Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/05/2004 R August 5, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 5, 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 (Absent) Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Paul Midney Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Robert Murray Robert Vigliotti (Absent) Dwight Richardson (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Kay Deselem, Planning Mike Bosi, Planning Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 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 I 0 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 Col1ier 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. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY I, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - JUNE 29-30, 2004, BUDGET WORKSHOP 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 to provide lodging, food, and care to not more than 12 residents who have mental disabilities, as specified per Section 2.7.4. of the Collier County Land Development Code. 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) 1 ----. -'-'-""'-'~ B. Petition: PDI-2004-AR-5337, Long Bay Partners, LLC, represented by Anita Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMilIer, Inc., requesting an insubstantial change to the Mediterra PUD Master Plan as adopted through Ordinance No. 01-61. The map change consists of the removal of the entry road connection to the Future East-West Livingston Road at the southeast comer of the property and changing the Vi11age Center (Ve) designation, east of north-south Livingston Road, to Vi11age Center (Ve) or Residential (R) designation to a110w for the option of residential development. Mediterra is located within Lee and Co11ier Counties, however the PUD jurisdiction applies only to the property located in Collier County. The Co1lier County project site is located in Sections 11 and 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) C. Petition PUDZ-2002-AR-34 1 I , Carl M. Nagel, Managing Partner of CDN Properties LLC, and Thomas Craig, of Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc., represented by Robert 1. Mulhere, AICP, of RW A, Inc, and R. Bruce Anderson, ofRoetzel and Andress, requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development for a project to be known as the Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD to a110w a maximum of 417,000 square feet of business park land uses in buildings not to exceed 42 feet in height. The property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard approximately v.. mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Co1lier County, Florida, consisting of 37.5± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) D. Petition: PUDA-2003-AR-4008, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as the Pelican Bay PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document to rea110cate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area. Most ofthe 121,000 square feet of commercial square footage to be relocated will be converted to and utilized for additional retail use within the Waterside Shops. In addition, the Pelican Bay PUD is currently approved to contain up to a maximum of 8,600 residential dwe11ing units. This petition will reduce the approved maximum number by 800 units, to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwe11ing units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection U.S. 41 and Seagate Drive, at 5555 Tamiami Trail N., in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida and consisting of 2, I 04 acres. (Coordinator: Ray Be11ows) E. Petition: DOA-2003-AR-4777, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to relocate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area and reduce the approved maximum number of residential dwe11ings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail (US-41) and Seagate Drive in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4,5,8 and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 Enclosed is an Addendum to the August 5, 2004, CCPC Agenda Item C- PUDZ-2002-AR-3411, Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD. If you have any questions, please contact Kay Deselem, Principal Planner by telephone 213-2931 or by email: kaydeselem@colliergov.net .---.---.. Co~r County - ~ -............... - ~DDENDU~ TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT ST APF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 5,2004 RE: PETITION: PUDZ-2002-AR-3411; NAGEL-CRAIG BUSINESS PARK PUD The supplemental staff report contained errors regarding the chronology of the building height issue. Contrary to what was stated in the supplemental staff report, the error in the advertising was not discovered until after the January 15, 2004 hearing. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) did hear and act upon the 42-foot height request at the January 15, 2004 hearing. The error was discovered on or about February 2,2004, which was between the January 15,2004 CCPC hearing and the scheduled Board of County Commissioners (BCC) hearing date of February 10, 2004. The petitioner continued the petition indefinitely and it was not heard at the February 10, 2004 BCC hearing. The petitioner sought to re-activate the petition and it was scheduled for June 22, 2004 BCC date, however on June 16, 2004, the agents requested a continuance of that June 22 BCC hearing to September 14, 2004, so that the petition could return to the CCPC for a correctly advertised hearing for approval of the 42 feet building heights throughout the PUD. Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD-2002-AR-3411 Addendum to Staff Report for 8-5-04 CCPC Page 1 of 1 August 5, 2004 1. Mark Strain called the meeting to order at 8:34 A.M., and Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. Roll Call was taken by Commissioner Strain and a quorum was established. 3. Addenda to the Agenda Commissioner Strain advised that he had to abstain from voting on the issues pertaining to the Waterside Shops (Agenda items SD and SE) due to a potential conflict of interest. The county attorney's office has recommended that he does not participate. That would result in only four members remaining to hear the petition. Margie Student confirms that there would not be a quorum for the items in question. The commissioners present could vote on a continuance of those items. The Commissioners can address the issue when they reach items SD and SE on the agenda. Ray Bellows announces that agenda item SA has been continued indefinitely. Also, under New Business, please add a discussion for a possible future workshop to be held on October 2Sth. Also, please add a discussion for access to the County Web Site under New Business. The agenda items SD and SE are reversed and should be corrected. 4. Planning Commission Absences Commissioner Adelstein may not available for the next meeting in August. 5. Approval of Minutes - July 1, 2004, Regular Meeting Mr. Adelstein moves to approve the minutes; Mr. Murray seconds. Motion carried 5-0. 6. BCC Report - Recaps - June 29-30, 2004, Budget Workshop Mr. Bellows: The board of zoning appeals approved variance BA-04-AR-579S, the Adam's variance by a vote of3 to 1. The Board of County Commissioners also approved PUD-03-AR-4046, Hibiscus Village. Mr. Strain asks if the EAR recommendations for public advertising on GMP amendments on private parcels for re-zones were discussed. Mr. Schmitt confirms that it was discussed and they are working on amending the LDC to include a public meeting for a privately requested comp plan amendment. 7. Chairman's Report - None 8. Advertised Public Hearings A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4978, Julio Del Risco, represented by Pamela Stewart, Esq., requesting Conditional Use 6 ofthe RMF-12 zoning district for a Group Care Facility to provide lodging, food and care to not more than 12 residents who have mental disabilities, as specified per Section 2.7.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The property is located at 4470 Golden Gate Parkway, further described as Lot 16 and the 2 -- August 5, 2004 west ~ 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) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED. B. Petition: PDI-2004-AR-5337, Long Bay Partners, LLC, represented by Anita Jenkins, AICP, ofWilsonMiller, Inc., requesting an insubstantial change to the Mediterra PUD Master Plan as adopted through Ordinance No. 01-61. The map change consists of the removal of the entry road connection to the Future East-West Livingston Road at the southeast corner of the property and changing the Village Center (VC) designation, east of north-south Livingston Road, to Village Center (VC) or Residential (R) designation to allow for the option of residential development. Mediterra is located within Lee and Collier Counties; however the PUD jurisdiction applies only to the property located in Collier County. The Collier County project site is located in Sections 11 and 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) Disclosures: Mr. Strain was contacted by the petitioner's attorney asking ifhe had concerns or questions. Mr. Strain did not have any at the time and advised that he would wait to see what is discussed at the public meeting. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Strain. PETITIONER Anita Jenkins indicates locations on the display map. We are proposing two changes. One eliminates an access point on the future east-west Livingston Road. The other change adds the option of a residential designation. QUESTIONS Mr. Murray: I thought this was an elimination of the VC designation. Ms. Jenkins explains that it is not an elimination that the VC designation remains and residential is added. They are asking for the designation to be VC or R. Mr. Murray asks about the wording "the map change may potentially eliminate the commercial intensity of the PUD." When Mediterra sought the VC designation it was to provide the intent was to provide amenities and services, has it concluded that this probability will not be there? Ms. Jenkins explains that it was first approved with the VC designation and it had been marketed since then and the market is not there to support the Village Center use. Commissioner Schiffer has arrived. Ms. Jenkins: It was brought to our attention that the change was "VC or Residential." We would like to request "VC and/or Residential" so that there could be a mixed use designation there, if the market would support that type of development option. We discussed this with staff and they support it. Mr. Adelstein: Will the land use option be selected and, if it is, are you going to lose 20,000 square feet of commercial? 3 August 5, 2004 Ms. Jenkins: That's what we are discussing now by adding the "and/or" for some type of missed use project in that 3.5 acres. ST AFF Mike Bosi reports: · According to the 10 criteria this qualifies for a master plan insubstantial change. · They would lose all of the 20,000 square feet of commercial uses ifthey chose residential over commercial (as opposed to the "and/or" option) based upon the develop standards within the commercial section of the Mediterra PUD. · Staff would recommend approval even if the "and/or" is added. QUESTIONS Mr. Murray: If the designation is changed to residential are all the commercial uses lost? Mr. Bosi: Yes, if it is designated strictly as residential all ofthose uses go away. They could still develop these options until they platted it as residential. Mr. Strain: Could the recreational portions still be allowed or do we have to use VC, Residential or Recreational just to be safe? Mr. Bellows: Any residential tract is available for recreational facilities. The PUD allows for recreational facilities in other residential tracts throughout the PUD. It would be common to the whole development. It would have to be changed to "and/or" to allow for both uses to occur on the tract. Mr. Murray: Ifwe were to go for the "and/or" option, could we stipulate that those amenities remain regardless? Mr. Bellows: We are dealing with the Master Plan change. We are not changing text in the document so it makes it more difficult and problematic to start switching out uses. Mr. Bosi: On the development part east of Livingston Road, you will see there are a couple of recreational open space tracts within that development PUD and those types of uses that were a part of the Village Center are eligible within those individual tracts. This area would not be devoid of the opportunity for this type of development. Mr. Murray asks ifthere will still be the option to develop recreational amenities if the "VC" designation is not used. Mr. Bosi: They would not lose the opportunity to have traditional recreational amenities that are provided to residential tracts throughout the county. Mr. Adelstein asks for clarification on the square footage for the designations. Mr. Bosi confirms that there are 60,000 square feet of non-commercial use within the Village Center designations and 20,000 square feet of allowed commercial. As it is written right now, if they chose residential, there would be no commercial in this PUD. 4 Mr. Midney asks to confirm the maximum number of units. August 5,2004 Mr. Bosi confirms that the maximum number of units is still 750. This is just a request to change the master plan. The intensity of the residential units will not be altered by this request. Margie Student confirms that the Commission can amend the wording to use "and/or" without re-advertising. Mr. Bosi adds that the "and/or" option gives the developer greater flexibility and also gives the residents' a small component of commercial presence in the development, which they have expressed interest in. PUBLIC SPEAKERS - None Mr. Adelstein moves to recommend approval ofPDI-2004-AR-5337 to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Murray seconds. DISCUSSION Mr. Strain: Would you recommend that we stipulate that the words "and/or" be used in lieu of the word "or"? Mr. Bellows reminds the Commission that this is an item that the Planning Commission acts on, that it will not be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Adelstein amends his motion to recommend approval and stipulate that the words "and/or" be used in lieu of the word "or." Mr. Murray agrees. Motion Carries 6-0. C. Petition: PUDZ-2002-AR-3411, Carl M. Nagel, Managing Partner ofCDN Properties LLC, and Thomas Craig, of Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc., represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A, me, and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "POO" Planned Unit Development for a project to be known as Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD to allow a maximum of 417,000 square feet business park land uses in buildings not to exceed 42 feet in height. The property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard approximately y,¡ mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of37.5 ± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Disclosures - Commissioner Murray had a conversation with Mr. Anderson and met with the attorney for the Ad-Hoc committee and two representatives of the Ad-Hoc Committee, Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Lewis. Commissioner Strain has had discussions with Mr. Anderson, Tony Pires, Mr. Wellekens, Mr. Bush, Mr. Calabrese and a member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. All those testifying were sworn in by Mr. Strain. PETITIONER Bruce Anderson: We are requesting a re-zone from Agricultural to a Business Park PUD. You may recall that the Planning Commission originally heard this application and unanimously recommended approval on January 15,2004. The purpose of to day's hearing is to correct a public hearing advertisement error that was not 5 August 5, 2004 discovered by county staffuntil after the January 15th hearing. The advertising error was a failure to include reference to the 42 foot building height request which was heard and approved by the Planning Commission at the January 15th hearing. The 42 foot building height was requested to provide architecturally interesting buildings as opposed to a flat roof. The building heights would be capped at 35 feet when located within 100 feet of any residentially zoned property. A representative of Vanderbilt Country Club spoke favorable of the meetings held with representatives of the developer. Several of proposed land uses were removed from the PUD and numerous conditions were added at Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association's request. At some point, after the January 15th hearing, new representatives of Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association gave my client notice that they did not support the PUD. My client attempted to identify and address the concerns. On May 21S\ we held a meeting with several representatives of the Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association as well as their attorney. They expressed some general concerns about some of the uses that were proposed in the PUD. We gave them a list of the uses that were being requested and asked them to identify which ones they had concerns about. On July 6th I received a letter stating that the group had decided to oppose the PUD. We have not received any objections from Wolf Creek, Palermo Cove and Island Walk. Nothing has changed since your unanimous approval other than the fact that the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved for transmittal a housekeeping amendment to the growth management plan to classify Collier Boulevard as an arterial roadway. Mr. Strain: Were you involved in this project for the first meeting in front of the CCPC? Ms. Anderson: No sir. Mr. Strain: Were you involved in any of the neighborhood meetings that occurred prior to that meeting in front of the CCPC? Mr. Anderson: No Mr. Strain: Were you aware that the residents of the Vanderbilt Beach Country Club were told that the zoning for this parcel was basically a by right, that zoning wasn't an issue, that they could only object to uses and try to negotiate something, that they didn't have a right to object to the zoning? Mr. Anderson: No, by whom were they told that? Mr. Strain: I wasn't told by whom. I was told by representatives after the last meeting, they advised me of this. After the last meeting, a representative came up and advised me that they were told that they could only negotiate for use and things like that, not zoning. I advised him that zoning isn't an absolute right in this county and you have to go through a public process. I just wanted to advise you as you were not here for the last meeting. Robert J. Mulhere: I'd like to speak to that issue for a moment. I've had discussions with representatives from the Vanderbilt Country Club and, at no time did they ever indicate that they heard that from me or any other representative ofthe landowner. In fact, they indicated that they had not heard that from me or any other representative of the landowner. They did say that was the impression that they may have gotten from staff at a meeting we were not at. We have no responsibility for that misperception on their part, if in fact it was a misperception. Mr. Strain: They didn't claim anyone in particular. I'm just telling you that the circumstances oftheir information at the last meeting was a different possible light than what was presented. 6 August 5, 2004 Mr. Mulhere: I understand that and subsequent to that we discussed that issue with representatives several times and advised them that this is a rezoning and you have every opportunity to be involved in the process. (Throughout the presentation Mr. Mulhere uses visual displays and maps to indicate locations and other information.) Both Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road are scheduled to be six lanes in the future. We wanted to develop a public-private partnership to address some concerns due to the development in the area. I am referring to the creation of several rights of way which will not incur any cost to the county or taxpayers. You will have Wolf Road and the loop road which will relieve pressure on this intersection. (map) I think this provides excellent access to this business park. The purpose and intent of the business park district is to provide a mix of industrial uses, corporate headquarters, offices and business professional offices which compliment each other and provide convenient services for the employees within the district, attract businesses that provide value added jobs. It is intended that the business park be designed with an attractive park-like environment with low structural density and large landscaped areas provided for both the functional use of buffering and enjoyment of employees of the district. The business park district is permitted for the urban mixed use designation, the urban commercial and the urban industrial districts of the future land use. The business park is permitted within the area we are requesting. The other issue is that there is another condition that is attached to the business park district that says that the business park district must have direct access to an arterial roadway. As we discussed in our last meeting, Collier Boulevard at present is not designated on the traffic circulation map as an arterial roadway. Certainly, it functions as one. A comprehensive plan amendment has been transmitted to the DCA to amend that map to classify Collier Boulevard as an arterial roadway. Mr. Adelstein: That's the problem I have. The code says that we cannot issue development approval until the time that the road is classified as an arterial roadway. That is not going to happen until September or October. Mr. Mulhere: We put a condition within our ordinance that this will not be in effect until the road is designated. Mr. Adelstein: The code says that we cannot approve it until it has been done that way. It's not a matter that you are not going to do anything until it is, because the code says you can't get it approved until it is designated. Mr. Mulhere: We deferred to the county attorney's office and the staff and they said it would be appropriate to put in a clause that would make this not effective, therefore you can review it. It just doesn't become effective until that happens. If that never happens we never go forward. We really believe that we have addressed that. (This discussion is deferred to Marjorie Student as Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Mulhere are at an impasse.) Mr. Mulhere: There are a number of conditions and restrictions that we are exceeding that deal with landscaping and buffering and open space to make an attractive park-like setting. There are a number of projects that fall within this category, Creekside, although it is a PUD and the Horseshoe Drive development which is actually zoned industrial because it preceded the creation of the business park designation. The intent is to provide jobs and work opportunities. The side impact is that it will relieve traffic because we provide employment here. Many of the employees here will come from the areas around here and east of here and will reduce the traffic for the commute on Vanderbilt Beach Road. That is the Smart Growth concept for locating business parks in numerous other locations throughout the county. Residential being an alternative use, 7 August 5, 2004 it's reasonable to assume that 175 to 200 units could be approved for the same area. That type of use would generate about 1,000 trips per day. (Mr. Mulhere continues to use visual displays to indicate information during his presentation. Here he shows several photographs of the land and the Vanderbilt Country Club from different perspectives.) We agreed to the following at the last meeting: · A higher canopy tree height within Collier Boulevard buffer than was required by code, 12 feet · A greater setback for buildings fronting on Collier Boulevard, 75 feet · A condition that overnight commercial parking had to be in a rear yard and screened if adjacent to a residential use, or Wolf Road, Collier Boulevard or the loop road · Commercial towers would be prohibited in tracts B3 and B4, close to Collier Boulevard · There have been hundreds of uses that have been taken out of this PUD that normally would have been permitted under the business park district · Provide the right of way for Wolf Road and the loop road and to construct it within the first 500 feet (map) We had asked for the following deviations that were previously recommended for approval and are recommended for approval by staff: · Allow a 5 foot reduction in the landscape buffers on the south and the north; we will take the square footage ofthat reduction and relocate it to the internal areas of the site. (map) · Waive the required six foot tall opaque architecturally finished masonry wall or berm within the western perimeter ofthe PUD. There will be a very nice vegetative buffer, with mature vegetation, plus the lake. We don't think that wall is necessary or that it benefits either us or our neighbor. (map) · A building height waiver to allow a building height of 42 feet to allow for architectural flexibility in roof designs. We agreed to limit the height to 35 feet within 100 feet of any residential structure. · To allow for two additional uses general contractors (SIC code groups 1521 through 1542) and landscape counseling and planning (SIC code 0781.) Subcontractors are permitted, the PUD does not allow for any outside storage, so effectively you will have an office. QUESTIONS Mr. Murray asks for clarification on the structure height and setbacks adjacent to the roadways. Mr. Mulhere explains that the structure height will be limited to 35 feet adjacent to any residence, but not the roadways. Fronting the roads would be a 42 foot height and the setback from Collier Boulevard would be 75 feet. Mr. Murray states that certain roadways were dedicated in the past but never accepted. What standards will the road be built to? Mr. Mulhere: The County is very interested in having these two roadways constructed and they will be constructed to county standards and turned over to the public. The loop road (map) has been moved further to the south. Mr. Murray: With regard to what types of businesses, a corporate headquarters would leave opportunity to store certain types of materials internally, will these be fully enclosed structures? 8 --- August 5, 2004 Mr. Mulhere: They will be fully enclosed structures. I think we will get small corporate headquarters. I think it is unlikely that we will get a large corporate headquarters to use all 35 acres of developable land there. Mr. Mulhere confirms that the auto rental and hotel uses have both been removed. Mr. Schiffer requests that they change the maximum height of35 feet within 100 feet ofa residential zoning to 100 feet of a property line adjacent to a residential zoning. Mr. Mulhere agrees to that change. Mr. Adelstein: Is the 42 feet the peak of the roof? Mr. Mulhere: the measurement will be from the FEMA elevation to the midpoint. You could see a building that is up to 4 feet higher than that to the highest point of the roof. (There is a lengthy discussion regarding recommending approval before Collier Boulevard is designated as an arterial roadway. The different points of view appear below.) Ms. Student comments on the issue of the arterial road designation: There is language in two parts of the PUD document that handle this. I must advise the Planning Commission that on a couple of occasions in the past when we knew comp plan amendments were pending we put language in the effective date provisions that stated that the amendment or the ordinance would not become effective until the supporting comp plan amendment became effective. This ordinance does that as well as in the PUD. It states that no development applications will be effective or approved until the Collier County functional class map and the transportation element of the growth management plan identifies Collier Boulevard as an arterial roadway and then becomes effective. There is a history to this, we've done it before and I think with the language in this we are perfectly okay. Mr. Adelstein: Not only does the GMP prohibit the rezoning approval at this time, but it also prohibits the issuance of any development order that is inconsistent with that GMP. I don't know how much more specific we have to get. Ms. Student: This ordinance IS of no effect unless the comp plan amendment that supports it becomes effective. Mr. Strain asks about the difference in the loop road in the PUD and the presentation. Mr. Mulhere explains that the final design is reflected on the visual display. This is a change. Mr. Strain: Your future R.O.W. reservation/dedication shows 4.0 acres; the master plan shows 3.3. Mr. Mulhere: That change had occurred at your last planning commission meeting. Staff had originally asked 80 feet and when they came back to us they only asked for 65 feet. We submitted a revised PUD to staff. Mr. Strain: The PUD that I have in front of me shows existing native vegetation preserve area is at 2.5 acres and native vegetation mitigation is at 2.0 acres. The plan on your display shows those two combined are now 3.5 instead of 4.5. Are you reducing native vegetation and mitigation areas by an acre? Mr. Mulhere: The final acre will be included within the site. We are still required to have 4.5 acres. I have 4.5 acres as correct. We are not required to show it on our master plan. 9 -.----..-... August 5, 2004 Mr. Strain: On your master plan you have 28.2 acres of business park development tract on the PUD you show 27.5 acres. How did you gain that? Mr. Mulhere: We gained that from the roadway relocation. When this PUD document was prepared the negotiations on that loop road were still going on. Mr. Strain: Under the transportation element of the PUD the loop road will be fully constructed to County standards. Now that the road is not so much on your property, can we still require that of you? Mr. Mulhere: We still agree to that and are participating in that, just not as much. Mr. Bosi: There are other agreements that we have in terms of financial contributions that are not reflected in this document. Mr. Strain asks for Mr. Mulhere to explain how the transition from Mission Hills (Commercial) to the business park (industrial) then to the residential areas is a lessening of intensity. Mr. Mulhere: Mission Hills will generate more trips than the industrial park will. The business park district was put together eliminating most of the objectionable industrial uses. There are criteria within the code for industrial zoning and industrial PUDs that are significantly different than the comprehensive plan and the LDC for business park districts. Business park districts are allowed throughout the urban designation; industrial PUDs and industrial development is very restricted. It's limited because there is no outside storage. There are significant architectural design standards that will apply. The business park district requires a great deal of open space and limits locked coverage to 45% of the lot. There would be less traffic generation. Mr. Strain: The business park is subject to strict criteria. You're modifying those criteria. You're adding construction facilities, which will add a lot of construction traffic. Mr. Mulhere: I would suggest that many other uses would produce similar traffic. STAFF Kay Deselem: The staff report consists of several documents: the addendum (dated 8/5/04); the supplement (dated 8/5/05); a supplement (dated 1/15/04); the original staff report (dated 12/18/03.) Staff is recommending approval. We do believe that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is compatible with the neighborhood. With the limitations within the ordinance itself and within the PUD document, staff does believe that this particular project should be approved. QUESTIONS None (There was a 10 minute break at this point) (The meeting reconvened at 10: lOAM) PUBLIC SPEAKERS Anthony Pires: I'm representing the Vanderbilt Community Association, Inc. This group is united, unanimous and adamantly opposed to this project. They request that the commission recommend denial of this 10 August 5, 2004 application to the Board of County Commissioners. We would like to not be berated for deciding to participate in this process to the fullest extent ofthe law. I would like to point out the great number of members of the Vanderbilt Country Club that are here to support our position. I would like to point out that it very clearly states in the Growth Management Plan, policy 3 .1-J, says "no development orders shall be issued which are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan." You have to go with what exists today and today this project is not consistent with the Growth Management Plan. This also disenfranchises those people that will be in existence and around this area at the time that adoption occurs, if at all. We consistently hear that new development has to be compatible with surrounding land uses. What's lost in that discussion is that new development has to be compatible with and complimentary to the surrounding land uses. In this particular instance the essential nature of the surrounding land uses is residential. There is the mission Hills Shopping Center that provides the sort of setting, commercial uses and retail operations that typically supports infrastructure for a surrounding residential community. This is an intense use, not just measured by traffic that is not transitional. You can call this a business park, but it is an industrial use. Seventy percent of the uses within the site has to be industrial; the nature is of an industrial park. Therefore we believe that it is incompatible with and not complimentary to surrounding land uses. It was indicated that there was no opposition. There are several residential PUDs that have not yet been developed and there are no rooftops to oppose to this project (Wolf Creek, Palermo Cove.) Ifwe wait for the arterial road designation, maybe there will be some rooftops there that will oppose this project. One of the criteria in the Land Development Code states whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites within the county for the proposed use, in Districts already committing such use. There has been no assertion, evidence, testimony, submittal, application or analysis that other sites are unavailable or inadequate for the types of uses being proposed for the subject property. We are not alone in this particular instance. Mr. Baviello is here to represent the Restoration Church. The Golden Gate Area Civics Association is opposed to it. I would like to read a letter and introduce a copy into the record. The letter states that the Association is opposed to the Nagel-Craig Business Park as well as any other industrial applications within the Golden Gate Estates Residential Neighborhoods. Mr. Abernathy: When we considered this in January, did this 70/30 industrial/non-industrial ratio come up? Mr. Pires: That criterion has always been there, to my understanding. I wasn't present at that particular hearing, I wasn't retained until afterwards. Mr. Schiffer: You read in the Growth Management Plan that we cannot approve this; you described it as a development order. Today aren't we just approving the PUD and the development order will be later? Mr. Pires: I think the definition in chapter 163 and 384, statutes the rezoning is a development order. Ms. Student: It is. A development order is a development permit and a development permit is if you ask for a rezone and list of other things. However, for the reasons I've stated, because you are making this subject to the Comp Plan Amendment and in fact the purpose of the statue is to avoid inconsistent orders and land development regulations with the comprehensive plan. I don't believe that the policy of the Growth Management Plan has been defeated in any way, shape or form. Mr. Abernathy: It seems like underlying this rationale, is some sort of a need to hurry. 11 August 5, 2004 Ms. Student: Perhaps the petitioner may feel some need to hurry. I'm just stating the county's perspective. Mr. Strain: In the GMP, I remember it stating that any changes or any conditions that vary from the elements of the GMP would have to be done through a variance process or an exemption to those, and this is neither. Mr. Pires: I have four documents that I would like to enter into the record: The letter from Linda Hartman, Information from the county's web site regarding the Palermo Cove PUD, David Depew's CV, and my letter and attachments sent to the County Attorney's Office. John Wellekens: I would like to briefly review the reasons why we are here today. We all thought a business park would be similar to Mission Hills. No one thought it would be industrial. It was discovered that we had the same attorney as the developer, Roetzel & Andress, and they had to refrain from representing us. Mistakenly, we decided to handle the issue ourselves. When we met with the county planner, we came away with the understanding that this was a matter of right, that the developer was entitled to an industrial park. I attribute that to a misunderstanding of the terms on our part, I don't think there was any intent to deceive us. We approached our meetings with the developers with that understanding. At the public hearing I realized from listening to the discussion that we may have had more rights that we originally assumed. However, I had no authority to oppose the project without direction from the board. Immediately after the approval by the commission, we were approached by one of the representatives of the developer. He advised us that they reconsidered the height of the buildings and wanted to increase it to 42 feet. This made me a little apprehensive. I approached Commissioner Strain and confirmed that we had the right to oppose this and that it was completely discretionary with the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bellows also confirmed this. I brought this information back to our board and that is why we are here today. When we went to the meeting in which the developer wanted to discuss increasing the building height to 42 feet, we advised the developer that we might be reconsidering our position. We further advised him that we were hiring an attorney and did not want to have further discussions until we had some professional advice. The code looks very innocuous when you look at the business uses in the Land Development Code, but when you look at the Federal Directory that defines the terms in the code there are literally thousands of manufacturing, industrial, factory, warehouse and wholesale distributor uses permitted. Weare also concerned about the equipment and parking areas attracting the local children and the danger of lllJunes. David Depew: I would suggest to you that policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use element is one of the operable policies that you need to review. It requires that new development be compatible with and complimentary to existing land uses in the area. I would submit that a new development must be consistent with and complimentary to neighboring uses and does not have a negative impact on the surrounding area with regard to the following: building coverage, design, bulk, occupancy, traffic generation, parking requirements, access, circulation, site improvements, public facilities and service demands. Intensity of development is defined by more than trip generation including generation of light, sound, dust and odor. Therefore this cannot be considered a transitional use. In addition, the site plan is simply not detailed enough to demonstrate the park-like atmosphere that the developer claims would make it more compatible to the area. In response to a question from Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Depew explains: Nearby, refers to properties that are in the general neighborhood or the general vicinity. In an urban setting nearby can be within blocks. In a more 12 ...---"- August 5, 2004 suburban setting nearby can be within 14 to 1 mile. In a rural setting nearby can be within 1 through 5 miles away. In this particular instance, I think this is a suburban setting. I believe that there has not been a demonstration that there are no other appropriate uses for this property. I would suggest that a residential use can be placed on this property that would be consistent with surrounding uses. In my extensive practice area I have never had the experience that this kind of activity has been undertaken prior to a comprehensive plan amendment. From a planning standpoint that is a very slippery slope. There is no reason that this project has to go forward in a rush. I would submit to you that this would be a very bad precedent and one that should not be repeated. It is simply not necessary. Mr. Anderson asks Mr. Depew when he was retained. Mr. Depew replies that he was retained on a continuing basis by Vanderbilt Country Club earlier this year and became involved in this particular issue approximately two to three months ago. Gerald Lewis, Vice-President of the Vanderbilt Country Club Homeowners Association expresses his support of the preceding public speakers. We feel that an industrial park simply does not fit into our neighborhood which consists of about 11,000 residences, as well as schools, churches, retail development and a potential fire station. We are very concerned about the uses, as defined by the SIC codes, that could be possible there. This has become a quality of life issue. Many of our residents have made it clear that if they had known there would be an industrial park located nearby they would have looked elsewhere for housing. Our concerns are not so much about the amount of traffic but about the type of traffic. We have already heard allusions to large trucks and equipment. Michael A. Baviello, Jr., Esq., representing Restoration Church: The church had no knowledge of this particular project during the previous meeting. We were in the process of moving our offices during the time that notices were mailed out and may not have received any notice. We are opposed to the approval of this project. The church is not opposed to the creation of jobs, but the problem is that this park is incompatible with the surrounding uses. Communication towers will be sitting in the back portion of the project as they have requested. Mr. Mulhere: This is not an industrial park, it is a business park. The reference made to the 70/30 mix is simply not a correct statement. The code actually says that 70 percent of the uses within a business park must be primary uses as defined in the business park district; 30 percent can be secondary uses. It does not say they have to be industrial, that is not the intent and that is not the reality. The purpose ofthat is to limit retail and personal services to 30 percent because the primary purpose of the business park is to generate different types of employment. That is why the limitation exists. Mr. Murray: There are an awful lot of industrial activities here. Assume that the park was completed in accordance with your request. What would the hours of operation be? Mr. Mulhere: There was one condition placed in here by the environmental reviewers. I don't think we would have an objection to restrictions on operating hours. We have to comply with the noise ordinance in the county. We would agree to a limitation of7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, for manufacturing. 13 August 5,2004 In response to a question from Mr. Schiffer regarding to appearance of the buildings, Mr. Mulhere confirmed that they are willing to adhere to the provisions of 2.8 that are in effect at the time they submit the site development plan and are not planning to ask for any exceptions. Mr. Murray: This is difficult because it was approved by this commission earlier. The introduction of new concepts in addition to the large number of people opposed to the project makes it difficult for me to even formulate a motion. I would move to continue predicated on the fact that they are not going to be able to do anything anyway until the roads are designated. I hesitate also because upon approval of the previously submitted criteria the developer immediately went to a representative of the community and suggested that they wanted additional concessions for height. I'm considering that maybe there are some potential changes as time goes by. Ms. Student: The Planning Commission generally has to recommend approval or denial. I don't know that there is any problem with a continuance. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Motion is denied 6-0. Mr. Midney: I make a motion that we recommend approval forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners AR 3411. Mr. Strain seconds. Mr. Midney: I do think that we are covered with the arterial road designation issue. I am not convinced that this project is inconsistent with our county ordinances. Ms. Student: You may want to state that your motion is contingent upon that comprehensive plan amendment coming into being. Mr. Midney: Yes, that is my intent, thank you. Mr. Schiffer: I think this project will be an asset to the area as long as it is built appropriately. Mr. Strain: I think it is a mistake. I don't think that increasing intensities between generally C3 commercial to residential is a good thing to do. I think industrial is a much more intense use than the area surrounding it. I certainly would not vote in favor of this. If this were to move forward, I would like to see restrictions on times at a minimum, although I wish it wouldn't move forward. Mr. Schiffer: I would like to add that the 1 00 feet to be measured from the property line. The way it is worded, it is measured from the residential district, I rather it not include right of way. Mr. Midney accepts this change. Mr. Abernathy: Most of Vanderbilt Country Club is not anywhere near this park. Mr. Midney: I am also influenced by the creation of jobs. Motion is not carried 3-3. 14 August 5, 2004 In favor: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney & Mr. Abernathy Opposed: Mr. Murray, Mr. Strain & Mr. Adelstein Mr. Strain moves to recommend denial of PUDZ-2002-AR-34 I 1. Mr. Adelstein seconds. Mr. Schiffer: This isn't adding anything new as far as traffic. If this was twice the size I would not be in favor if it. All of the residential people are going to use it and be working there. The example of Horseshoe Drive is excellent. The architectural standards are the only thing I can bet on, beautiful buffering systems. The danger is if one entity buys the whole thing, but if they break it up it will be a beautiful facility. Mr. Murray: I believe the minimum lot is 20,000 square feet. The fact is that there are a lot of uses here and if any number of them go forward the impact on the community could be significant. Motion is not carried 3-3. In favor: Mr. Murray, Mr. Strain & Mr. Adelstein Opposed: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney & Mr. Abernathy It goes forward with a tie vote. The executive summary will describe the commission's votes and discussion. D. Petition: PUDA-2003-AR-4008, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust and WCI Communities, Inc., represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as the Pelican Bay PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document to reallocate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial square footage to be relocated will be converted to and utilized for additional retail use within Waterside Shops. In addition, the Pelican Bay PUD is currently approved to contain up to a maximum of 8,600 residential dwelling units. This petition will reduce the approved maximum number by 800 units, to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection U.S. 41 and Seagate Drive, at 5555 Tamiami Trail N., in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4,5,8, and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida and consisting of2,104 acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Ms. Student: While there is not a quorum to proceed, you can vote on a continuance. If this is continued for two weeks, it does not affect when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. We feel it would not affect the gain or loss of the principals involved. Mr. Adelstein moves to continue AR-4008 and AR-4777 to the next meeting. Mr. Abernathy seconds. Motion carries 6-0. E. Petition: DOA-2003-AR-4777, Waterside Shops at Pelican Bay Trust, represented by C. Laurence Keesey, Esq., requesting an amendment to the Pelican Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to relocate 121,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed and uncommitted commercial use from the North Commercial Area to the South Commercial Area and reduce the approved maximum number of residential dwellings by 800 units to a new maximum of 7,800 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this rezone is 15 '- ---~.- August 5, 2004 located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection pfTamiami Trail (US-41) and Seagate Drive, in Sections 32 and 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 4,5,8, and 9, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Continued 9. OLD BUSINESS NONE 10. NEW BUSINESS Joe Schmitt: We are scheduling the workshop. If you have any ideas on what you like presented you can certainly e-mail to either me or Ray. It will probably be at Horseshoe Drive at 8:30 am. We also have ajoint workshop with the Board of County Commissioners scheduled in December for the Annual Update and Inventory Report. Rob Lincoln from the IT Department advised the Commissioners that they could obtain county e-mail addresses. This would effectively separate CCPC e-mails from the Commissioners' personal e-mails. The county e-mail can be accessed throughwebmail. This would be accessed through internet browsers (for example: Internet Explorer) and eliminate the need for firewalls and other hardware and software requirements because they would not technically be tapping into the county's servers. This process could be completed within a week ofthe requests. Furthermore, the commissioners' e-mail addresses will be updated on the website. The e-mails can reside on the county server to also aide in accommodating public requests for information. Mr. Schiffer: If you dissent on a vote, is there an opportunity for you to express your opinion in that report? The concern is that I dissented on an issue and my dissention was not reported as perfectly as I would have liked it. Also, once you write the review, are we able to see that prior to it going to the Board of County Commissioners? Mr. Bellows: Normally the planner will try to accurately express the dissenting votes in the Executive Summary. I think if you feel strongly about how that is worded in the Executive Summary, we can try to make a copy available so you can review it. Mr. Strain: Ifwe feel that strongly, why don't we individually lobby our commissioners? Mr. Schiffer: I usually don't see how it's presented until I'm watching it. Mr. Schmitt: There's nothing to preclude you from clarifying why you had that vote. You can certainly send an opinion on why you had that vote to the respective Commissioners. Mr. Bellows: Also, if you do that quickly, the planner can incorporate it into the Executive Summary. Mr. Schmitt: I would certainly recommend that if you leave a meeting and feel the need to express your opinion to send a note to either me, Ray or the principal planner asking to make your point clear in the Executive Summary. Likewise, I would ask, that prior to a meeting, you contact any member ofthe staff to express specific questions or concerns, then we can be prepared to address those at the meeting. Mr. Schiffer: When something is advertised, where do you go to see what you can do based on the advertisement and what you cannot do? 16 August 5, 2004 Mr. Bellows: For an advertised item, you can reduce the impact, but you cannot increase the impact without re-advertising. It would have to be continued and re-advertised if you wanted to make any changes that increased the impact. Mr. Bellows introduces Heidi Williams, a new principal planner that has recently joined the staff. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11.57 AM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Russell A. Budd 17 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, Florida 34104 August 20, 2004 Anita Jenkins, AICP WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 Re: Petition No. PDI-2004-AR-5337, Mediterra PUD Dear Ms. Jenkins: On Thursday, August 5, 2004, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. PDI-2004-AR-5337. A copy of Resolution No. 04-11 is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 659-5745. Sincerely, ~~/ ---/ ~,P--- ~ -- Michael Bosi, AICP Principal Planner MB/sp Enclosure CC: Long Bay Partners LLC 9990 Coconut Road, Suite 200 Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Land Dept. Property Appraiser 'I/" Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) M. Ocheltree, Graphics File c o l -=?l ~.~ e r c o .. Jot to .v Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2916 www.colliergov.net PDI RESOLUTION NO. 04 - ~ RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER PDI-2004-AR-5337 FOR INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO MEDITERRA PUD MASTER PLAN FOR PURPOSE OF THE REMOV AL OF THE ENTRY ROAD CONNECTION TO THE FUTURE EAST-WEST LIVINGSTON ROAD AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ADDITION OF AN OPTION OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (R) TO THE VILLAGE CENTER DESIGNATION (VC) EAST OF NORTH-SOUTH LIVINGSTON ROAD. THE MEDITERRA PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN LEE AND COLLIER COUNTIES, HOWEVER THE PUD JURISDICTION APPLIES ONLY TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public, and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 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 PUDs 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 ofPDI- 2004-AR-5337 for insubstantial changes as shown on the revised Mediterra PUD Master Plan for the Mediterra PUD (Exhibit "A"), Ordinance Number 01-61, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1 The petition filed by Anita Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, representing Long Bay Partners LLC, be and the same hereby is approved for making the noted minor design changes to the Mediterra PUD having the effect of revising the Master Plan to remove the entry road connection to the future east-west Livingston Road at the southeast corner of the property and changing the Village Center (VC) designation, east of north-south Livingston Road, to Village Center (VC) and/or Residential (R) designation to allow for the option of residential development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PDI- 2001-AR-5337 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 5th day of August, 2004. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~e&an fVIA-1l K- P S'fk./.h )u ¡) I ~ ATTEST: o eph K. Schmitt, Comm ity Development d Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marjone . Student Assistant County Attorney PDl-2001-AR-5337/MB/sp 2 , I I I I ! I ¡ I i ! .1 .~ !~ i1 IJ C¿ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡ ~ "..' ~ 'r'¡"¡¡ ~ l ..;¡:.... 1.. n : - .; '! t i ~ . ~ :~.., ~ "" u i --- ~~ i~~ MEDITERRA EXHIBIT A PUD MASTER PLAN PREPARED FOR' LONG BAY PARTNERS, LL.C. Wil.Miller ".,....~.I!oøIIIIII*.an.,.n L....Ñ'rII/IItâ·~~ -,,", ,....,.....................-.'....r....... ...,...,~_ø·...."""'*~ ",..~."...-w ~............- . -- -....-..-