitt munity Development and Environmental ices Administrator d Legal Sufficiency: Patrick G. ite Assistant County Attorney BD-2004-AR-5335/RG/lo Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 July 29, 2004 Hole Montes, Inc. Robert Duane 950 Encore Way Naples, PI. 34116 RE: Petition No. PDI-2004-AR-5386, North Naples Research & Technology Park Dear Mr. Duane: On Thursday, July 1, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. PDI-2004-AR-5386. A copy of Resolution No. 04-10 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2416. Michael J. De tz Principal Planner MJD/sp Enclosure CC: SJG Land Trust 16979 Old US 41 Naples, Fl. 34110 Land Dept. Property Appraiser --Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics Pile c o l =?l~~ e ... c o u ... to Y Phone (239)403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916 www.colliergov.net PDI RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 1 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELA TING TO PETITION NUMBER PDI-2004-AR-5386 FOR INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK PUD MASTER PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE LOCATION OF TARGET OR NON-TARGET USE AREA "B" COMPRISING 1.11 ACRES FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID ACCESS ROAD ON A 1.07 ACRE TRACT OF LAND AND RENUMBERING THE LOTS ACCORDINGLY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Master Plans in accordance with Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Land Development Code of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of PDI-2004-AR-5386, insubstantial changes as shown on the revised North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD Master Plan, Exhibit A, for the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD, Ordinance Number 03-26, for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 2.7.3.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented, Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The petition filed by Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes, Incorporated , representing SJG Land Trust, be and the same is hereby approved for making the noted minor design changes to the North Naples Research and Technology Park PUD Master Plan having the effect of revising the Plan of changing the location of Target or Non-Target Use Area "B" comprosing 1.11 acres from the South side of the access road to the north side of the said access road on a 1.07 acre lot and of renumbering the lots accordingly as depicted on the revised Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PDI-2004-AR-5386 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. /..;;,e- ,--¡- Ý Done this ;::;.;-- day of v t/ J.-- , 2004. I COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY, U/!M RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: oseph/.(. Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Fonn and Legal Sufficiency: 'l1YLi\.-~1.~ÕÌì . {kUoJ{¿/j(.-L Ma~or{, M. Student Assistant County Attorney PDI-2004-AR -53 86/MD/lo/sp Page 2 of 2 " r-----l j~ p I!:: I -' : II : Jf g~~ dl ~ i I ¡I ¡ .~. ~ ~~ ~¡¡:. i "1 : i ;;1: þ~~ dl= ~ ". ~ I 8 a!... I '~ !i~ d ;::j;: , f IS~' mil ~" i enn: ,J;;i : III"¡: m~h t I ;¡ D ! I ~ :·W5~ : ê~ I ~u.E.. , L __~_J ~< '" ~~ , ,'" ~ z ~" a >= u z w a V1 >= U w V1 Ii «z) ~ ~1 ~£ ! ~].. J3 ~'" I":, ß < F_ I ~3 .. I ~~: ,+ ............ +1 ~1fS :,i' , " " " ":.. ª ,'I , " 1+: I' " I 5¡:< ~ ~.. i., I ~ ~<. ~! ~ >..".2<··...·~ ¡. <~ I ;~i! r. .. ~« ~< ~ I~ "1 -- ,M'. --~-j ~ ~î ~ ; ~ ~ c r.. 0: '" 0.. ; r'Õ:, , .. .. "'~I ~~: : :~ :t¿:i l: .. +~.. .. ..s., .. .,., ., ~ +1-1 ~~-_: ''':M:~:: 'ii ï :! ~ I " j ~I ~ ~! ~ . ~- ¡ I f------y,rn------il I; ~1 :.: ,g ~£ ¡g¡ ~----"""-------H :~ i ~ 1 ¡~¡ - ~ ~~ )},'- iø ...:¡..... I ----¡¡:¡¡z--- I ê' - j :: ~ ~î j~~ i I . --s.~---- I :< :: f " j I~ ~! ¡~: ~'J ~; :1 ~:: ..~~ ., ., ~ ., ~ I ¡ : : : : : :,: (. " ., ., 1':-:- :-, !jl.li;·" r, , , ":11:¡I!, J""".' ml il!! , , , I !CI",, ~ ., ., ., .. ii~i'I'"! /. ., ., ., '-lilt.... /++++1 ., ., ., ., I --~-~':i<{'<~ :1 :1 2~ ê ., ., ., .. oJ ., ., + ., ., ., ., "., .,§., ., ~ +~ .,: ~~ ~ ., ., ., ., .. .. ., ., ., '" ., t ., ::; I ~i!!š ~ÏD ., .. .. ., .. ., ., .. + ., ., ., ., ~ g)- ~~ : -----r:-------------- ¡¡ I ~~ ~;.. fJ/ ~ Ii, ~; ii ~ In OD. ~~ ~- : é~~---- J" JJ3¡: ~~ ~~ õ~ I / bì~ ,~; ~ <oJ ~~~ l / // ~ ~t ~~ !; ~f-/-------------------------------------;2I--J. I!; 11 r- ~.~ ~ ~~.: ~~ ~I ;<. ~ ·0 0 .~ ~~~ ~~ ;~~ ~~ <-I; ~ ~g ~§: w U !}¡~ ~ ~~ ~~i ~ , ~~ ~~& ~~~ 0 5~ ~~!!! ~ ~o~ z ~t:' ~ ~~ F~_ ~ .¡E ~ ~~ ~~!:' "~ ¡:> ~g ~~ß ð ~~~ ~~z ~ ~ï~ ~ t!i~ ZI;U ~ ~z_ !!! ~-tÏ~ ~3~ i ~~~ ........:õi!uj §~~~ ~ .. " '" k~ ~¿ o~j ~:! Bd , ~~ ' , 1; "'~: , / d ///// ¡II ~"rP ¡!d o~i ~~ Bid -----~-- ",'j' ...~ o~ ~.. -.: 1, ~-:i--..w-l· ... < oM ~" -~ ~ ~------j" CI ¡ ..If: ~.. _______----1 .~~ .~ 11' I I , I f '" ... c ~ dq "= ~g "8- "8- .,. .,. .,. "8- U) r--: to 0 ..... II) ~ CD ,,¡ ::t .. ..s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! g: Po ~ 0 '" p ~ ;3 ~ ~ ~ '" b > -< -< t: ~ > ï n ! ~ ~ ~ 1&1 0 D, ~ CI a: u. ~ z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ 1&1 ; r š & DO -~~~i \I" ~ : ~ d d ¡¡ t i5 r- m I x w (D o N a a N ~~ ~~~ ~~iI hi h ~~a ..~ :,; I ;r: z < ...I 'Co. icc w :z:.... (,)tI) cc< ~ :;¡ . tl)C~ W::l . ccQ..... tI)~ª wcc:z: ...1<>< ~Q.w z> :z:" ....0 cc...l 00 z~ (,) w .... z a >= ~ V1 :f~gõ~ ¡;;¡:¡JI_ fiAj:£ cu...~ E w ui- = CSa;IIII !J :£l;~i .,gu.~ "- III L... I ~ z a >= u "" V1 r ----, : I I : ~ : 'II : ~~ :¡: ad ! i h(! U~ a:: a:: , Ih' <C<C : IUp: we. C/» : n I: ~e" ,~ ~I' : ·1¡¡~5 : 0 I i I .... I C/)..J L_____j WO ..Jz .,. '" e.:¡: 0 ~ <Cu S ~ Zw ~ :¡:I- " I" I--c d ~ a:: ¡;: < ;<; o (\ .... g Z "I ~ I!! i!'- ~ 0 ~ '" ~ "n- ~~ 0", u'" .J ~~ < ~~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ 4J ~§ --.0 '" ...."101 _.. - >QOf '110 ""'~ ""~ "'-.-...r"...maz\"",,",'"