Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/21/2005 R April 21, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA April 21, 2005 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy (Absent) Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray (Absent) Brad Schiffer Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Patrick White, County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 21,2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI 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 1 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 a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member 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 - MARCH 17,2005, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 16,2005, SPECIAL LDC MEETING; MARCH 14,2005, CONCURRENCY WORKSHOP 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - MARCH 22, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-7132, Berry Investment Co., LLC, represented by William Berry, is requesting a 36- foot boat dock extension to construct a dock and boat-lift protruding a total of 56 feet into the waterway as measured from the property line. The subject property is located at 117 Bayshore Way, Parcel One, Government Lot 14 on Goodland Point, in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) B. Petition: V A-2004-AR-7005, Waldemar Bokrand of Golden Gate Import Export, Inc., represented by Vincent Antrilli, Jr. of Consul-Tech Development Services, Inc., is requesting a variance to reduce the landscape buffer requirement between uses in a PUD from 10ft to 1 ft for a distance of 101 LF total along the south property line. The subject property is located in the Don Carlos Subdivision of Kings Lake PUD, Section 7, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) CONTINUED FROM 417105 C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-3585, Wilson Boulevard Center LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., requesting a rezone rrom a "PUD" Planned Unit Development zoning district to a "PUD" Planned Unit Development district known as the Wilson Boulevard Center PUD. The rezoning would have the effect of amending the PUD Ordinance. A proposed change would allow the water management area to be located within a portion of the 75-foot wide buffers along the eastern and southern boundaries of the PUD. The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard within a Neighborhood Center of Golden Gate Estates, in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 7.15 ± acres. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUTED FROM 417105 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 4/21/05/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 April 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning, we'll call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. Ask you to rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll begin with our roll call. Mr. Caron. MS. CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr. Abernathy is absent. Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney is absent. Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray is absent. Just some clarification on Mr. Abernathy's absence. Yesterday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. the planning commission had a training session, optional training session down at the development services office, and while walking into that room, Mr. Abernathy tripped on a chair, fell and broke his shoulder blade. So, he went to the hospital last night and was released. He's home now recovering. A little bruised and battered and probably watching us this morning and telling, through the television, giving us good advice. But our thoughts are with Mr. Abernathy. It will be some undetermined amount of time before he can resume his duties as a planning commissioner. Any addenda to the agenda this morning? None that I'm aware of. Moving on to planning commission absences. With yesterday afternoon's excitement in Mr. Abernathy's events, we did not have a quorum at the second hearing in the land development code that was scheduled for 5 :00 p.m. That has been rescheduled for next Wednesday. I think that's the 27th. Is that right, Ray? Wednesday the 27th at 1 :00 p.m. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Page 2 April 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. WHITE: And that will be in the east chambers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. I will not be able to attend that meeting. MR. ADELSTEIN: Nor will 1. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Adelstein will also not be able to attend. And Mr. Abernathy probably will not be able to attend. That's going to be an awful quick bounce back for him. Mr. Vigliotti is on vacation. MR. STRAIN: He's been gone since -- he's sent me an e-mail. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So, we've got, probably four out. The remaining five -- Mr. Midney and Mr. Murray who are not here to account for themselves become critical. Will you be able to do a follow-up, Ray, and verify their attendance, otherwise the forum just isn't going to make it. MR. BELLOWS: Sure. MR. STRAIN: If you can get some proxies, that will work. MR. BELLOWS: I'll defer to the county attorney about proxies. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah. I don't think that will work either. Okay. Any other -- Mr. Midney, good morning. Any other planned absences in the future by the planning commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We'll move on to the approval of minutes. Starting from the oldest and moving forward. There is the March 14th concurrency workshop. Any comments or motion to approve? MR. ADELSTEIN: I thought that I was the chairman of that meeting, but I guess I might have been mistaken. I do know that almost every member of county planning commission asked questions or got involved in the discussion that was being made at that meeting, and yet not one of the names of any of them were in the minutes. Page 3 April 21, 2005 Also, the fact that if I did get done with it, they put Russell's name as having been chairman of it, and at the time he wasn't even there. I don't think I've ever read a worse set of minutes, or a less complete set of minutes than this set. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just out of curiosity, I wasn't there. Did they have the name tags in front of each Commissioner? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yup. You want to take a look at the minutes? Oh, you've got a copy of the minutes. MR. SCHIFFER: Actually, I didn't get a copy in my packet either. I'm reading Paul's. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. So, we have some criticism by Mr. Adelstein. Do we have a motion to adopt? I don't know if we can rewrite them. But adopt with reservations as to their completeness. MR. ADELSTEIN: I would make that motion. MR. SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed. MR. STRAIN: I'll abstain. I wasn't there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Moving on to from oldest to newest, we have the March 16th planning commission meeting. Any comments or motion? MR. ADELSTEIN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion to approve. Do we have a second? MS. CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Ms. Page 4 April 21, 2005 Caron. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor of adoption of these minutes signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. STRAIN: I'll abstain. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Abstain by Mr. Strain. Then moving onto the minutes of March 17th. Do we have amotion? MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved. MR. SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion to approve by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor of adopting the minutes, signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. That's all three of our minute packets. And, Ray, do we have any comments on the County Commission? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on April 12th the board approved on the Page 5 April 21, 2005 summary agenda. The Connelly variance, that was the Vineyards proj ect with the garage in the front. He also approved the Westlick, LLC variance which was for the piling, the boat piling, and the conditional use for the Bethel Assembly Church, which was the gymnasIum. The petition for Cocahatchee Bay and Santa Barbara Landings had to be continued to May 10th because Commissioner Henning wasn't present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. There's no chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings. First agenda item is petition BD-2005-AR-7132. Request for a 36-foot boat dock extension. Any disclosures on the part of planning commissioners? MR. SCHIFFER: None. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do we have a petitioner? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. Good morning, sir. MR. BERRY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just state your name for the record and just describe what it is you're seeking. MR. BERRY: William A. Berry. And what I'm seeking is a boat dock extension of 36 feet from the property line for 117 Bay Shore Way in Goodland. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. BERRY: And what I'm looking to do is duplicate the dock Page 6 April 21, 2005 that was approved by the board a few years ago on the 115 Bay Shore Way, just duplicating that and flipping that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Questions of the petitioner. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: How long is the dock that you're trying to duplicate? MR. BERRY: Fifty feet. Fifty feet from the sea wall, which means 50 feet from the sea wall. MR. ADELSTEIN: Well, all throughout this it keeps talking about 56 feet. MR. BERRY: Because the sea wall in this drawing is not on the property line. And the property line in this varies from where the sea wall is back to -- on the right-hand side the property line is on the sea wall. And as it goes back west, the sea wall goes on an angle and so, therefore, if you get back to the other end, it's about 6- foot back from the sea wall. MR. ADELSTEIN: Could you live with a 50-foot dock -- could you live with a 50-foot dock area instead of -- MR. BERRY: From the sea wall? Yes. That's what I'm asking for, 50-foot from the sea wall, and that is the same as the one next door. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? MR. STRAIN: Yes. On the aerial that was provided to us-- MR. BERRY: Yes. MR. STRAIN: -- this property goes from Gulf side of -- the one side of the water across Bay Shore to the other side, right. MR. BERRY: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: I know there's a dock on the opposite side by the documents received, but the aerial looks like there's two or three vessels there. MR. BERRY: Yes, that's true. And I bought this in January 30th Page 7 April 21, 2005 of 19 -- or, 2004. And at that time the owner was at 121. If you'll see that on there, on the left-hand side up in the left-hand corner. That was the owner of that property. And he let his friends all park their boats on that property. And since that time they've all been removed. Matter of fact, they were removed over to where his boat slips are on the other side? MR. STRAIN: You also own 115? MR. BERRY: Do I own lIS? No. Mr. Castro owns 155. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I thought you had said that the duplicate that was approved on 155 -- MR. BERRY: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Just the dock layout, but you don't own that property? MR. BERRY: No, I do not own that property? Mr. Castro had that approved in 2001. And that, as you can see on the overview there that proj ect out. The only thing I'm asking to do is, put that out there and flip it. And on the overview on 11 7, the property line between 11 7 and 115 is right at the sea wall. And as it comes back onto the left-hand side, it proj ects back, but there is also a pin at the property line. But when they researched the title, they felt that they should go back to the other one, instead of the pin that is out at the sea wall. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions. MR. ADELSTEIN: I think that's all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No more at this time. Thank you. Can we hear from the staff, please? MS. ERNST: For the record, I'm Joyce Ernst with Zoning & Land Development Review. Just to clarify one point is that, he was requesting a 50-foot boat dock extension. However, code requires that we measure the extension from the most restrictive point, which in this case, happens to be the property line which lies landward of the sea wall. That's why you have a different dimension. I saw a little Page 8 April 21, 2005 puzzlement on some people's faces as to why it's 56 feet and not 50, because it's measured from the property line. Okay? And as you see there's a very similar extension that was approved for the dock right next door to them with a lift also. I believe it doesn't -- they don't have a lift there, but it was approved for a lift the same as Mr. Berry is requesting. And I want to point out one thing, too. In Goodland, the same rules apply of Goodland as they do everywhere else in Collier County. I know there was some questions that people felt they shouldn't get boat dock extensions, but the overlay does not address boat dock extensions in Goodland so the same rules apply. And I forwarded you some copies of approvals that Mr. Berry had gotten from adjacent neighbors; in addition some approval-- disapproval. I think two disapprovals were forwarded to you also. And one of the disapprovals was from a nearby property owner who had previously approved, you know, the boat dock extension. This extension complies with all the criteria as indicated in the Collier County land development code, and, therefore, staff recommends approval. Does anyone have any questions? MR. SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Just quick. Any of those disapprovals from the neighboring properties? MS. ERNST: Yes, from either side. They both had letters of approval. The one that was from -- a disapproval was, I think from -- was about four doors away. I don't believe it shows it on that. MR. SCHIFFER: The other question is, isn't there a side setback of 15 feet required? MS. ERNST: No. When you have a waterfront property that's only 60 feet or less water frontage then your side setback is seven-and-a-half. More than 60 feet, we would require a IS-foot side Page 9 April 21, 2005 road setback. MR. SCHIFFER: So that 116 from the lift, that's fine. That's been set back. MS. ERNST: Yeah. Uh-huh. MR. SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ray, are there any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? MR. ADELSTEIN: I move we approve BD-7132 subject to staff recommendation. MR. MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a second by Mr. Midney. Discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is no discussion. We'll call the questions. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to our next agenda item, that is petition V A-2004-AR-7005, Waldemar Bokrand of Golden Gate Import Export, requesting a variance to reduce the landscape buffer. All those wishing to present testimony on Page 10 April 21, 2005 this item, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosures by planning commissioners? MR. BELLOWS: None. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. McKEE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dave McKee with Consult Tech Development Services in Bonita Springs. I'm here this morning representing Mr. Bokrand of the Golden Gate Import Export Company. It's a relatively simple variance request that is really an extension of an existing condition. It's to allow a reduction in the landscape buffer area from 10 feet to 1 foot along the south property line to allow the access drive to be constructed an extension of it to some additional units that are going to be developed beyond that driveway end. As I indicated, it's more or less an existing condition that we wish to extend and make legal. If you could see here from the drawing CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, there's a hand-held mike at your right. There you go. MR. McKEE: If you can see from the plan here, I have tried to highlight the existing driveway that serves these four existing residences in yellow . You can see it comes down through here, and it actually is within what would be the now required 10- foot landscape buffer in its existing condition. It does end at this point. At the time that this PUD was passed and these units were built, there was not a requirement for a 10- foot landscape buffer, so there was no violation that was occurring and this was allowed to occur. Page 11 April 21, 2005 What we're asking for now is that this driveway be allowed to continue and extend up here to serve additional units. We would make -- this area in here would be where we're asking for the variance request. Weare trying to improve it to the extent we can, for instance, if this corner were actually taking this driveway and rounding it off and giving us a little more of a buffer here in this particular area to help with this particular multi-family development. The only other thing we've done in regards to this, we have gone to the fire department to make sure that the design we have proposed is acceptable to them, and it is, in terms of fire protection. Other than that, we have no additional information that we need to present on this, I believe. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Questions of the petitioner? Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Yes, sir. You said that at the time this was originally built, those four units, the code did not require a landscape buffer. What code is it you're referring to? MR. McKEE: I'm going to need a little help from staff here. I apologize. I had another person that was working on this that was not able to make it so I'm filing it. Heidi promised she'd help me through this a little bit. MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, my name is Heidi Williams, principal planner with Zoning & Land Development Review. The landscape code that is enforced now was adopted in 1991. That information was provided to me by Nancy Simeon, who is our staff landscape architect. And not only was the landscape code not enforced at that time, but there was additional land to the south of this property that was more of a buffer when these units were built. MR. STRAIN: My question though was -- he said the code at the time did not require a landscape buffer. What was the code at the time? MS. WILLIAMS: The land development code? Page 12 April 21, 2005 MR. STRAIN: In the time frame he was referring to. The land development code didn't come in probably around that time, but I believe you're going to look at Ordinance 7630.7630 has landscape buffer requirements, and they have deviations. If you don't want to make it 10 feet, you can go to 6 feet, Section 20 of that particular code. That's why I'm trying to understanding what he's referring to, because I would check back to the old codes and they all have landscape buffers, and I'm wondering why he didn't think they were applicable. MS. WILLIAMS: The information that was provided to me was based on 1991 LDC adoption of the 10- foot requirement. And I think the key part of the information here is that there was additional land to this south at the time this was developed. That was under ownership. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Was that additional land under common ownership with this development? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe it was. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So there was a sale of that parcel between the time of the original development and now? MS. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding that a prior owner developed the four units that are in existence and subsequently sold the land that became the Greenwood Village development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, we'll probably explore that a little further, but it sounds to me like we might have a self-induced hardship if they sold away critical land necessary for the continued development of this property. That's the buyer and seller's problem, but we'll look further at that. Any other questions of the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Sir, you said you reviewed this with the fire department. Did they give you anything in writing? Because this to me seems like a torturous dead end for a fire truck. MR. McKEE: Actually, again, I apologize. My staff member also has the files. I'm sure there is a letter because we were concerned Page 13 April 21, 2005 about that. I will tell you that there is a, on this plan -- and I know you can't read it -- there is a grass area that's going to be a stabilized area right in here. You might be able to just barely pick up the crosshatching. That is what has been approved by the fire department as a turnaround. If they have to bring a truck in here, they can back into this particular point and then go back out forward. And that was a specific requirement of the site plan design that we did work with the fire department on. MR. SCHIFFER Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, you had another question? MR. STRAIN: Yes. First of all, the site plan that you're showing us isn't at issue today. But if you were to evaluate that site plan based on the rules in the PUD, I would sincerely question a lot of the way that layout is being provided in regards to whether it meets the PUD or not. I know the issue though is only the buffer and that reduction in the setback. It seems that you're taking a driveway that had access to those four existing condos and making it more of a driveway to get to additional units in the back. Why didn't you take and move that access to the opposite side of those four existing buildings. I know that means you'd have to move a pool, but the cost to move a pool isn't as great as the imposition on the neighborhood that this variance might impose. Since you didn't build the buildings near the lake, and since you haven't built the buildings back to the right side of that diagram, I don't know why you just wouldn't put the driveway right where it should be on your property with the proper amount of buffers and deal with it as you have to and relocate your recreational area. MR. McKEE: Well, we felt that the best way to do this was to extend the driveway in its existing condition. If we were to reroute the driveway to the opposite sides of those units, then they would have a drive in they're, basically what is their backyards. MR. STRAIN: Well, isn't that what you're putting on the people next door? Page 14 April 21, 2005 MR. McKEE: That driveway does already exist for those four units. MR. STRAIN: Right. Which is a lot less traffic and a lot less width and a lot less end unit for the turnaround than what you're putting on the four you've got against the water. Which you probably wouldn't need that turn around off your variance -- I mean, off your setback if you took one of those four out anyway. Because you could just move them all to the north and you've got plenty of room for the turnaround. It just doesn't look like you've gone to any great extent to accommodate the neighbors in this particular plan that you're showing. I think there are other ways around it. That's most of my questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of the petitioner? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Can you provide any clarification on what appears to me to be a self-induced hardship with the previous sale of that land to the south? MR. McKEE: I do not have a history of how that land was split and purchased at the time that it was broken off. I'm sorry. I can't provide you any additional information on that. That's something I could go back and research if we needed to go into a continuance situation to determine what the history of this property was. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And we're going to continue with public testimony and questions and everything else, but for my own part, having no more satisfactory answer on that one issue, I'm not in favor of approving this petition just on the fact that there was buffer regulations in place prior to the current 1991 reference code that will not be complied with, either the out-of-date code, nor the current code, and that the creation of this situation was self-induced by the property owner when they split and sold the property. That point alone, I'm not in favor of this petition, but we'll continue with the public hearing. If there's no further questions of the petitioner, we'll move on to the staffd Page 15 April 21, 2005 report. MS. WILLIAMS: Again, I'm Heidi Williams, from Zoning & Land Development Review. I believe you already saw the location map. It may be easier to view with a little bit of color. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It would be easier yet if it was right side up. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Sorry about that. This property is located in the Kings Lake PUD. The petition -- the petitioner provided the site plan as shown here. I've outlined in a pink dash the existing driveway, and outlined in blue the proposed driveway. As was already pointed out, the entire site plan is not under review today, only the proposed variance, and that is the area that is highlighted in blue. I've also added a green highlighted area which was originally included as part of the original variance request. The original request was for 158 linear feet. Staff could not support the entire area that was requested. Upon resubmittal, the applicant worked with the fire department and agreed to stabilize and sod the emergency vehicle turnaround which would have been required. This removed that area from the petition. There was a second area that could not be supported by staff near their extra parking on the southern side of the property, and that was also removed from the request. This is an aerial photograph of the existing site plan. There are some -- there is some vegetation on the site plan which makes it a little difficult to see what is there. Just shows the existing units and the driveway. When I visited the site I took a few pictures and thought that this showed the angle of what is there now. The property to the south, which is Greenwood Village Condominiums, has an existing hedge, and the trees which are -- which would be required, as on this property as well. The Type A landscape buffer is one tree every 30- feet, as I'm sure all of you are aware. That's just a closer look at the area that would be most affected Page 16 April 21, 2005 by this variance request. You can see the driveway where it ends, you can see the proximity to the property line there. That is a situation that is proposed to be extended by the applicant. Staff analysis and review did recommend approval for this variance. A few of the points all included in the staff report are that the unusual shape of the site and the history of the development on this site have created a situation where the western portion of the property can only be accessed for development if this driveway is continued, and an encroachment the required landscape buffer is allowed. There are four conditions of approval in the staff report. One is that the variance is limited to a reduction of the landscape buffer only as shown on the proposed site development plan. The variance is limited to a reduction of landscape area for a distance of 101 linear feet for a varying width not to exceed a reduction of nine feet of the 10 feet usually required. The applicant is required to plants any trees that are displaced by the granting of the variance in other locations along the southern property line. And the site will have to meet all other applicable code requirements at the time of site development plan reVIew. I would also like to mention that the resolution contained in your agenda packet is a draft form. We are still working with the applicant to verify a better legal description to define the area requested for the variance. And if you have any questions of me, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Heidi, one of your statements was that this was the only way to access those west side units. My suggestions earlier was that the pool could come out and be relocated to, say, a rec. center that would service all 10 or 14 units, whatever is there. Is that pool something that could not come out under any circumstance? MS. WILLIAMS: The pool could certainly be removed. That is Page 1 7 April 21, 2005 an option the applicant would have to consider. The constraint is that the driveway that serves the existing units comes up to garages for all four of those units. So a drive on the southern portion of this site would have to remain to serve those units. MR. STRAIN: Well, the difference that I see is if you have a drive as it is there now, you've got one guy living on the end with his car, maybe his neighbor's, and that's the amount of traffic that's going to be running down that drive possibly imposing any hardship on the people next door. If the rest of -- if that was just teed off of a road that went approximately where the existing pool is to access the back, they wouldn't have such an impact on off-site residential units. That was where I was going from. But the pool, from a code perspective, there's nothing that says that has to be there. It could be removed and relocated if the gentleman were to work it out with the existing -- MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. The applicant would be able to consider that as an option. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Heidi, it looks like the driveway now is going to go over the private property of the existing units and be very close to the garages. Do you know what distance this is going to be from the corner of the garages? MS. WILLIAMS I would have to probably refer to the applicant on that. The existing condition that it is very close. The drive does pass the garages with very little extension of the driveway. MR. SCHIFFER: But it doesn't go -- in other words, there's no traffic going beyond? I mean, the fellow on the end that's very close to, that's the end of the drive. It's not like there's traffic coming alongside there. Looks very dangerous. The other question is, isn't the 23-foot requirement from garage doors, wouldn't this layout actually require variance for the existing building from that requirement? Page 18 April 21, 2005 MS. WILLIAMS: The existing buildings were approved in this way. The new construction would be required to have 23 feet from the garage door to the driveway. MR. SCHIFFER: But since this is a new road, that requirement, wouldn't that also be required for the existing? MS. WILLIAMS: Those four units are held under separate ownership. I'm not sure how that would apply. MR. SCHIFFER: I think that's another dangerous situation. How is waste picked up at this site? Is there a compound where all the waste is collected, or would this driveway also have utility vehicles, waste pickup going down it? MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the utility pickup is at this point. MR. SCHIFFER: That's enough. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: No more at this time. Thank you. Do we have some registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have approximately nine speakers. The first speaker is Jacqueline Baczenski followed by Mary K. Batista. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, if you'd just come forward to this podium closest to you -- works either way -- and state your name for the record. MS. BACZENSKI: My name is Jacqueline Baczenski, and I reside at 2632 Kings Lake Boulevard. I am speaking to you today as president of the Greenwood Village Homeowner's Association. I, along with many -- many? All of my neighbors in the community of Greenwood Village are here to plead with you to reconsider this application for variance to reduce the landscape buffer between our property and the neighboring property. Today I want to talk about humanity and ask you to think about how you would feel if this was Page 19 April 21, 2005 happening next door to your personal residence. People buy real estate for one reason, location, location, location. We the residents of Greenwood Village bought our property for exactly that, the location. We might be a little prejudiced, but we feel we have the most beautifully designed, landscaped and maintained community of any of the condos communities surrounding Kings Lake. We bought here because of these factors. If we wanted buildings and vehicles right on top of our homes, we would have purchased property on busy Highway 41. This variance will severely affect our property values, and most of all the quiet, peaceful, and safe environment where we live. I understand one of the owner's -- one of the owners for the petitioner who would want to put in this development asked one of our owners who called to talk to him, what will it take you folks to come to terms with this variance. The statement was to that individual, we will build you a wall, plant vines, flowers to cover the wall and make it pleasing to the eye. Well, I don't know where you come from, but where I come from a wall is a wall of hate. May we never forget the Berlin Wall. We the owners of Greenwood Village will not negotiate on this matter. These ordinances were put on the books to protect all property owner's rights. After reading the petition of Waldemar Bokrand, I realized that the trees around the -- along the property line would be removed. The comments that I read were, don't worry, we'll be planting more trees in other locations on the lot. May I stress the words "other locations". N ow this two-story building is going to be even more in our face with no trees to soften the view. I ask that all of you come to the site and view the situation for yourself. Our reduction of the landscape buffer between Don Carlos and Greenwood Village to one foot and having four two-story units crowded into this narrow strip of land facing Kings Lake can only Page 20 -- April 21, 2005 diminish the value of the condos in Greenwood Village. Another issue I feel is fire and safety. Far be it from me to question their professional knowledge, but how the fire marshal can sign off on a proposal that doesn't allow for a fire truck or rescue adequate space to turn around is beyond my comprehension. Again, our safety in a hazardous situation is being compromised. Aerial photos alone do not show the full magnitude of this situation. Before you vote on this issue, I urge all of you to visit the site, see for yourself what we will be left to deal with. We ask that you look inside your heart. What would you do if this situation was being forced upon you? I tend to think you would be doing the same thing we are doing, fighting for our right to safety, security, and the quiet enjoyment of our property. In closing, I would like to question why the hearing date was proposed. Maybe that's not mine to question, but we had a very large contingent of owners that had planned to attend this meeting. However, they had no choice but to fly home at the end of their winter vacation. I'm disappointed they lost the opportunity to be seen and heard at this meeting. We the owners of Greenwood Village do not object to anyone's right to develop their property. We do, however, strongly object to the overdevelopment of any property, whether it be right next door to us, or right next door to you. Our rights need to be protected and we're looking to you, the board of commissioners, to help us preserve our rights. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. And who is the following speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is Mary K. Batista followed by Nancy Payton. MS. BATISTA: Yes. My name is Mary K. Batista. My husband was one that was to be here April 7th, so I am representing us and reading. The undersigned, Roy H. Batista and Mary K. Batista are the Page 21 April 21, 2005 owners of a condominium unit at Greenwood Village, which abuts Don Carlos on the south. The Collier County Department of Zoning & Land Development Review has provided, as we heard, the landscape provisions to which applicant is seeking a variance were first adopted in 1991. We have also been provided with information that the present applicant took title to the subject premises in 2004. It is well established under case law in Florida that, quote, owners are deemed to purchase property with constructive knowledge of applicable land use regulations, unquote. In addition, it is virtually inconceivable that an experienced land developer would acquire real estate without due diligence as to the land use regulations applicable to the acquired tract. Thus, in all likelihood, the applicant had actual knowledge of the land use regulations applicable to this tract. We would like to call your attention to the case of All State Mortgage Corporation of Florida versus City of Miami Beach, 308 So. 2nd 69 3rd District Court of Appeals, 1975. The facts of the Miami Beach case are remarkably similar to the application for variance which has been filed by this applicant. In the Miami Beach case, the applicant for the variance purchased a home which encroached into the rear yard setback. The rear yard setback was 20 feet and the applicant's home was within 15 feet of the rear lot line. The home had been constructed prior to zoning, and the applicant had purchased the home subsequent to zoning. The applicant sought a variance for a further encroachment into the 20- foot rear setback line. In that case, the court found that the applicant acquired the property chargeable with knowledge of the 20- foot rear setback and was estopeed to assert any hardship created by virtue of a setback ordinance. A copy of this Miami Beach case is attached. In this application, the buffer is a form of a setback requirement. There is an existing encroachment into the buffer which applicant seeks to further increase. The applicant should be stopped from Page 22 April 21, 2005 asserting a hardship or practical difficulty. Any hardship or practical difficulty is self-created by the applicant. The applicant at the time of the acquisition of the property was well aware of its physical characteristics, its size, and the configuration of the track. The applicant should not be permitted to rely on self-created hardship or practical difficulty to support a variance. Thompson versus Planning Commission of the City of Jacksonville 464 So. 2nd 1231 First District Court of Appeals 1985, and Josephson versus Audrey, 96 So. 2nd, 784 Florida Supreme Court, 1957. Other speakers will be addressing the negative impact this variance will have on Greenwood Village. The applicant acquired the property well aware of its physical characteristics, and with either constructive or actual knowledge of the land used regulations applicable to the property. It is inappropriate to expect the Greenwood Village property owners to participate in the consequences of applicant's failure to do due diligence. That's respectively submitted. Roy Batista and Mary K. Batista. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Nancy Payton followed by Dorothy Davis. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton. I'm representing myself today. I don't live in Greenwood Village. I live in Bristol Square. Bristol Square is right here. And I'm here to support my neighbors. I bought in Kings Lake. I looked a long time. And I wanted to live in Kings Lake for a couple of reasons. One, it's an established community. It has significant setbacks. It values its natural environment. We don't have walls in Kings Lake, or gates for that matter. And I'll share with you that my neighborhood is participating in the Florida yards and neighborhood associate -- program, and Carolyn Cochrin from the extension service came and was pleasantly surprised at the setbacks, the open space, that our communities have. It's unique in the growing area of Collier County. Reducing a 10- foot buffer to one foot -- and this is one foot -- which really isn't much of a buffer, if any buffer at Page 23 April 21, 2005 all. It's not compatible with our neighborhood. And I urge you to recommend denial of this variance because it is not compatible, it's not appropriate, and it is a burden on our neighborhood because it sets a precedent for potentially what could happen elsewhere. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker please. MR. BELLOWS: Dorothea Davis followed by Dolores Daniewski. MS. DAVIS: Good morning. My name is Dorothea Davis. I live in Greenwood Village. I want to say hello to the board, Mr. Budd, and the rest of the board. I know what a board does. And I know it's not easy. I would like merely to read a letter from one of my neighbors which says it all. This letter is dated February 9, 2005 and it's to the attention of Heidi Williams regarding, of course, this petition. Dear Mrs. Williams. First I would like to thank you for your cooperation in providing me a copy of the subdivision plan sheet and explaining the details of the proposed development plan. As discussed, I am an owner at 2608 Kings Lake Boulevard, a property in Greenwood Village, which abuts the Don Carlos property across from the existing four residences. Please consider the following comments in your review of the subject petition for variance with regard to the Don Carlos subdivision. Variances are normally granted for certain hardships to development for slight encroachment, actions that would continue to meet the intended letter of the law. Variances should not be granted for variations from regulation that would contradict the intended protection of these regulations. In this case, a variance that would allow a one-foot landscape buffer would completely negate the intention of this regulation. Ten feet is considered the minimum to allow for affective landscape screening, and there is no possible way to create effective screening in a one foot area. The 158-linear-foot total along the south property line for which this variance is requested is a significant portion of the Page 24 April 21, 2005 frontage between the Don Carlos and Greenwood Village properties. Elimination of landscape buffer zone for this significant distance will greatly impact the serenity, the visual qualities, and potential property values at Greenwood Village. The significance of this encroachment appears indicative of trying to overdevelop property for which there apparently is not enough open space and access areas for such development. I respectfully submit this for your consideration, as well as for consideration at any subsequent public hearing on this matter, and request that your office not recommend approval of this petition for variance. Sincerely, Peter Howard, 2608 Kings Lake Boulevard, Greenwood Village. I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker please. MR. BELLOWS: Dolores Daniewski. MS. DANIEWSKI: That's very close. We were called Danusky, Danowski, Daniewski and my husband always said just don't call me late for dinner. I is Daniewski. Dolores Daniewski. And I'm speaking as a person who lives -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, over -- MS. DANIEWSKI: I was going to show you where I live. I'm right at a spot -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right next to you is an illustrator down -- look down on the table top to your right. MS. DANIEWSKI: I can't see. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll take your word for it, you live in the neighborhood. MS. DANIEWSKI: I live in the neighborhood, yes. And the impact on my unit is right there. The purpose of the present -- my presentation, is to let you know what we had experienced living in that particular spot. There are three buildings that are involved, eight units in each building that will be affected similarly to the way we were. Now, we bought our units pre-built up from Michigan. We came down, settled down in our living room, and were we surprised when Page 25 -.--- April 21, 2005 one night we were in the spotlight. The road that comes into the four units, to access the four units, is at a 45-degree angle, and the headlights hit our unit full force, our living room. There is no other place to sit to look out than that and the master bedroom. Now, Don Car -- we kind of questioned this and found out that no variance was made. Don Carlos was built before Greenwood. And when the land was sold, our land went right up to, within just a few feet, of the corner of the parking lot and the access entrance to the last garage. Our view at that time was four garage doors, sometimes open, very often open, and garage cans. And here was beautiful Kings Lake and we couldn't see any of it. Now, the Board of Directors of Greenwood came to our aid, the aid of all three buildings, and built a natural buffer of Areca palm trees in amongst the pine trees. We have a lovely, lovely landscape. We have a good 20 feet between that spot and our lot line. It has been a Godsend for my husband who was critically disabled due to World War II injuries. He was a prisoner in his wheelchair and in his bedroom, in his hospital bed, but we could open our blinds and see this wonderful natural fence of green Areca trees, which attracted birds and bird song and beautiful yellow butterflies that he claimed as his own. It made his life much, much better. Now, I talked to Dr. Caldwell and he said he would send me a letter. I guess the mail was a little late. I didn't get it. He is in charge of the extension service for Collier County. And I asked him if a road came within one foot of this green belt, what effect would it have on the vegetation, and he said it will distress it and possibly destroy it. Heavy equipment -- and it will need heavy equipment to get all that building material to the front end -- the roots will just not survive. So that will be gone. Now a tree every 30 feet along that line is not going to give us any visual protection, any protection from noise. You may say, well, Areca palms don't make any difference, but I did talk to someone who was an expert on sound. And said, would you believe, it Page 26 April 21, 2005 made a difference of 6.1 -- I think it's called decibels. We -- I have to look at my notes. I'm going off in a tangent here. I mentioned the open garage doors and the garage cans. I did not mention the parking lot, which serves four cars, and very often there's a truck in there. Now, if this road is allowed, it will be hundred -- I'm told now-- 101 feet. That means that we're going to have traffic, our buildings are going to have traffic, not only coming in, but going out too. So it will be triple, quadrupled. And it really will make a difference. Now, I can be redundant and repeat what my -- what the former speakers said about the economy. However, a real estate person did come to me and asked if I wanted to sell my unit. And I said, no, absolutely not. I love it here. And she said, well, you know your property value will go down if that road is put in. And I imagine she is right. Hopefully, you'll consider what life was like for people who are sitting right there on the edge of all this that is going to happen. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: That was the last speaker. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There's no further speakers. And we've heard from petitioner and the staff. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that AR-7005 before the Board of County Commissioners recommendation of disapproval. MR. SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? MR. ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make one comment. For the record, there are 71 letters against this in my packet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion? MR. STRAIN: Yes. I'm going to recommend the same. I'm going to go along with the motion, but my reasons for doing so are that, that is a self-induced hardship. That there's alternatives that are Page 27 ~- .. -- - _'.__'''--_'''_.~~'_^,--~--*--''''''~'''-''----'' ---- April 21, 2005 more beneficial to the neighborhood and would not require any variances that this property could be developed with, and there's no redeeming value in granting this variance at all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's unanimous. Motion carries. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Let's -- we normally don't break this early, but the next item should have a little meat to it, so while we're clearing the room, let's take a ten-minute break before the next item. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We will reconvene the planning commission. We have our commissioners back in place. We will resume with petition number PUDZA-2003-AR3585, the Wilson Boulevard Center. All those wishing to present testimony on this item please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give on the matter now in hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any disclosure by planning commissioners? MR. STRAIN: Yes. I have had numerous conversations with Page 28 April 21, 2005 members of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, Mark Peters being one and Linda Hartman being another. Probably a couple others in form of email, and then also conversations with the applicant, part of which was reasons for continuance, and the applicant was cooperative enough to remeet with neighborhood association which all those conversations were about. CHAIRMAN BUDD: okay. Thank you. Any other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Ifwe could hear from the applicant, please. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me are Bill Hoover and Dean Smith and they can answer any technical questions you may have. This is -- this property is an existing PUD at the southeast quadrant of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It's within the neighborhood center subdistrict of the Golden Gate master plan. Weare making some revisions to the existing PUD to make it consistent to, with recent revisions, to the Golden Gate master plan, namely the revisions address allowing water management to be within the 75-foot wide buffer, and also including a number of listed prohibited uses within the PUD. We -- as Commissioner Strain mentioned, the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association requested another meeting with us just prior to the scheduled meeting before you all at the last meeting, so we continued and met with the Civic Association leadership. Their primary concerns were with the buffering between our proj ect and the residential houses to the south of us. They had some concerns about architecture and they had a concern with a bus stop. We agreed to construct a wall along the southern boundary of our property. The wall would be on all property on our side of the buffer, but will construct a wall as required by the comp plan. It will go across the southern boundary and jog north for a certain length so we can provide some sound buffering for the Page 29 April 21, 2005 neighbors to the south. MR. STRAIN: Could you put a site plan on the overhead so we can see exactly where you're talking about the wall going? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I have my directions. I'm sure you'll correct me if I don't. This is the southern boundary right here. This is the 75-foot buffer, so the wall would be across here. MR. BELLOWS: That's east -- south. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it's going to be going in an easterly direction. Where is my pointer. Here we go. The wall would start here near Wilson Boulevard, go east. MR. STRAIN: You can't put that on the people's property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry. And then head north. We're not on their property. You know, I didn't have my coffee this morning so there's still a little bit the jitters there. But anyway, that's the direction -- the general direction is going to move that we'll have a surveyor do it and not have me do it. But it will go in that direction to the east and head north for a short period, and that's what the neighbors wanted. They preferred that type of construction versus a fence. And -- MR. STRAIN: I understand the wall is something you've agreed to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we have. MR. STRAIN: Now, the property to the east-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. MR. STRAIN: What is that zoned as? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, right now it's estates. But it's eligible for conditional uses. The civic association prefer that we not build the wall there because if a conditional use were to come in, the actual buffers between our property would be less. And they felt it was unnecessary to build a wall since it's vacant at this time. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So, the Civic Association is aware that the wall that you're intending to put on is only along the south property line to a certain point north of that? Page 30 April 21, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had an extensive discussion. MR. STRAIN: When I was talking with them, they told me that you had agreed to the wall which was suggested. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. STRAIN: I didn't realize it was limited to that point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, yes. And that was actually -- we spent a lot of time discussing the wall, the location of the wall, whether we should build a wall on their property. And then they agreed it actually made more sense to have the wall on our property because then they would actually get the benefit of the 75-foot-wide buffer. It would almost be as if it were their property, the residential property . MR. STRAIN: How far north would that wall go? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't come to an exact distance, Commissioner Strain. We wanted to make sure it went far enough north that it made sense from a sound standpoint, but we didn't talk about it in exact distance. MR. STRAIN : Well, that's kind of hard to put into a stipulation. It's far enough north to make sense, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you have an idea? I mean, we didn't talk about distance. MR. STRAIN : Yeah, 500 feet. Is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that's -- MR. STRAIN: Let's just work our way down then. What do you think is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you have an idea? I think what they were envisioning was probably 20, 25 feet as far as the jog would go. It wasn't a very big jog north. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The next issue was the architecture, Page 31 April 21, 2005 although it's not something we deal with at zoning. There's a range of architecture you're allowed under the comp plan. They prefer that we get to kind of an old Florida flavor, and we agreed to go to an old Florida type flavor architecture. And, finally, they had concern about a bus stop for school children. They requested that if we can get a permit from the county -- I believe the county has a well site in the general area. If the county would give us permit, we would go ahead and construct the bus stop on the county's property. We agreed to that. So, those were the three concerns of the association and the neighbors in the area. We're more than willing to stipulate to those provisions within our PUD. Since you've seen this PUD before and your staff report is very thorough, I'll end the presentation now and answer any specific questions you may have regarding the PUD document, or anything else. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions, Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: In your PUD document, section 2.6 talks about the property owner's association for common area maintenance. How are you planning to maintain the bus shelter? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will have to become one of the property owner association's responsibilities. MR. STRAIN: Okay. So you wouldn't mind adding some language to that effect into this paragraph? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's permitted, we'll make sure our association does the maintenance. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And this fence would be the same way? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. The fence is on our property. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Ray, bus shelter permitting. I know that they don't require any setbacks. They do require the location to be approved by the School Board of Collier County. I'm pulling this out of the LDC. Are there any other issues that would make it impossible for the applicant to get the -- I want to make sure we're not imposing Page 32 April 21, 2005 something that's impossible to do, but I also at the same time want to make sure they go to the greatest effort possible to get there. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not aware of any, but I might defer to transportation to see if they have any issues with the bus shelters. MR. STRAIN: Would that also -- they're talking about putting it possibly on a well site. There are other sites it could go on which means -- MR. BELLOWS: The well field ordinance has some restrictions, but I don't think a shelter would be impacted by that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, they were pointing to some property that was almost adjacent to us, but across the street of Wilson Boulevard, the residence. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They were talking -- the county owns some property across the street from us that we were going to put it on, if it's not a well site. Whatever that property is, that's where they wanted it. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I was on the Homeowners Association. The next question I would have is on page eight. And it's under the commercial areas plan description on page eight. Item C it says -- and this seems to be a contradiction. Prohibited permitted uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want to take the word permitted out? MR. STRAIN : Yeah. Can't we just say prohibited uses? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. MR. STRAIN: Okay. On page 12, and this is of the underlined constructed version. Item three talks about fences and walls, and they may be constructed. It's my understanding a wall shall be constructed along the south property line 25 feet to the north -- of the north of the east property line based on what you just said. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, we need to make that provision. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can you tell me the section again? I don't have the structured version? Page 33 April 21, 2005 MR. STRAIN: It's-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I do. It's section three, correct? MR. STRAIN: Paren three. Any references to fences, I think you'd want to strike. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll take that out. MR. STRAIN: It's part of the code anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll revise it to address the wall. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And the wall is a brick or stone facing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I don't know of any solid stone walls in Collier County, so I think you mean facing in that regard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Got you. MR. STRAIN: So it will be a nice looking wall. The common architectural theme issue on number N. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. STRAIN: How is this bus shelter design going to be? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, there is a design that's already out there, and we were just simply going to replicate the bus shelters that have been approved by, I guess the school board would have approved the design. MR. STRAIN: As long as there is something -- I'd hate to see some used plywood and some four-by-fours nailed up there with a tarp over it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The current approved design is about a $5,000 bus stop so they're anything but that. MR. STRAIN: Did you bring up architectural rendering of the plan that you presented to the Civic Association that I have a copy of, if you don't? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have it, Mr. Strain. You want to _ put it on the visualizer? MR. WHITE: I want to make sure it goes on the visualizer and Page 34 April 21, 2005 we get a record of it. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm assuming if it's your intent, Commissioner Strain, to have that adopted as part of the record you'll need an acquiescence from Mr. -- MR. STRAIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: My understanding is that this came about as a result of your most recent discussions with the neighborhood. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And I haven't heard any objections from this from the neighborhood, so I want to -- I want your consensus and agreement that this will be part of the record and the intent of what you're planning to do as far as a PUD goes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we don't have an objection to that, but if the neighbors want to tweek it, I don't want to have to come back through the process. MR. STRAIN: I'm looking to general style. MR. YOV ANOVICH: About the theme? MR. STRAIN: That's where I'm coming from. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can stipulate to that, yes. We just want to make sure there's still flexibility for the neighbors. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, just one thing. I mean, somebody could actually do better than that, too, couldn't they? I hope. MR. STRAIN: I would think so. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, you know, we have architectural standards. I don't think this is the prettiest shopping center I've ever seen. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think we're just talking schematics here, not an actual design. MR. STRAIN: It's a theme issue more than -- it's got a lot of facades. It's broken up. It's got some Old Florida architecture. MR. SCHIFFER: It's really not old Florida. It's Mediterranean. I Page 35 April 21, 2005 mean, old Florida would be metal roofs, stuff like that. I mean, this thing -- anyway, rather than drag this in, I would rather just go by the architectural standards and the old Florida theme that you chose. MR. STRAIN: Well, then maybe we just all ought to put -- see, I hadn't gotten -- this was forwarded to me by the Civic Association. But I do not know if they commented to you on it. They certainly hadn't commented to me. They just forwarded it to me. MR. SCHIFFER: Is this is the architecture that -- do you know if this is something the neighborhood was leaning towards? MR. YO V ANOVICH: This has been what we -- at the original meeting we didn't have this type of theme. We went back and redesigned the building and sent this to the neighbors. I personally have not received any negative comments. I do know that Gulf Stream Homes, who is ultimately going to build this, is working with the neighbors to come to a design that will make them happy. And, so, I'm assuming the neighborhood is okay with the theme and we're not getting down to some last minute tweaking, if you will, on the design. MR. STRAIN: Well, Brad's suggestion of retaining an old Florida theme in generality, might be better than tying the PUD to this MR. SCHIFFER: I would agree. MR. STRAIN: I think you're right there, Brad. MS. CARON: Just put that in. MR. STRAIN: Yeah, right. So, we'll tie it to an old Florida theme, and if there needs to be more refinement, you have a couple of weeks before you get to the BCC hearing, and I'm sure this will be discussed at that hearing as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. STRAIN: I got a few issues besides, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Go right ahead. Page 36 April 21, 2005 MR. STRAIN: Just staff -- I just have an interesting question. In your staff report you listed the people that attended the neighborhood meeting. A gentleman named Fred Reischl attended, but instead of saying why he attended and who he is representing as you do most of the time, you said including Fred Reischl, former Collier County Principal Planner. Was he there -- he wasn't there as a Collier County Principal Planner. Was he there representing the applicant? MR. DeRUNTZ: No. He was there representing the county. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeRUNTZ: And then the reference in that he was the former employee. MR. STRAIN: Okay. And you also indicated-- MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner, Zoning & Land Development. MR. STRAIN: The question was asked if a gas station would be possible. And I'm glad it's not. But the reason puzzles me. It says, Mr. Hoover stated that because of the well recharge area that exists in the area it is not possible. How does Dee's General store get away with it. MR. DeRUNTZ: I believe that was done prior to the neighborhood center subdistrict, our overlay. And in effect, I am not sure what the rules were when that was permitted and when that well site was put in. MR. STRAIN: I was just curious because there's now -- there is a gas station across the street and it would be nice, if there's a well field problem, I'm just wondering how that one got there. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. MR. STRAIN: Under your commercial areas plan you added-- somebody added a sentence that says -- under eating places, consumption of alcoholic beverages on premises shall be subject to section 50501 of the land development code. Well, isn't that true whether you state it or not? And if so, why are we restating it there? Page 37 April 21, 2005 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you done with me? MR. STRAIN: Whoever -- somebody needs to answer this question. I'm just curious. MR. DeRUNTZ: If that's not referenced in the growth management plan, I think they were just following -- MR. STRAIN: I was just wondering what the concern was. Where you're trying to go with the statement that's redundant, or may be redundant. And I just didn't know where -- if there was something there that I'm not reading into this that should be read into it. MR. DeRUNTZ: One second. I was informed that I think that was the staffs request that was made before, probably by Mr. Reischl at the time. MR. STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know if there was something that needed to be highlighted. The last thing is, if I understand it, they're reducing the buildings -- buildable area on this new plan. There's less building than there was in the prior plan; is that correct? The reason I come up with that information -- your prior plan showed 19 percent. I can't read this smudged version I got on this one. I was wondering if you guys -- yeah, this time it's 15 percent. It's point 96 now. It was one point something in the other plan. It was 1.2 acres for buildings in the previous PUD, and this PUD it's point 96 acres. So you are reducing the buildable square footage of this project, which I'm not complaining about, but I want to make sure that's a positive not a negative. It does reduce traffic and other good things. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we've always had a maximum of 42,000 square feet. I think that may have been a correction to the mathematics on the previous. MR. STRAIN: So the first PUD may have overstated what you could build. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It may have. MR. STRAIN: Okay. That's all the question I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner. We Page 38 April 21, 2005 can move into the staff report. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, principal planner with the Department of Zoning & Land Development Review. As was mentioned that, this is in a neighborhood center subdistrict of the state's mixed use district. This property is zoned as PUD at the present time. They're looking at amending this. As stated also, there was a change of ownership that would be included in this PUD amendment. It is found to be consistent with the growth management plan. Environmentally with the change in the neighborhood center, there is a 75-foot buffer. Twenty-five of that, or 75-foot preserve area buffer. And 50 feet of this closest to the area outside of the neighborhood center is for water management. And 25 percent closer to the commercial part is a buffer. This was, as stated earlier, that there was a neighborhood information meeting on May 7th. Fred Reischl, previous with the development, principal planner, was represented there. And also as was stated, that the south Wilson Civic Association has been in contact with staff expressing some concerns about this proposed amendment. And I'm glad to understand that their concerns have been addressed. As you can see on the visualizer here, that there's a well zone and it's very significant. And it is in the zone one and the petitioner has incorporated in the prohibited uses because of the location of the well zone that gasoline and hazardous materials be prohibited from the use at this location. That concludes my report. If you have any questions, I'll try to address those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions on staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We will close the public Page 39 April 21, 2005 hearing. Do we have a motion? MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-3585 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners and recommendation for approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And do we have a second? MR. SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: A motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? MR. STRAIN: Yes, I would like to suggest that the motion be amended to be adding some things we talked about. Number one, is that there will be a 25-foot -- I mean, a wall along the south boundary line and extending along the north boundary line 25 feet from the south boundary line. The wall will be brick or stone facing. The -- there will be a bus shelter constructed, as permits will allow, in the matter consistent with other bus shelters that are standard in the county. And that the architecture will be retained as old Florida architecture. And I wish to put the applicant on notice that, if there is any further input from the neighborhood about this architecture rendering that we have here today, I'm sure that that will be addressed probably about the time the BCC hears this, so -- with those three stipulations I would be able to support the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The motion is accepted. Mr. Schiffer, do you accept those? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The second accepts them. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. MR. STRAIN: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 40 "~~,_,_""""^'~;_"^W~'_~'·.····__·'" __.",___"._"__...~._____"'~ . - -. ~._--_..___'^"',^- April 21, 2005 MS. CARON: Aye. MR. MIDNEY: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: The motion carries. It's unanimous. Very good. I'm not aware of any old business to come before us, nor any new business. MR. WHITE: New business, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: New business? Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: One quick thing, I was reading in the newspaper that staff has prepared a planning projection of population and stuff. Can we get a copy of that? I mean -- MS. CARON: We did. MR. SCHIFFER: When did we get a copy? MR. STRAIN: A couple of weeks ago. It was all emailed to us before it hit the papers. MR. BELLOWS: I can have one forwarded to you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'd appreciate that. I didn't get an email on that. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, you didn't. How many do I need to send? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Why don't you send them all? It's a click away. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Great. Mr. White, you had something else under new business? MR. WHITE: Well, it's new and old, I guess. It has to do with the LDC amendment hearing that's scheduled for the 27th at 1 :00 p.m. next week. My understanding from discussions with staff is that this room is utilized at 2:00 p.m. for another meeting. And the only thing that would be available would be the rear half of the room, and there would be no television capability in that portion of the room. So, Page 41 April 21, 2005 given the size effectively where that divider is, and given how many folks we had last evening, my recommendation would be to consider having your meeting held in CDES, acknowledging that, in either event, you're not going to have it be televised. So I'd like you to consider that and give some direction to the staff. We have a notice ready to go out, and all we need to do is be able to identify the proper location. MR. STRAIN: Patrick, you know, before we even go there, earlier at today's meeting we discussed the possibility of a quorum again. And I think we may want to just hit on that real quick, because now that Mr. Midney is here, for example. Paul, would you be able to make a 1: 00 meeting next Wednesday? MR. MIDNEY: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then we're out of a quorum. MR. STRAIN: That's what I was worried about. So it's may be a moot point to even look at 1 :00 Wednesday now, unfortunately. MR. WHITE: Then we can take a half step back and see what your schedules may accommodate. I was hoping through the forum of this meeting that we might be able to give some additional notice as early as possible to the citizens and affected property owners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, the only notice we can verify right now is that any meeting held on Wednesday April 27th at 1 :00 in the afternoon will not have a quorum. So, are there other times available, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I know you talked about the 29th last time. Was that still going to be a problem? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That still works for me. MR. SCHIFFER: That still works for me. MR. MIDNEY: Friday I can do. MR. ADELSTEIN: I have no problem with that. MS. CARON: Were you doing it at five? MR. WHITE: My understanding was that it was going to be at Page 42 April 21, 2005 one on Friday. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. MR. STRAIN: Because the only people that really attended the last meeting that wanted to speak were all staff. MS. CARON: That affects Paul. MR. STRAIN: Paul, will you be able to do a one p.m. on Friday? MS. CARON: And I'm not here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we're two down. MR. STRAIN: And Ken may not be here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ken is very probably out. MR. STRAIN: Vigliotti. I don't know ifhe's coming back. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's down four. So we need the four of us and Mr. Murray, who is not here to speak. So we need to verify Mr. Murray, who is at a leadership Collier program all day today. If we could follow up with him by email, Ray, verify his attendance, then we may have a quorum for Friday the 29th. MR. STRAIN: Well, is there a possibility of looking at evenings? I mean, it doesn't make a lot of difference to me. I just was wondering if that would help. MR. SCHIFFER: How about next Wednesday evening? MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm fine for Friday night. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Wednesday the 27th, which won't make it 1 :00, how about at 5 :05 p.m.? MR. STRAIN: That works for me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I can do that. MR. ADELSTEIN: What's that Friday? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Wednesday, Wednesday the 27th. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm not sure. MR. SCHIFFER I would be available. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS. CARON: Well, you have five then. We have five for Page 43 April 21, 2005 Wednesday at 5:05? MS. CARON: Yeah. Brad Lindy, you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Lindy is out. MS. CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have four of us here with Mr. Murray, Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Abernathy all unknown. Ray, what is our legal notification requirement? Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Reasonable under the circumstances, because as I've mentioned last evening, this is effectively the continuation of your first public hearing. You've not at any point voted to have a second public hearing on any of the matters that are in this round of amendments. So arguably all of these are in essence a continuation of. We had separately advertised and published for the purposes of providing additional notice. We would like to be able to do so, but it doesn't have to meet the standard for the first notice that your original meeting had in March. CHAIRMAN BUDD: How about we do this. Ray, if you could poll the planning commission members by email expressing the urgency of an immediate follow up because we have several not with us here today that can respond by emaillooking at Wednesday evening at 5:50, Friday at 1 :00, and Friday evening at 5:05 -- I hate to do that -- and any other times that look available on the calendar and let us each, those present and those absent, respond quickly and then we can go from there with a quorum. MR. BELLOWS: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Anything else under old business, new business? No discussion of the addenda. We are adjourned. Thank you. Page 44 April 21, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:35 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman Page 45