Loading...
Agenda 04/14/2009 Item # 7A Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 1 of 120 EXECIJTIVE SUMMARY ZLTRA.2009-AR.14174 Mario Castenada represented by Dwight Nadeau of RW A, Inc., is requesting an appeal of a Zoning Letter, ZL TR.2008-AR-13025. The applicant proposed to open a retail clothing store in the Mir-Mar PUD (Ordinance No. 98-72) but the Directors found the use was not allowable per the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir-Mar PUD. The subject property is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. This item requires that anyone who wishes to participate shall be sworn in and that the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals shall provide the necessary public disclosure. OBJECTIVE: Pursuant to the County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, Sec, No. 250-58, the objective of the appellant's request is to seek a reversal of a zoning letter (ZL TR-2008-AR-13025) regarding the uses permitted in the Mir-Mar PUD from the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). In this case, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will be sitting as the BZA. The BZA is to review the record of action and to determine if any part of the administrative decision was inconsistent with the existing Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41 which includes the Mir Mar PUD, Ordinance No, 98-72) and the Grov.th Management Plan (GMP). The appeal process is focused specifically on the claims raised by the applicant as they relate to the Mir Mar PUD and the decision rendered through the zoning letter by staff. The issues here are whether the denial of the retail clothing store, as rendered by the Director(s) (the administrative decision) was inconsistent with the existing Land Development Code (LDC), the Mir Mar PUD and/or the Growth Management Plan, Should the BZA determine that the denial of the use is contrary to the Land Development Code or the Growth Management Plan; the Board may overturn the administrative decision to deny the use. Should the Board find none of the above, the Board shall accept the Director(s) decision regarding the allowable uses in the Mir Mar PUD, CONSIDERATIONS: On November 14, 2008, a public petitIon item was brought before the Board of County Commissioners regarding the allowable uses in the Mir Mar PUD (Ordinance No. 98.72), The PUD is located in the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict as designated within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and is one of only two PUDs that comprises that subdistrict, the other being the Randall Boulevard Center PUD (Ordinance No, 86-25). The discussion on the public petition was, how can the list of allowable uses in the Mir-Mar PUD be expanded given the fact that the allowable uses per the subdistrict and the PUD are limited and given the fact that the proposed use of a retail clothing store was deemed impennissible per the PUD zoning and the GMP, Additionally, a significant amount of the discussion centered around the "Shopping Center use" which was contained within the list of permitted uses within the PUD, Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 2 of 120 Shopping Center is not a land use as classified by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes upon which the existing lists of permitted and conditional uses in the LDC are based, A Shopping Center is merely a collection of these uses (commercial) grouped together, usually on one site, and characteristically share common parking and other common areas. The following background may be useful in understanding the evolution of the Mir Mar PUD and the Randall Boulevard Center PUD which comprise the GMP subdistrict. The Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved first, before there ever was a GMP subdistrict on the property and was approved in accordance with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, At that time, the Plan limited the uses to convenience/commercial type uses and ] 3 very specific uses were adopted in the Randall Boulevard Center PUD, The 13 uses are: 1, Automobile Service Station without repairs 2. Barber and Beauty Shops 3, Convenience Stores 4. Drug Stores 5. Food Markets 6, Hardware Stores 7. Laundries- self service only 8. Post offices and professional offices 9. Repair Shops - radio, TV, shoes 10, Restaurants not including drive ins I]. Shopping Center not to exceed 25,000 square feet. 12. Veterinary Clinics - no outside kenneling 13, Child Care Centers (with site plan approval) In 1989, when the County adopted the present GMP,. the same list of] 3 uses that were approved in the Randall Boulevard PUD were simply carried over and placed into the new subdistrict (Randall Boulevard subdistrict) in the Growth Management Plan. That is how the Master Plan ended up with a very specific list ofland uses (which is a unique occurrence in the Golden Gate Master Plan). Even the current neighborhood centers, which have a lot of specificity, do not have this zoning level of a list of allowable uses, The Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the Randall Boulevard Cen1er PUD was approved in ] 986 and listed a shopping center as one of the permitted uses however within the 1986 LDC a shopping center was defined as follows: Shopping Center: A retail sales/aeility consisting oJfive or more retail outlets or having a gross floor area of more than 25.000 square/eet, whichever shall apply; exclusive a/supermarkets, The Mir Mar PUD was approved twelve years afteI the Randall Boulevard POO and is based upon the same GMP subdistrict. Therefore, those very same uses that were found in the Randall Boulevard PUD were listed as allowable uses within the Mir Mar PUD, with one exception (branch banks). The term "shopping center" is not further described or defined in the Mir Mar PUD document, although Section 2.3 of the PUD document notes that the property can suppOli 20,000 square feet of "commercial shopping center uses" thus no further explanation of how to 2 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 3 of 120 apply the shopping center use is provided. In summary. the PUD reflects the exact uses as noted by the GMP and that have historically been allowed in the district. The current definition for shopping center per the LDC Ordinance No. 04-4 I: Shopping center: A group of unified commercial establishments built on a site which is planned. developed, owned or managed as an operating unit and related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves. It consists of eight or more retail business or service establishments containing a minimum total of 20,000 square feet of floor area, No more than 20 percent of a shopping center's floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent. A marina, hotel, or motel with accessOlY retail shops is not considered a shopping center. The County's addressing record for the property identifies the following businesses as occupying units in the development (not all of which are necessarily currently operating): a grocery store, a pizza parlor, a real estate office, office, a florist, an express shipping business, a truck parts and tire store, a "business center," and a beauty/barber shop, Any use approved by the Zoning Director as compatible with the provisions andlor intent of the PUD must also be consistent with the provisions and/or intent of the GGAMP; the Zoning Director has the authority to interpret the provisions of the LDC, but not the Growth Management Plan (GMP), Authority to interpret the GMP lies with the Director of the Comprehensive Planning Department. The Comprehensive Planning Department has made the determination that only those uses specifically identified in the GGAMP Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict are consistent with the provisions and/or intent of the GMP based on the following explanation. As previously stated, the subdistrict was adopted in the original GGAMP in 1991 along with the neighborhood center subdistict. It was deliberate to list very specific uses in this subdistrict rather than list a use range, as was done in the neighborhood center subdistrict in the GGAMP (allows uses similar to the C.I thru C-3 zoning districts), The Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved in 1986 prior to the establishment of the subdistrict. As a result of this pre- existing PUD, when the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict was established in the GGAMP, it simply included the very same specific list of uses allowed in the Randall Boulevard Center PUD. The Mir-Mar PUD was later approved in 1998, along with a companion petition to amend the GGAMP Future Land Use Map to expand the subdistrict to include the Mir Mar PUD site (the Mir Mar property was not located in the district at the time of rezoning). Permitted uses in the Mir Mar PUD were/are the same as in the adjacent Randall Boulevard Center PUD, except that there is no 25,000 square feet cap on the shopping center (no such cap exists in the subdistrict); fast food restaurant is specifically listed (this use is allowed in the subdistrict); and, branch banks are listed (the subdistrict allows professional oHices - apparently, the BCC at that time determined a bank is a professional office), Though we may find it undesirable today to have such a narrow listing in the GMP, staffs position is we must apply the provisions as written and interpret it as was intended when 3 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 4 of 120 adopted; the alternative which is certainly available to the property owner, is to amend the GMP Randall Boulevard Subdistrict to expand the uses. The property owner could initiate such an amendment, or the BCC could direct it (at taxpayer expense); the same would be true for the necessary subsequent PUD amendment. Staff does not anticipate that they would take issue with an amendment to broaden the use list into a range comparable to neighborhood centers; however, that final detennination would have to be made upon official review of an amendment application, Until that time, it is staffs opinion that the approval of any other uses, including a family clothing store, would therefore not be allowed, Any uses other than those specifically identified by the GGAMP/PUD, which were issued Zoning Certificates allowing them to operate on the property prior to the Comprehensive Planning Manager's determination, will be allowed to remain until such time as the business ceases to operate, at which time the use will be discontinued and no Zoning approval will be given to operate a similar business unless the GMP, and PUD, are amended to allow the use. Appellant's claims: The appellant claims that the provisions of the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict lack clarity as to what the permitted range of commercial land uses would be in a shopping center, regardless of what the deflnition of a shopping center was. or is with regard to size, or number of establishments therein. The appellant also claims that it was the intent of the former Board to supply the residents with required everyday goods and services at a local level for convenience oriented shopping and that all of the land uses permitted in the C-2 Convenience Commercial District should be permitted in the subdistrict. Staff response: In reviewing the history of events and the evolution of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan staff recognizes that the intent of the todav's Neighborhood Area Subdistricts is to provide small-scale shopping and personal needs of the surrounding residential land uses within convenient travel distance. However, although it may function as one in some ways, this site is not a neighborhood subdistrict by definition in the GMP and the LDC. As noted above, the development approval history indicates that at the time of approval of the Mir Mar PUD in 1998, the Randall Boulevard Subdistrict clearly only permitted a limited number of very specific land uses thus limiting the allowable uses that could operate in this district. Consequently, both the Randall Boulevard PUD and the Mir Mar PUD carried over the GMP language and were approved pursuant to the requirements of the GMP, as is proper. As to the use of the tenn "shopping center" as a permitted use, it is meaningless when it comes to distinguishing between allowable uses, One could argue that a "shopping center" use allows use ranges up to and including C-5 land uses, which the record shows that it was clearly not the intent of the Randall Boulevard Subdistrict or the Neighborhood Subdistrict. As the community changes "old" provisions of the GMP and LDC may no longer serve the community-s present needs; so appears to be the case with this situation, In order to modify the speciflcity within the district and the PUD, amendments are required and probably have been needed for some time to address the changing of the Golden Gate community (the development approval for the Mir Mar PUD is approximately II years old and the GMP provision is over 17 years old), The last request for a clothing store was found inconsistent with the GMP and the PUD, thus prompting the owners to 4 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 5 of 120 pursue the appeal for relief from the provisions of the GMP and the PUD. The proper way to amend the provisions of the PUD is to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan then the PUD through the required public hearing processes to reflect the desired changes. FISCAL IMP ACT: As a matter of information the fee for this appeal is $] ,000 plus advertising costs, Approximate staff time devoted to the processing and analyzing of this appeal request to date has been approximately] 5 hours excluding the scheduled hearing, LEGAL CONSIDERA nONS: In accordance with Section No. 250-58 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) is being asked to review the administrative decision of County staff pursuant to the contents of the zoning letter. The BZA shall consider the application of the LDC, the Growth Management Plan and County Ordinances by staff and shall hear testimony, The BZA shall either affirm the zoning letter or deny the letter. The BZA may not deny the Zoning letter unless it finds that there is no substantial competent evidence to support the denial of the proposed use or that the denial is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP or that it does not comply with the requirements of the LDC or County Ordinances including the applicable PUD Ordinance. This item is quasi-judicial and as such, it requires ex parte disclosures. A majority vote of the Board is necessary for Board action--HF AC. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: The Zoning Letter as issued by the Zoning Director is consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan. RECOMMENDA nON: That the BZA uphold the findings and decision of the Zoning Director as stated in the subject Zoning Letter pursuant to the Mir-Mar PUD, Ordinance No, 98-72 and the Randall Boulevard Subdistrict ofthe Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and therefore that this appeal request be denied, Prepared by: Susan M, Istenes, AICP, Zoning Director David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager 5 Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page ] of 2 Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 6 of 120 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7A This Item requires that anyone who wishes to participate shall be sworn in. ZL TRA-2009-AR~ 14174 Mario Castenada represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc, is requesting an appeal of ZL TR-2008-AR-13025, The applicant proposed to open a retail clothing store in the Mir Mar PUD (Ordinance No 98-72) but the Directors found the use was not allowable per the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar PUD. The subject property is located in Section 27, Townstlip 48 South, Range 27 East Collier County, Florida. 4/14/2009900:00 AM Prepared By Susan Istenes, AICP Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & land Development Director Date Zoning & Land Development Review 4/1/20094:37:29 PM Approved By Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Dato Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 4/2/20092:27 PM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 4/2/20094:27 PM Approved By Heidi F. Ashton County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 4/212009 4:44 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney County Attorney Date County Attorney Office 4/3/2009 9:45 AM Approved By David Weeks, AICP Community Development & Environmental Services Chief Planner Date Comprehensive Planning 4/6120099:33 AM A pproved By OMB Coordinator County Manager's Office OMS Coordinator Date Office of Management & Budget 4/6/2009 11 :25 AM Approved By .~ Mark Isackson County Manager's Office Budget Analyst Date Office of Management & Budget 4/6/2009 12:18 PM A pproved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Board of County Deputy County Manager Date Page 20f2 Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 7 of 120 Commissioners County Manager's Office 4/7/2009 9:46 AM January 26, 2009 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 ~120 ZLTRA-2009-AR-14174 REV: 1 MlR-MAR PUD PROJECT: 19990112 DA TE: 1/28/09 . DUE: 2/11/09 D"\XTAINC CONSULTING ..L ...., '.L ..L . Planning . Visualization -Civil Engineering -Surveying & Mapping Mrs, Susan Istenes, Director Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Collier County CDES Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Appeal of Zoning Verification Letter ZL TR-2008-AR-13025 regarding uses permitted in the Mir-Mar POO,located in the Randal Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Mrs. Istenes, On April 18, 2008, your office issued the above-referenced Zoning Verification Letter related to the opportunity for establishing a retail family clothing store in the existing La Hispana II shopping center, located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of the Naples-Immokalee Road (CR- 846) and Randall Boulevard. This Zoning Verification Letter issued to Mr. Mario Castenada, who was intending to be a lessee for the retail space in the La Hispana II shopping Center, found that the retail clothing store was not specifically referenced in the Mir-Mar POO, and therefore would not be permitted, On November 18, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners (the Board) heard a Public Petition request from Mr. Jose Armando Cabrera and Mrs. Maria Cabrera, who are owners of the La Hispania II shopping center under the name of PAC; of Collier Inc., to discuss the opportunities for commercial land uses not specifically permitted by the Mir-Mar POO, Their discussions with the Board related to requesting permission to establish the same retail clothing store that was determined not to be allowed as a result of the issuance of the April 18, 2008 Zoning Verification Letter. At that November 18 Board meeting, the Board directed Staff to research the history of the Randal Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (the Subdistrict) of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), as well as the Mir-Mar )>UD and return with a recommendation of alternatives to pursue approval of the desired retail clothing store land use, December 16,2008, the Board of County Commissioners hcard Staffs reporting on the history of the commercial subdistrict and POO, and their opinions of how to pursue approval for land uses not specifically permitted by the Mir-Mar POO_ In Staffs Executive Summary on the matter, three options were offered to the Board, The first option was to reissue the original April 18, 2008 Zoning Verification Letter to allow the opportunity to appcal Staffs determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The second option was to direct Staff to initiate an Amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan through the Growth Management Plan Amendment process to add one or more uses not specifically identified in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, so as to allow an amendment to the Mir-Mar POO to be pursued to add the one or more land uses provided for by an approved amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan's Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. The third option Staff offered to the Board was to take no action, and let the property owner follow the provisions of the Land Development Code to pursue a number of other options. This third option will not be elaborated upon in this letter appeal because the Board opted for Statrs first recommendation, 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples, Flonda 34109' (239) 597.(J575, fax: (239) 597.0578 www.consuIHwa.com RWA'NC Agenda Item No. 7 A Appeal of Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-2008-MbUi~~g6 Page 2 Following the Board's direction, the original April 18, 2008 Zoning Verification Letter was reissued on December 30, 2008, and thus this letter is appealing that reissued Zoning Verification Letter. The reissued Zoning Verification Letter arrives at the same conclusion of the original Zoning Verification Letter, but with the addition of findings of the Comprehensive Planning Manager not contained in the original Letter. The conclusion of the reissued Zoning Verification Letter is that unless the Growth Management Plan is amended to add one or more commercial land uses to the Randal Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, no other land uses would be allowed in the Mir-Mar PUD's La Hispana II shopping center without an amendment to that POO to add the land uses then permitted in the Randall Boulevard Shopping Center. Staffs reissued Zoning Verification Letter did conclude that only those 12 specific land uses stated in the Subdistrict would be permitted to be established in the "shopping center" land use, but did not provide any guidance as to how to interpret the term shopping center other than what the definition of a "shopping center" was with respect to minimum and maximum areas were in the changes to the definition over time, Staff does acknowledge that the with the adoption of the Subdistrict, a specific list of commercial land uses were included rather than a range of uses by commercial zoning district reference, as was provided in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the GGAMP, It is the opinion of the property owner, and Mr. Castenada, for whom this appeal is being written, that the provisions of the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict lack clarity as to what the permitted range of commercial land uses would be in a shopping center, regardless of what the definition of a shopping center was, or is with regard to size, or number of establishments therein. Further the appellant contends that a policy decision on the part of the Board of Zoning Appeals could provide for all land uses permitted in the C-2, Convenience Commercial District to be allowed in the Subdistrict and Mir-Mar PUD, This opinion is based on the provision for convenience commercial uses in the Vested Area I of the 1983 Comprehensive Plan that allowed the adoption of the Randall Boulevard Center PUD, which was the precursor of the Randall Boulevard Commercial District adopted in 1991 in the GGAMP. The publie reeord shows that the GGAMP provided for convenience commercial land uses in Vested Area I, and that the land uses are intended to supply the residents with required everyday goods and services at a local level. While the criteria for the original establishment of the Randall Boulevard Commercial District was not carried over from the 1983 Comprehensive Plan to the 1991 Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan, the history still remains that this particular location of the Estates- Commercial District, in which the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict now is within, is an area that is appropriate for limited commercial development to serve the nearby residents' needs for convenience oriented shopping. $:\2008\080259.00.00 Mir-Mar PUDGC\OOOl General Consultation\2009-1-14-Draft ZLTR Appealletdoc RWAINC Appeal of Zoning Verification Letter ZL TR-ioog9~t~~~~ Pag~X20 The Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan provides for 13 specific land uses, including: I. Automobile Service Station; 2. Barber and Beauty Shops; 3, Child Care Centers; 4. Convenience Stores; 5, Drug Stores; 6_ Food Markets; 7. Hardware Stores; 8. Laundries (Self Serve); 9. Post Offices and Professional Offices; 10. Repair Shops (radio, TV, small appliances and shoes; II, Restaurants, including fast food, but not drive in restaurants; 12. Shopping Center; 13 . Veterinary Clinics, no outside kenneling, All of the permitted uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict are permitted in the Mir- Mar PUD. All of the permitted uses, except shopping center, could be in singular occupancy buildings, or located in a single, multiple occupancy building, that could function as a shopping center, but not as specifically defined by the LDC. Understanding this is the first step to determining if other commercial land uses not specifically referenced by the Subdistrict or the PUD could be established in the land area encompassing the Subdistrict. Based on the history of the Subdistrict, the Randall Boulevard Center PUD, and the Mir-Mar PUD, it stands to reason that should the Board of Zoning Appeals find that further economic diversity is appropriate for this particular intersection, that all of the land uses permitted in the C-2, Convenience Commercial District should be permitted in the Subdistrict. It is relatively easy to compare the intended character of the Plan's Neighborhood Centers with the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. The similarities include that they are both at intersections of roadways that feed into the Urban Area of the community; and they both are to provide convenience commercial land uses for the immediate needs of the residents of the area_ The major difference between a Neighborhood Center and the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is that the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is within the Estates-Commercial District, where Neighborhood Centers are within the Estates-Mixed Use District. This distinction is unique, in that it would be usually be appropriate to describe the intent of the District, and include similar language to guide the establishment of proposed commercial subdistricts as is provided for in the Estates.Mixed Use District for utilization ofthe Neighborhood Centers already established on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. Specifically, the Plan establishes criteria for Neighborhood Centers that in part states: "Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial so as to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that has a higher degree of automobile traffic, These uses shall be similar to C-l, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code..." S:\2008\080259.oo.oo Mir-Mar PUDGC\OOOI General Consu)tation\2009.1.14-Draft ZLTR Appeal1et.doc RWAINC Agenda Item No. 7A Appeal of Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-2008-AlRil~m~~09 Page 'f 'OT120 age 4 Looking to LDC Section 2,03,02,B, the description of the C-2, Commercial Convenience District in part states: "The purpose and intent of the commercial convenience district "C-2" is to provide lands where commercial establishments may be located to provided the small-scale shopping and personal needs of the surrounding residential land uses within convenient travel distance except to the extent that office uses carried forward from the C-I district will expand the traditional neighborhood size, However. the intent of this district is that retail and service uses be of a nature that can be economically supported by the immediate residential environs. Therefore, the uses should allow for goods and services that households require on a daily basis, as opposed to those goods and services rhose households seek for the most favorable economic price and, therefore. require much larger trade areas, It is intended that the C-2 district implements the Collier county GMP within those areas designated agriculturaVrural; estates neighborhood center district of the Golden Gate Master Plan; '" " As stated factually previously in this appeal, all of the land uses permitted in the Mir-Mar PUD are able to function either in single-occupancy structures, or aggregated into a multiple occupancy structures as is that case with both the Randall Boulevard Center PUD and the Mir-Mar PUD, While the La Hispana II shopping center is not a shopping center as currently defined by the LDC, it is a multiple occupancy structure that is providing the convenience commercial shopping opportunities for the residents of the area, and a apparel store, or similar permitted C-2 land use would not be an inappropriate land use in the Subdistrict. On behalf of the appellant, it is requested that the Board of Zoning Appeals establish policy that all C-2, Convenience Commercial land uses are permitted within the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. Further, the appellant requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals also establish by policy that the C.2, Convenience Commercial District land uses are also permitted within the Mir-Mar PUD. We request that a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals be scheduled so that this matter can be brought forward for resolution. ~ Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager Enclosures: Re-issued Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR-2008-AR-13025 cc: Client File 5:\2008\080259.00.00 Mir~Mar pun GC\OOOl General Consultation\2009-1.14-Draft ZL TR Appeallet.doc Agendaltem No. lA . -\ April. 14,,2009 _ . -' PaQ€'12 of 120 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT-- Community Development and Environmental Services Division Department of Zoning and Land Development Review 2800 North Horseshoe Drive' Naples, Florida 34104 December 30, 2008 Mr. Mario Castenada 2730 Oil Well Road Naples, FL 34120 ZLTRA-2009-AR-14174 REV: 1 MIR-MAR PUD PROJECT: 19990112 DATE: 1/28/09 DUE: 2/11/09 Re:Re-issue of Zoning Verification Letter ZLTR.2008-AR-13025, regarding uses permitted in the Mir-Mar Planned Unit Development, located at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard, Folio number 37744040001, in Section 27 Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Castenada: In your application dated March II, 2008, you ask if a retail family clothing store would be a permitted use in the Mir-Mar Planned Unit Development. The subject property is zoned PUD (Mir-Mar, Ordinance No. 98-72) and is the site of a multi-unit commercial development, La Hispana # 2, approved by Site Development Plan SOP 99. I 16, The Mir-Mar PUD identifies only sixteen permitted uses, Fifteen of these identify specific commercial businesses (thirteen listed uses with multiple uses listed under section 3.3 A,9 and 3.3A.lO). The sixteenth use (# 12 on the list of permitted uses) is noted as "shopping centeL" This term is not further described or defincd in the PUD document. although Section 2.3 of the PUD document notcs that the property can support 20,000 square feet of "commercial shopping center uses." The County's addressing record for the property identifies the following businesses as occupying units in the development (not all of which are necessarily currently operating): a grocery store, a pizza parlor, a real estate office, office, a florist, an express shipping business, a truck parts and tire store, a "business center," and a beautylbarber shop, The uses identified' by the PUD, as described above, reflect exactly those identified in the Collier County Growth Management Plan's Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, ex~ept for "branch banks;" apparently, that use was viewed as a professional office use at the time of rezoning approval. Any use approved by the Zoning Director as compatible with the provisions andlor intent of the PUD must also be consistent with the provisions and/or intent of the GGAMP; the Zoning Director has the authority to interpret the provisions of the LOC, but not the Growth Managcment Plan (GMP), Authority to interpret the GMP lies with the Director of the Comprehensive Planning Department. co o {~~ co o t Y Phone (239) 403-2400 Fax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2913 \V\vw.collicrgov.net Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 13 of 120 The Comprehensive Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department has made the determination that only those uses specifically identified in the GGAMP Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict are consistent with the provisions and/or intent of the GMP based on the following explanation. 'This subdistrict was adopted in the original GGAMP in 1991 as well as the neighborhood center subdistrict. It was deliberate to list very specific uses in this subdistrict rather than list a use range, as was done in the neighborhood center subdistrict in the GGAMP (allows uses similar to the C- I thru C.3 zoning districts, The Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved in 1986; when the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict was established in the GGAMP, it simply included the very same specific list of uses allowed in that PUD, The Mir-Mar PUD was approved in 1998, along with a companion petition to amend the GGAMP Future Land Use Map to expand the Subdistrict to include the Mir Mar site, Permitted uses in the Mir Mar PUD werelare the same as in the adjacent Randall Boulevard Center PUD, except that there is no 25,000 square feet cap on the shopping center (no such cap exists in the subdistrict); fast food restaurant is specifically listed (this use is allowed in the subdistrict); and, branch banks are listed (the subdistrict allows professional offices - apparently, the BCC at that time determined a bank is a professional office). Though we may fmd it undesirable today to have such a narrow listing in the GMP, I believe we must interpret it as was intended when adopted; the alternative is to amend the Subdistrict. The property owner could initiate such an amendment, or the BCC could direct it (at taxpayer expense); the same would be true for the necessary subsequent PUD amendment. I do not anticipate that the Comprehensive Planning staff would take issue with an amendment to broaden the use list into a range comparable to neighborhood centers; however, that final determination would have to be made upon official review of an amendment application. Approval of any other uses, including a family clothing store, would therefore not be allowed. Any uses other than those specifically identified by the GGAMPIPUD, which were issued Zoning Certificates allowing them to operate on the property prior to the Comprehensive Planning Manager's determination, will be allowed to remain until such time as the business ceases to operate, at which time the use will be discontinued and no Zoning approval will be given to operate a similar business unless the GMP, and PUD, are amended to allow the use. Please be advised that the information presented in this verification letter is based on the Collier County Land Development Code andlor Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date, It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to either of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter, It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code or related ordinances, The determination made in this letter is appealable within 30 2 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 14 of 120 days of the date of this letter pursuant to the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, See, No. 250-58, by filing the appropriate application and fee. Should you require further infonnation please do not hesitate to call me at (239) 252- 2464. Sincerely, ~ '-1Y\ Susan M, Istenes, AICP, Director Department of Zoning and Land Development Review cc. Ross Gochenaur, Site Plan Review Manager David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Dwight Nadeau, R W A, Inc. ~ 3 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14 , 2009 Page 15 of 120 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that Board of County Commissioners approves Option 3 and takes no action on Public Petitioner's request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar pun. OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to discuss the allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict and the Mir Mar PUD, then provide staff direction as deemed appropriate. Options are provided on pages four and five, CONSIDERATIONS: On November 18,2008, the BCC heard a public petition (agenda item 6E.) by Jose Armando and Maria Cabrera regarding allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), and the Mir Mar PUD that is located in that subdistrict. The petitioners expressed interest in adding clothinglshoe store, made reference to martial arts studio as well, asked how to go about expanding the uses in the Subdistrict, and inquired about the discrepancy between the number of uses (13) listed in the Mir Mar PUD and the number of uses (16) stated in the zoning verification letter dated April 18, 2008, After some discussion about the process necessary to allow additional commercial uses, the BCC directed staff to return with more information. In response to the discrepancy in number of uses, staff notes that the Mir Mar PUD lists thirteen principal uses (1-13) but some numbered uses actually consist of more than one use, thus staff derived a higher number of uses permitted, For example, #10 in the Mir Mar PUD reads: "Repair Shops - Radio, TV, Small Appliances and Shoes," Since shoe repair is unrelated to the other repair uses, it was considered a separate use by staff. In response to the necessary procedures to expand commercial uses in the Subdistrict, it is relevant to know the background of the subdistrict and the two PUDs approved therein, Backl!round In 1986, the :!:5-acre Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved - for thirteen principal uses - in accordance with a provision in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan for convenience commercial uses in the "Vested Area I" designation [Golden Gate Estates] (see attached), The provision included criteria that read, in part: "its uses are considered the lowest level order of goods and services such as convenience stores and gas stations" and "the service area is generally considered as the surrounding area within a radius of two miles," Later, in explaining the five types of commercial allowed the 1983 Plan stated: "The second commercial use identified by this Plan is convenience commercial as described in the Vested Area, These uses are intended to supply the resident with required everyday goods and services at a local level." Finally, in describing uses allowed in the Community Nodes provision, the Plan states: "The permitted uses may include some Convenience/Neighborhood goods as well as the sale of wearing apparel, appliances and other general retail commercial goods and professional activities," Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 16 of 120 In 1989, the present comprehensive plan a/kIa Growth Management Plan (GMP) was adopted; it included a policy providing for the preparation and adoption of a master plan for the Golden Gate area. In 1991, the GGAMP was adopted. It established the Randall Boulevard Commercial District applicable only to the site of the Randall Boulevard Center PUD, The criteria from the 1983 Plan were not adopted as there was no reason to do so; this new District allowed only the same specific list of thirteen uses as contained in that PUD thus that PUD remained consistent with the comprehensive plan, A new provision, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, was established in the GGAMP to allow for additional commercial zoning and development in Golden Gate Estates, In 1998, a small scale GMP amendment was adopted to expand the District by 2.38 acres and a companion rezone petition was approved establishing the Mir Mar PUD on that 2.38-acre parcel. The permitted uses in the Mir Mar PUD were the same as those specifically listed in the subdistrict, except "branch banks" were included with "professional offices" (the subdistrict allowed professional offices - apparently, the BCC at that time determined a bank is a professional office use), Subsequently, GMP amendments have been approved to: add a specific buffer requirement; delete child care center use; change the name from a District to a Subdistrict; and, add the legal description of all parcels within the Subdistrict. Ordinance No, 82-2, the 1982 zoning ordinance, was in effect at the time the 1983 comprehensive plan was adopted, when the Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved, and when the GGAMP was adopted, "Shopping center" was listed as a permitted principal use in the C-2 through C-5 zoning districts and was defined as: "A retail sales facility consisting of five (5) or more retail outlets or having a gross floor area of more than 25,000 square feet, whichever shall apply; exclusive of supermarkets." In the C.2 zoning district, a shopping center was limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet. A shopping center was only allowed to contain the uses listed in the zoning district in which it was located. For example, in the C-3 zoning district, a shopping center could only contain uses allowed in the C-3 zoning district; C-4 and C-5 uses would not be allowed. Likewise, in the Randall Boulevard Center PUD (and Mir Mar PUD), a shopping center could only contain the uses permitted in that PUD. Though the definition of shopping center is different in the Land Development Code (LDC) than in the 1982 zoning ordinance, it still is a structure of a certain size containing a certain number of establishments within; the LDC does not list shopping center as a use within zoning districts. Shopping center is defined in the LDC as: "A group of unified commercial establishments built on a site which is planned, developed, owned or managed as an operating unit and related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves. It consists of eight or more retail business or service establishments containing a minimum total of 20,000 square feet of floor area. No more than 20 percent of a shopping center's floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent. A marina, hotel, or motel with accessory retail shops is not considered a shopping center." ~ in the 1982 zoning ordinance, the lowest intensity zoning district allowing a clothing store was the C-3 zoning district (permitted in the C-2 zoning district in today's LDC). That use was not 2 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 17 of 120 consistent with the convenience commercial provision in the 1983 Plan under which the Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved, Similarly, it is staffs position today that a clothing store is not consistent with the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, nor is it allowed in either of the PUDs, A clothing store does not meet the original GMP provision intent - it is not a convenience commercial use - and it is not one of the uses specifically listed in the Subdistrict and PUD, In addition to the reference to martial arts studio at the November 18 BCC hearing, there was a public petition (item 6A.) on the January 15, 2008 agenda by Mr. Jorge Trincado regarding the allowance ofthis use in the Mir Mar PUD, At that time, the BCC took no action, Subsequently, staff and Commissioner Coletta met with Mr. Trincado, at which time various options were discussed, including seeking another location, Staff believes that Mr. Trincado sought another location; he has not pursued any of the regulatory options, In the 1982 zoning ordinance, the lowest intensity zoning district allowing a martial arts studio was the C-3 zoning district, and this may have required a provisional (now conditional) use (permitted in the C-3 zoning district in today's LDC), That use was not consistent with the convenience commercial provision in the 1983 Plan, Similarly, it is staffs position today that a martial arts studio is not consistent with the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, nor is it allowed in either of the PUDs, A martial arts studio does not meet the original GMP provision intent - it is not a convenience commercial use - and it is not one of the uses specifically listed in the Subdistrict and PUD, Below is a chart identifying the uses allowed in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict and the two PUDs located therein, Randall Blvd. Commercial Randall Blvd. Center puo Mir Mar PUO (1998) Subdistrict (1991) (1986) 1 automobile service station automobile service automobile service station stations without repairs 2 barber and beauty shops barber and beauty barber and beauty shops shops 3 child care centers' child care centers child care centers 4 convenience stores convenience stores convenience stores 5 druq stores druq stores druq stores 6 food markets food markets food markets 7 hardware stores hardware stores hardware stores 8 laundries - self service laundries - self service laundries - self service only only only 9 post offices and post offices and post offices, and professional offices professional offices professional offices (Including branch banks) 1 repair shops - radio, TV, repair shops - radio, repair shops - radio, TV, 0 small appliances and TV, small appliances small appliances and shoes shoes and shoes 1 restaurants, including fast restaurants - not restaurants, including fast 1 food restaurants but not including drive- ins food restaurants, but not drive- in restaurants d rive- in restau rants 1 shoppinq center shoppinq center - not shonpina center 3 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 18 of 120 2 to exceed 25,000 square feet 1 veterinary clinics with no veterinary clinics - no veterinary clinics with no 3 outside kennelina outside kenneling outside kennelina * Child care center use deleted from the Subdistrict in 2003 Present It is unique, and generally undesirable, to have such a specific listing of allowable uses in the GMP as exists in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict; the above history explains how this came about, dating back to 1983, The process to expand the allowable uses in the Subdistrict is to amend it via a GMP amendment. Conceivably, the uses from the C-I through C-3 zoning districts could be allowed, similar to the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict in the GGAMP. Typically, the property owner would initiate such an amendment, but the BCC could direct staff to initiate it for the benefit ofthe owner (at taxpayer expense), Subsequent to a GMP amendment, the Mir Mar PUD would need to be amended to expand the list of permitted uses. To determine whether an individual use is allowed, a request for an Official Interpretation may be filed. Also, a zoning verification letter may be requested, ,?oth are appealable to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Zoning Director is the only authorized official to interpret the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) which includes the official zoning map. (The Comprehensive Planning Director is charged with interpreting the Growth Management Plan.) An Official interpretation of the LDC is governed by subsection 1O,02.02,F, and can be described as a process whereby an eligible applicant presents a specific set of facts, in writing, relative to a specific property and asks the Zoning Director to render an official opinion (interpretation) of the LDC regulations applicable to that stated set of facts. The Zoning Director renders the opinion to the applicant in writing; public notice of the letter is published in a local newspaper and notice is mailed to surrounding property owners. There is a 30-day appeal process available to affected parties (see subsection 10,02.02,F, of the LDC). An appeal of the Zoning Director's interpretation can be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) provided an application for appeal is received within 30-days of the last notice date, If the opinion is not appealed, the Zoning Director's decision stands unless and until the LDC is amended, There is a limit to the number of questions an applicant can ask in one request. (See subsection 10,02.02.F, of the LDC, attached,) ~ A zoning verification letter is a service the Zoning Department provides whereby an applicant can get written confirmation of the zoning regulations or zoning status of a property in effect at the time of the request. In summary, it is a restatement of the verifiable facts pursuant to the zoning designation of a property as governed by the LDC. In preparing a zoning verification letter, Zoning staff may consult Comprehensive Planning staff when needed, Since a zoning verification letter constitutes a determination of an administrative official, it may be appealed to the BZA, within 30 days of that administrative decision, pursuant to Section 250-58 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances (see administrative appeal application, attached). ln response to such a request earlier this year, asking if a retail family clothing store would be a permitted use in the Mir Mar PUD, a zoning verification letter was issued on April 18, 2008, advising that use would not be permitted (attached). That "administrative detenllination" was not appealed. 4 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 19 of 120 BCC ODtions 1. BCC could direct staff to re-issue the April 18, 2008 zoning verification letter (see attached draft letter, dated December 16, 2008), The applicant would then have another opportunity to file an Appeal of that staff detennination to the BZA. 2. BCC could direct staff to initiate a GMP amendment (to add one or more uses), If successful, the applicant would then need to submit a subsequent PUD amendment petition, 3. BCC could take no action, The applicant would then have four options: a. Request a second zoning verification letter, and then submit an Appeal of that staff detennination to the BZA. b, Submit a Request for Official Interpretation, and then submit an Appeal of the staff detennination to the BZA. c, Submit a GMP amendment petition (to add one or more uses) and, if successful, submit a subsequent PUD amendment petition, d, Take no further action on the use at this location, LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This executive summary has been reviewed and approved for legal sufficiency by the county attorney's office, This item is not quasi-judicial and as such, it does not require ex parte disclosure, A majority vote of the Board is necessary to take action,--HF AC FISCAL IMP ACT: To research this issue, prepare a draft modified zoning verification letter, and write and review this Executive Summary, cost approximately $1,200, based upon staff time expended, There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County for the first and third options above, The fiscal impact for option two above could vary widely (due to variability in proportionate share of legal ad costs), but one ballpark estimate would be $7,500, In effect, the $16,700 application fee would be waived and staff, rather than the applicant/owner, would prepare the text amendment and compile/generate the necessary supporting data and analysis; and, County (taxpayer) funds would pay for: the proportionate share of legal advertising costs (total legal ad costs for the GMP amendment cycle is about $30,000, which is divided among the petitioners in the given amendment cycle), and the cost to have a notice of public hearing sign posted on the property, and the cost to advertise for, and secure a facility for, the required neighborhood information meeting. Additionally, though staff does not believe there would be any statutory compliance issues upon adoption of the GMP amendment, should such arise, the County would bear full cost of defending the amendment and/or negotiating for settlement and implementing the settlement agreement (itselflikely to be a GMP amendment), GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMPl IMP ACT: There is no Grov.1h Management Plan impact in discussing this issue and considering the options noted herein, Any subsequent public hearing petition (GMP amendment, Appeal of an Official Interpretation, Appeal of an Administrative decision - Zoning Verification Letter) would be reviewed for consistency with the GMP by the BCC at the time the petition is heard, RECOMMENDATION: 5 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 20 of 120 Staff recommends the Board take no action (option #3, above). PREPARED BY: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Dept. 6 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 21 of 120 November 18, 2008 through Imperial Golf Estates. Why is this so God darn difficult? Sit down with them. See if you can get them to drop the stupid lawsuit, start putting their money that they have back into their association and make themselves whole . agam. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. The next item is? MR. MUDD: No more time certains, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going back to public petitions. Item #6B PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOSE ARMANDO AND MARIA CABRERA TO DISCUSS "SHOPPING CENTER" WITHIN A PUD - BRING BACK TO THE DECEMBER 16, 2008 BCC MEETING - APPROVED MR. MUDD: This brings us back to public petition 6B. A public petition request by Jose Armando and Maria Cabrera to discuss a shopping center within a PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can call us later on. We have another process going on. Page 191 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 22 of 120 November] 8, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There may be some of these public petitions we'll have to move forward to another day. I'm not too sure if they're here. Could you announce it one more time? MR. MUDD: The next item on the agenda is Item 6B. It's a public petition request -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. They're here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we calm down in the back there or take it outside, please? MR. MUDD: And I believe Jose Armando and Maria Cabrera are here for -- MS. CABRERA: Good afternoon, and thank you for your time. We, my husband and I, have a commercial zoned building at Golden Gate Estates that has three empty units for the past two years. Because of the limited usages of approved businesses under the PUD requirements, businesses in this community have not been able to open as others close due to this economy. Last year a new tenant had acquired all his permits required from the county to open a new clothing/shoe store. After all plans had been approved and he had invested a large amount of money from his savings to purchase his merchandise, ready to open, county did not approve his occupational license. Same situation with another individual that had planned and invested his savings to open an after-school karate school program to service students from Corkscrew Elementary and middle, Sabal Palm and Estates elementary. After passing all fire inspections and preparing this unit as indicated in his requirements, passing the fire inspections, paying all those fees to county, occupational license was not approved because it wasn't listed under the PUD as permitted uses; however, a letter addressed to one of those tenants dated April 18th, 2008, states 16 uses instead of our approval letter of 13, which are the other three retail stores approved. Commissioners, what is our next step to expand the list of --~ Page 192 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 23 of 120 November 18, 2008 allowance -- allowable commercial uses in this subdistrict to correlate with zoning districts that allow uses similar to those already allowed in the subdistrict? What are your recommendations to allow our commercial building to be able to fully operate and help us pay our high taxes, insurance, and mortgage costs, helping create more jobs for some unemployed citizens that are hurting in this economy and bringing more services to the community? Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? I had already called on him. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you so much for coming out. And my apologies for the day dragging out so long. I bet you this has been a learning experience for you? MS. CABRERA: Yes, it has, and I commend you for all your work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you, thank you. What you're bringing up is an issue that's come before us several times, and I do think there's got to be a simple answer. The fact that we have PUDs that are created with specific uses in them, that's to protect the residents that are out there; however, there's other uses that are out there that are, what do you want to call them, nonthreatening in any way. I think that the commission should be able to come up with a simpler process to be able to give consideration rather than going through a variance process, and I'd like to ask Jeff Klatzkow, our county attorney, for a little bit of guidance on this. Did I catch you by surprise on this? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. Your problem here is not with the PUD. The problem is with the Compo Plan, and the problem comes when you get very specific in your Compo Plans. You sort of hamstring yourself, and that's where we are right now. You've got a Compo Plan with very limited uses in it that was Page 193 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 24 of 120 November 18, 2008 approved. The POO's basically a cut-and-paste job with the Compo Plan, and now these poor people are stuck with it, and there is no shortcut. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's talk about that for a minute. How can we go about changing the rules and regulations in a way that possibly a supermajority up here might be able to give an approval for something that's used actually like a clothing store, something that has no serious impact on the neighbor and would be able to offer a service that they're looking for? I don't think we would have had a problem at all with the karate studio going in, you know. I think that would have been a tremendous use and probably been well attended and given a lot of your youth a wonderlUlopportunity. The shortsightedness of the person that put the PUD together years ago is being reflected now. Is there some way that we might be able to come up with some plan to put into effect and still have a public process that would be there, be able to get there without spending a lot of money or tremendous amount of time. MR. KLA TZKOW: Commissioner, I don't know how you would amend the Compo Plan without a fairly extensive public process. I mean, I think the lesson to be learned here is, keep the Compo Plans general and leave the specificities for the PUDs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, needless to say, I was hoping for a much different answer. MR. KLATZKOW: I know you were, sir. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. There's no advice that you can give to the petitioner as to what they could do as their next step? MR. KLA TZKOW: You have to seek a Compo Plan amendment. MS. CABRERA: Right, but the Compo Plan amendment requires $30,000 plus a $16,000 application fee, which nothing is guaranteed, you know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I mean, I've been against -, Page 194 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 25 of 120 November 18, 2008 this before with impact fees, trying to put a business into one of my commercial establishments, and it would have required another $30,000 in impact fees for that particular business to go in. It wasn't economically feasible. You couldn't write it off against the three- or five-year lease. Commissioner Fiala's got the answer. MS. CABRERA: I hope so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think I might be able to help out. The Compo Plan allows shopping centers. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. Staffhas interpreted that in a certain manner, however. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: There's a staff interpretation as to what the shopping center means in this particular -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Within the comprehensive plan? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who is that staff member that made that? MR. KLATZKOW: I believe -- and Joe can correct me ifI1m wrong -- it was David Weeks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see where Commissioner Henning's going. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your administrator of community development, environmental services division. On the visualizer, LDC definition defines what a shopping center is. Why this PUD used a term shopping center, we still don't know. It was used when it was -- it was through the history of this Compo Plan amendment as well. This goes back -- the last time this POD was amended -- I have the POD -- it's actually ordinance 98-72. And one ofthe uses, use -- on 3.3A, subparagraph 12, says, shopping center, and shopping center was defIned on this sheet, and I'll read it. I have to pull it to read it. Page 195 Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 26 of 120 November 18, 2008 The -- a group of unified commercial establishments built on site which has planned development owned or managed as an operating unit and related in its location, size, and type of shops to the trade area that the unit serves. It consists of eight or more retail businesses or service establishments containing a minimum of 20,000 square feet of floor area. No more than 20 percent of the shopping center's floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for over -- for the area over 20 percent. A marina, hotel, or motel with accessory retail shops is not considered a shopping center. Basically the shopping center is a term of art that is used to define what exists out there today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So wait a minute. It's in the Compo Plan that shopping center is allowed. It's in the PUD that shopping center -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is allowed. So where is the problem? I mean, I've seen dress shops in shopping centers, MR. KLA TZKOW: Maybe I can get you somewhere, sir. Joe, was there a zoning verification -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I was going to go into that. There was a -- there was a zoning letter issued back in April 17th. I think: that the best way that they had gone about this is to appeal that zoning letter, zoning verification letter. The applicant came in and asked for a zoning verification letter. The best way would have been to appeal that letter to present to you the facts behind this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's go over this letter. MR. SCHMITT: Well-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: First of all, we know that Ross Gochenaur can't opine on the GMP, okay. MR. SCHMITT: All I have is a file copy. There was a copy signed by -- this is a zoning verification letter signed by Susan Istenes. It is -- it is staff research signed offby Susan Istenes. I do not have the ~ Page 196 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 27 of 120 November 18, 2008 original. This is just the file copy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Turn the page back. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I guess what I read here, basically the property cannot support 20,000 square feet of commercial shopping center use. That's what I see out of that. MR. SCHMITT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, again, the county manager has told me that the only one that interprets the GMP is Randy Cohen. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's the comprehensive planning director. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're not going to get that out of a zoning verification letter. MR. SCHMITT: The comprehensive planning manager provided the input to this to the zoning director. This was included, both a review from the comprehensive planning director as well as the zoning director with -- the input related to the Growth Management Plan, and it goes on to state -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. He didn't sign it. There's not a signature place for him to sign it. So it tells me that there's problems down there. You know, different departments need to sign, and there's a specific reason why I want to ask that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, this is a zoning verification letter, Commissioner. It has to do with what is allowed by the PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So my question is, what I see is, the problem, he can't support 20,000 square feet of commercial on that site out of that zoning verification letter. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But he is being assessed and taxed on 20,356 square feet from the property appraiser. We are collecting taxes on this property with more than 20,000 square feet. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Page 197 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 28 of 120 November 18, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have the property card and I have what you can - a resident can get off the Internet. So if the objection whether -- I don't know -- nobody needs to answer this. Whether he has 20,000 square feet, I don't care, but government is taxing his property, assessing his property for 20,000 square feet. So if that's the problem, then somebody needs to let go of that real quick. But also I want to say, in the LDC section 2.03.02.B it states, the intent of the C2 district implemented in the Collier County Growth Management Plan within the area designated agricultural, rural Estates neighborhood center districts of the Golden Gate Master Plan and the neighborhood center, the districts of the Immokalee master plan, and the mixed-use district of the Future Land Use Element permits the -- permitted in accordance of locational criteria for commercial in the goals, objectives, and policies intended for the Future Land Use Element in the GMP. So it's saying that the C-2 zoning district is permitted in the subdistricts in the Golden Gate master plan. And I know for a fact in the C-2 zoning district you can have a dress shop. You can have a lot more than a dress shop. So I think what your staff has done has taking (sic) a narrow look on the board's ordinances and rules, and they need to take another look at it. And furthermore, I believe, that the board needs to clarifY in shopping centers that C-2 and C-3 uses are allowed. MR. SCHMITT: This is a PUD though. It's not a -- it's not a straight zoning district. It's zoned PUD. And the PUD-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, here's the thing. All throughout Collier County businesses are exiting out of the county and here you've got a place in the county that you want -- they want businesses. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They need businesses. MS. CABRERA: We want to create jobs also. ~ Page 198 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 29 of 120 November 18,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, you know, instead of fighting us, why don't you tell us how we're going to get there. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I -- I would support them going out there today. I'm just trying to define the rules and regulations that are in your code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need a motion, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I think I see where the board's going. We need to get this before the Board of Zoning Appeals. I'd like to come back next meeting with a mechanism that they can get to the Board of Zoning Appeals relatively cheaply so that the Board of Zoning Appeals could decide what is meant by this. MR. SCHMITT: We need to bring back the background on the GMP, the amendments to the GMP, how this GMP was created. If you want to -- it's your GMP, it's our GMP, and our LDC. All we're trying to do is make sure that the rules are enforced as written. If you want to modify these rules, you want to provide us different guidance, then certainly we'll move forward with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to make it happen because there is a need out in Golden Gate Estates. If that's the vehicle, I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bring it back? CHAIRMAN HENNING: To bring it back to the BZA. MR. SCHIMMEL: I don't think it will be the next meeting. Those executive summaries are due today for the next meeting. So it will have to be the December 16th meeting, or whatever that meeting will be. It will be the December meeting. MS. CABRERA: I also have a question. On the original letter, it states, the Mir-Mar PUD identifies only 16 permitted uses, and the list only has 13. What happened to the other three? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That could come back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Page 199 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 30 of 120 November 18, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Find that out. MS. CABRERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I give you this information? MS. CABRERA: Yes, thank you. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next item. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 6C. This item was continued from the October 28th, 2008, BCC meeting. It's a public petition request by Kenny Brown to discuss a resolution supporting relief for local businesses. Mr. Brown, if you could please come forward and identify yourself for the record. MR. BROWN: Yep. For the record, Kenny Brown. I'm the resort manager at Outdoor Resorts ofChokoloskee, the resort -- RV resort located at Highway 29 south, Chokoloskee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, can you hang on just a minute. Commissioner Halas has to leave. It will only take one minute on until 9C. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2008-338: APPOINTING HUNTER H. HANSEN (COMMERCIAL) AND THEODORE S. GRA VENHORST (RESIDENTIAL) TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ~ Page 200 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 31 of 120 November 18, 2008 BOARD - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 9C is appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that we approve on this appointment to the membership of Pelican Bay Service Division Hunter H. Hanson who represents commercial, and Theodore S. Gravenhorst. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and a second to appoint members to the PBSD by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. (Commissioner Halas left the board room for the remainder of the meeting.) Item #6C PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY KENNY BROWN TO DISCUSS A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RELIEF FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES - DISCUSSED W/ITEM #9A Item #9A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL CAMPING BUSINESSES Page 201 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 32 of 120 November 18,2008 TO COMPETE IN THE BIDDING PROCESS WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IN BIG CYPRESS PRESERVE NATIONAL PARK. (COMPANION TO ITEM #6C, PUBLIC PETITION FOR KENNY BROWN) - MOTION TO DENY RESOLUTION - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that then brings us back to 6C, and that's Mr. Brown again. MR. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Do you want me to repeat for the record? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you. MR. BROWN: Okay. Kenny Brown, I'm the resort manager of Outdoor Resorts of Chokoloskee, which is an RV resort located at Highway 29 south, Chokoloskee. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on a problem that is arising in our area, an economic issue dealing with National Park Service and the Big Cypress National Preserve who is installing RV sites with the appropriate hookups, and -- which we believe will be a competition, you know, to the local RV resorts or RV parks, and also will impact the business of the local area, including Everglades City, Chokoloskee, and the surrounding area. I'll try to make it kind of brief. But the National Park Service apparently, as we understand it, has installed about 150 RV sites, camping sites, mostly RV sites, on Highway 41 east near the Collier line, the CollierlDade line, and those RV sites will-- we think will stop the traffic, you know, coming toward us from the Keys, the Miami area, and from other parts of the state, I guess, that, you know, would be coming to them, and we think that we will have a big problem this winter with their low rates of around $19, and some parking free. So we're here to get what help we can get from the commISSIOn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you done, sir? .~ Page 202 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 33 of 120 November 18, 2008 MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There might be commissioners that have questions, so if you'd just stand there just a moment. MR. BROWN: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yes. Mr. Brown, do you pay any kind of property tax or sales tax on your establishment? MR. BROWN: Yes, siLl think probably all of the above. We pay property tax, we pay state sales tax, county tourist tax and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you employ local people? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've been in business how many years? MR. BROWN: At this location since '92, but actually, you know, the business as an R V resort was in about 1969. But the outdoor resorts label came about 1983. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The park service, do they pay ad valorem tax? MR. BROWN: I don't believe they pay any tax at all. I don't believe they pay sales tax, county tax, I mean tourist tax, and I don't think they pay property tax, I mean, it comes off the tax roles, but I could be -- they may have something that they install, you know, in light of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And there's nothing that's been that evident to me. But in any case, the -- also, too, if! remember correctly, the park service gets a number of volunteers who work for nothing to be able to stay on the premise, further lowering their costs, meanwhile competing with local businesses. 1 submit to you that the -- Item 91, the resolution that's in place there, is asking the park service to reconsider their practice. And I -- Chairman Henning, I hope we can go right to that item and bring that up. And if we could, I'd like to make a motion for Page 203 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 34 of 120 November 18, 2008 approval of the resolution. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, that's a different item. We definitely have public speakers on that. So do you want to give the motion prior to public speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think it would hurt. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve the resolution on 9A, I believe it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, 9 -- MS. FILSON: It's 9A. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? I'm not going to second it because I know we have public speakers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ijust can't, to be honest with you. I just -- I'm sorry. I just can't. I just feel that, you know, once we step in and tell one business what they can charge and can't charge, then somebody else is going to say, the Conservancy is competing with me and then somebody else is going to say somebody else is competing with me, and all of a sudden we're going to start coming in, and every time somebody's competing with somebody, whether it be a not-for-profit or not, they're going to say the rates aren't fair. I don't know. When I drive along U.S. 41, I never see the rates out in the front where you stop and -- you know, I mean, there's nothing that advertises the rates that one is better than another. So I'm sorry, I can't support 9A. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, even though the element of business competition is totally unfair and the federal government doesn't -- you're competing with an unfair advantage? In fact, they don't have to pay taxes. They have a low, low overcost. The local businesses that are paying our salaries are the ones that are hurting in the end. That's my concern. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shall we go to public speakers before we make a decision? Sir, did you want to say -- while you're there, you want to see Page 204 Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 35 of 120 December 16, 2008 And we move on to? Item #100 RECOMMENDATION THAT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVES OPTION #3 AND TAKES NO ACTION ON PUBLIC PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO CHANGE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUB-DISTRICT WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND THE MIR MAR PUD - MOTION TO REISSUE THE APRIL 18,2008 ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE NOTIFIED BY R W A REGARDING AN APPEAL HEARING - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- that brings us to our five o'clock, okay, because -- I have a lot of people waiting for gas and energy, but you've got a five o'clock that -- but I don't think you're going to get to finish. So five o'clock is 100. 100 is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves Option 3 and takes no action on . public petition request to change allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Mir Mar PUD. This item was requested to be moved from the consent to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go any further, Terri, do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: After this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it might be a break until tomorrow. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This shouldn't take that long, should it? Page 236 .-._~---~.__... .".. .' --- --- ,........ . .-.---.-----..----..-....--...- Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 36 of 120 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It could take an hour and a half. Justjoshin'. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put him on the clock. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm David Weeks of your Comprehensive Planning staff. This is a presentation today as a follow-up to your November 14th public petition item regarding the allowable uses in the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and also the Mir Mar PUD, which is one of the two PUDs that comprises that subdistrict. Specifically the discussion on the public petition was, how can the uses be expanded? How can additional uses be allowed in that Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict? Also, there was a question about a zoning verification letter that had been issued to the property owner earlier this year in which 16 uses were referenced, whereas the subdistrict has a total of 13 uses identified. And I think it will be helpful to have some background, Commissioners. I'll be as brief as I can. And let me start with that discrepancy and put that aside. The reason staff has identified a longer list of uses than was identified in the subdistrict in the Golden Gate Master Plan is because some of those uses listed in the master plan actually are comprised of multiple use. In the executive summary I give an example where one of the listings is shoe repair, TV repair, and so forth. Well, shoe repair is distinctly different from those types of appliances. That will be viewed as a separate use. So that one alone comes from one uses to two. That's where the discrepancy comes from. As I said earlier, there are two PUDs that comprise this subdistrict, the Mir Mar PUD, which the public petitioner has interest in, and the Randall Boulevard Center PUD. Let's start with the-- again, briefly, some history. Page 237 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 37 of 120 December 16, 2008 The Randall Boulevard Center PUD was approved first before there ever was a subdistrict on this property. It was approved in accordance with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan. And at that time that plan limited the uses to convenience/commercial type uses. It's a limited use. In 1989 when the county adopted the present Growth Management Plan, the same list of so-called 13 uses that were approved in that PUD were carried over into the subdistrict and to the Growth Management Plan. That is how we ended up with such a very specific list of land uses which is unique in the Golden Gate Master Plan. Even the neighborhood centers, which have a lot of specificity, do not have this level, this zoning level of a list of allowable uses, The Mir Mar PUD was approved a few years after the Randall Boulevard based upon the same subdistrict that had that same list of specific uses identified in the master plan. So those very same uses got listed, with one exception. On the entry that says office uses, professional offices, it also specifically stated, including branch banks. I could only conclude that the board at that time determined that a bank was a type of professional office. I can tell you that today staff would not view it that way, but nonetheless that occurred back then. And on Page 3 of your executive summary for this item, I've listed a table that shows you the list of uses in the subdistrict and each of those two respective PUDs. So you can see for yourself how they are identical with the exception of the branch banks. Another exception, which is not really relevant, is the fact that the Randall Boulevard CUD -- PUD mentions a 25,OOO-square-foot limitation that is not included within the Mir Mar PUD. I will also tell you that, going back to the Randall Boulevard Center PUD, when it was approved in 1986, not only was -- were we dealing with a different Comprehensive Plan, but also the zoning ordinance at that time listed a shopping center as a use. Today we don't treat it that way in the zoning code. It is a type of structure with Page 238 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 38 of 120 December 16, 2008 a certain number of units and/or a certain square footage. But at that time it was listed in the C2, 3, 4 and 5 zoning districts. Shopping center was listed as a use. And the types of uses allowed in the shopping center would only be those uses found within the zoning district in which the shopping center was listed. For example, if you're in the C3 zoning district, your property is zoned C3. You want to develop a shopping center, you could only develop C3 uses in that shopping center. You can't jump over and grab a C5 use and put it in your shopping center. So it was in alignment. The same thing for that Mir Mar PUD. Shopping center is listed as an -- allowable uses, but the only uses allowed there are those uses listed in the PUD. There's no ability to reach out and go to some other zoning district, grab a use, and place it within that shopping center. I think that's important because shopping center is -- it's unusual to see it listed this way as a use. But that is based on past practice in the former zoning ordinance. Commissioners, there's a few options here, one of which would be for the property owner to -- excuse me -- for you to direct staff to issue to the property owner another zoning verification letter, just as occurred earlier this year. Why would you do that? Well, if you chose to do that, that would allow the property owner to have a time period in which they could file an appeal to that determination, which would come before you as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Another option, of course, is you could direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Growth Management Plan to broaden the list of uses. That is a more comprehensive approach. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan will be a more comprehensive approach, because that is the ability to add many uses to the subdistrict, whereas, the official zoning letter, the zoning letter verification letter, is key towards a specific use or uses. Page 239 Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 39 of 120 December 16, 2008 Similarly, the property owner could file for an official interpretation, an 01, which, again, would be subject to appeal to you as the Board of Zoning Appeals. But that, again, is tailored towards a use or few uses as opposed to an amendment where we open up the entire subdistrict and potentially could add a lot of uses to it. Another option the board could take though is to take no action, and that is the action that staff recommends to you. There are processes in place, including that official interpretation or the applicant. The property owner could file for a GMP amendment to change those list of uses. As far as the fiscal impact goes, Commissioners, going this process where the property owner went to the public petition and then you directed staff to bring this back to you, we've estimated an expense of approximately $1,200 to date. That's due to the necessary research and prepare this executive summary to bring to you today. A Growth Management Plan amendment is expensive and it's time consuming, but that is, again, the most comprehensive approach. And I think for the property owner, if they want to put this issue aside once and for all, broaden the list of uses, that is the best approach, and that would have to be followed by a subsequent amendment to the PUD to also add additional uses. Again, staffs recommendation is that you take no action. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's it. Questions? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear the attorney for the petitioner or the -- excuse me, in this case -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think he's been demoted. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Yovanovich might take offense. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense. MR. NADEAU: I approach you with a little bit of material that may help you -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good fan. Page 240 ~_.~_.-..._,..,,_....." ," ...-". -.---..- Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 40 of 120 December 16, 2008 MR. NADEAU: There you go. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm Planning Manager for RW A. I'm representing Pack of Collier, the owner of the Mir Mar PUD, Armando and Maria Cabrera. I think staff did a very good job with their $1,200. They did some very accurate research. The '83 adoption of the Randall Boulevard PUD did provide for convenience stores as well as gas stations, and the lowest order level of goods and services. It's important to understand the term goods and services. Services could be more like professional services. Goods being that which you would buyout of your convenience store or out of a shoe shore, those land uses that are provided for in the Mir Mar PUD. Your staff report does go along and say that the Mir Mar PUD was adopted in 1998, and it was found consistent with the Growth Management Plan at that time. David already explained how shopping centers were associated with the zoning districts in which a shopping center land use was permitted. The staff report does -- or excuse me. The executive summary on Page 4 provides you an opportunity, Commissioners. It says in the middle of the first paragraph on Page 4, conceivably the uses from the C 1 through C3 zoning districts could be allowed similar to the neighborhood center subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master plan. Well, as you heard in Mr. Weeks' presentation, he was telling you what has occurred in the past. He's saying that we had a Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict adopted at the same time as the neighborhood centers within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as a part of that adoption. Well, the neighborhood centers were basically serving the same service area, two to three miles, and they were providing for those range of uses in the C 1 through C3 land use categories, zoning districts. Page 241 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 41 of 120 December 16, 2008 Well, here we are 25 years after the Mir Mar p- -- after the Randall Center PUD has been adopted, and things have changed in our community. Maybe it's that the Randall Boulevard Commercial Center subdistrict is functioning like a neighborhood center, and with this opportunity provided for in your executive summary, you may want to consider that. You may want to make a policy statement and say that it's our opinion today that the Randall Boulevard commercial district is so similar to a neighborhood center that it should be afforded the same range of uses, C 1 through C3. Well, now there could be some concern about what is permitted in C 1 through C3, thus I gave you this document. And you can see here that the C2 district is intended to implement neighborhood center district of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. You can also see that the commercial intermediate C3 district is that area -- are those land uses which you typically would see in a shopping center. Well, if we take a look at the criteria on the next page of my handout, it says, the criteria for neighborhood centers are as follows: Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial to provide a wider variety of goods. These uses shall be similar to C2 and C3 zoning districts outlined in the Land Development Code. Are there concerns about what the land uses are in C2 and C3? I've provided them for you in a form that's easy to read. Our current Land Development Code, 04-55, as amended, puts it in table form, and it's not that easy for you to read. This is in a listing form. I've gone through these land uses in C2 and C3. C2, many of the uses that are in C2 are already permitted in the Mir Mar PUD and the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict, including apparel stores, with some limitations. The C3 land uses still provide for convenience stores and gas stations, but it has restaurants similar to what's permitted in the Mir Mar PUD. It's permitted to have general merchandise stores. Page 242 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 42 of 120 December 16, 2008 Now, group care facility, probably not. It's a 2.38-acre site. The site itself would preclude that type of land use. Hardware stores are already permitted in the Mir Mar PUD. Your C3 uses, you might have some automotive service, but you're already allowed to have automotive gas stations. You're allowed to have veterinary clinics but no outside -- no outside kenneling is permitted. So we could -- we can basically say that we're not going to be impacting the neighbors with barking dogs and -- barking dogs. Cats don't bark. So with this, Commissioners, on behalf ofthe property owner, we'd like to be brought up to date. And given the limited amount of resources that this landowner has, we'd like to be brought up to date with some simple measures and policy statements by this board this evening, and that would be that you consider or view the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict and the Mir Mar PUD as a neighborhood center, and they should be permitted to have -- and be afforded to have the land uses in the C I through C3 zoning districts. And this can be accomplished without having to amend the PUD. We could put a note on the zoning map and say, by adoption or policy, potentially by resolution, the board has determined that Mir Mar PUD's allowed to have Cl through C3 uses. And in the next cycle of -- or in a cycle of your choosing, you could amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to add a note to the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict that says it's being treated as a neighborhood center, or you could even redesignate that as a neighborhood center and have the Cl through C3 land uses provided for in that area, and we wouldn't have to make any global changes to the document. I offer you -- offer myself up for questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to go to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta, and then Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we had a similar request earlier today where we were being asked by Page 243 ,._----_._._.__._~~._-_._.._~------~~,_.. . Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 43 of 120 December 16, 2008 Mr. Hancock to make a policy decision that would shortcut this process, and it was the decision ofthe majority of the board that there is an established process for accomplishing these changes and you have to go through that process. Now, whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. The point is, we need to treat people essentially the same. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't refuse one person the right to make a -- you can't refuse them the expectation to have the Collier County Commission make a policy statement concerning our Growth Management Plan intent and then later in the day grant the very same thing to another petitioner. So I don't see how we can, in all fairness, proceed with this other than to accept the staffs recommendation of item -- alternative three. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. There's a vast difference between earlier this morning and what we see before us now, and I'm very familiar with the history. I've shared the original master plan that put this togeth- -- put together a lot of the rules and regulations that go throughout that area. And I can tell you it was never the intention of the group at that time to become so restrictive as far as uses go. This is an existing commercial area. The one we looked at earlier, if we remember correctly, was an open space for an infill; completely different. What we're looking at is adding some uses here that would be -- fall right in lines with the neighborhood. What I would suggest and what I'd like to see done as a matter of policy, have this brought back at the next meeting with -- bringing this up to what you're allowed to do up to C3. At that point in time, it can be advertised, get the public's input at the meeting, and we'll also be able to view all the uses for C2 and C3 to make sure they're really Page 244 , __.__~__"_H________ Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 44 of 120 December 16,2008 conducive to what takes place. But let's try to simplifY this. Let's -- it's getting to be so convoluted that it's unreal. Okay. And Mr. Klatzkow, help me with this so that we can get this done. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I'm not entirely sure what it is that you want. You want us to come back at the next meeting with a public meeting for C3 zoning; is that it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able to recognize the fact that this is -- this should be allowed to be declared C3 zoning in place of what it has now for some very limited uses, which makes absolutely no sense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure, Commissioner -- if you don't mind. I'm not sure ifthat statement is true. If you -- and I remember that, you were on the original committee. And I remember going to a couple meetings. I figured, I don't want to get involved if Jim Coletta1s involved. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Merry Christmas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- a shopping center is not a use. A shopping center is a business or is a building where you put the uses on. So why or what was the intent to put shopping centers in a use? Now, Mr. Weeks said, used to -- if you were designated a shopping center, you had particular uses in the '83 Land Development Code -- if I'm saying that right, David. Is that a summarize (sic) of what was done in the '80s? MR. WEEKS: You're off by one year, but otherwise correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It was what, '82? MR. WEEKS: '82 zoning ordinance, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I have one of those in my office. So if the intent was to have those uses in the shopping center and it was identified in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan but never -, Page 245 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 45 of 120 December 16, 2008 caried over to the Land Development Code, that's where the mistake came in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The master plan recognized the fact that these uses were needed. MR. KLATZKOW: IfI may -- because my office has done research on this a month ago, all right, in preparation for the initial public (sic). To get back at what Commissioner Coletta was getting at, I think we should bring this back, okay. And I happen to think C2 zoning is the correct zoning on this one based on the old codes, all right. But we have a mechanism to do this, and that would be Option 1, which is that the zoning verification letter gets reissued. The applicant can then appeal it. Necessary notices can go out to the adjacent property owners so their voice can be heard. They may be in opposition. I don't know, all right. And then Mr. Nadeau can come forward with his review of this, our office will come forward with our review of this, and then it will be a matter for the board to interpret what it is that the code says and what it is that the Comprehensive Plan says, and we'll have the dually advertised public meeting. Any decision of the board, in my opinion at that time, would be upheld. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Could I just add something to that and finish up? Yeah, I -- Jeff, I think we're close to where we need to go, We're talking about a time element. We're talking about cost. What I would suggest, that we limit the actual cost related to the required advertising and the notices that have to go out, and that might get us to a point we need to be. What kind of a time element are we looking at? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, may I interject, please? For a zoning verification letter, which is option one, there is no notice requirement involved. That's strictly a communication between the applicant and staff. Page 246 ..___'__~ _.w..,"____._._._. -.--.- Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 46 of 120 December 16, 2008 The official interpretation request, which can then be appealed, that's the process that includes public notice. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not reissue the letter of April 18, 2008, just reissue that letter -- MR. WEEKS: That could be done and appealed, but I'm saying that there's no noti- -- the only notification process is that letter going to the person that's requesting it. No surrounding properties are notified. No type of public notice of any type. That's a totally different process than the official interpretation process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I'd like to do --let me try to cut to the chase so we can get to the discussion. Make a motion to direct staff to reissue the April 18, 2008, zoning verification letter and if appealed by the applicant, which, of course, it will happen, that the county attorney review the appeal and issue an opinion as the permitted use of Mir Mar PUD, and that applicant's cost be limited to the actual cost related to the required advertising and notice. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. MR. KLATZKOW: And ifthere is no required advertising, we're done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, you heard the motion and the second. So if there is any cost in advertising, then they're to be the actual cost. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we saying we're going to make this change without a public hearing? MR. KLA TZKOW: There will be a public hearing. It's going to come back to the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will be advertised to the adjacent property owners and there will be a public hearing. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it should be advertised, and I think there should be a public hearing, yes. Page 247 Agenda Item No, 7A April 14, 2009 Page 47 of 120 December 16,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But did Commissioner Coletta's motion do that? MR. KLATZKOW: I think it does, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, explain to me how that is different than what we refused to do earlier today, or is it the same thing? MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's pretty much the same thing what you did earlier today. I think you're being consistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm concerned about, because what we did earlier today is exactly the same thing as we're trying to do here. So if we're being consistent, I'm okay with it, but if we're not being consistent, I'm not okay with it. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you're consistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need a clear answer. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you're consistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I disagree, respectfully. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, hang on, hang on. Hang on. One at a time. Commissioner Coyle has the floor. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, tell me -- tell me what you disagree with then? MS. ISTENES: The -- my understanding of the action you took this morning was the applicant was directed to do an official interpretation. With that process, you have a required notification, both a publication in the newspaper and a required mail-out to surrounding property owners of a stated distance in the code. With a zoning verification letter, which is what the motion maker suggested now, there is no requirement in the LDC for public notification. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was the zoning notification letter of 1982? MS. ISTENES: No. Page 248 _._.__"n._'-,'_. ___ ..._.._..__ Agenda Item No, 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 48 of 120 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what the -- MR. MUDD: The zoning verification letter was an attach- -- was attached and it was dated -- and it would be dated -- the draft letter would be dated December 16, 2008. MR. SCHMITT: Page 7. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Commissioner Coletta specifically said, reissue the zoning notification letter of 198- what -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I did not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he didn't. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: April 18, 2008. MR. MUDD: 2008. MS. ISTENES: The reissuance will then start the clock for the 30-day appeal process, which is why we're suggesting it be reissued, because that 30 days has expired. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So it will give the ability of the applicant to appeal if they wish. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you talking about issuing a zoning verification letter or reissuing a zoning notice? MS. ISTENES: Reissuing the zoning verification letter that was previously issued. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then that will prompt a public advertisement and a public hearing. MS. ISTENES: There will be a -- if the applicant files an application for an appeal, the appeal itself will be notified -- noticed in the newspaper, but the -- there will be no -- similar to what you do in a rezoning, there will be no mail-outs to surrounding property owners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, I'm not buying that. You know, I think we've got to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Would you buy it if I include that in my motion that the immediate property owners be Page 249 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 49 of 120 December 16, 2008 notified? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we're going through the full process of notifying property owners and having a public hearing and the costs are going to be paid for by the petitioner. Is all that true? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry. Let me -- the motion that I made was pretty simple. It was to try to simplify the process but still have due process in it. Adding the particular about notification out there, I think that's something that we could do, but I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now Mr. Nadeau, from what I understand, is saying they will notify the abutting neighbors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, once -- and I'm not finished yet. You know, on several occasions today Commissioner Coletta has said, I'm concerned about making sure that the public gets notice and that there are public hearings. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, what we're describing here, unless we go a little further, will shortcut that process. I want to make sure that we're not shortcutting it. So please tell me what steps we have to take and what sequence we have to take them in, in order to assure that there is a full and complete notification of property owners and the public so we can have a public hearing on this issue. MS. ISTENES: There's two options -- well, probably three. But I'm going to state the two that are clearly stated in your code, because what we're attempting to do is create a hybrid here that's not stated in the code. So the two options that are stated in your code would be the official interpretation process whereby the applicant pays a fee, submits an application, the application is analyzed, a response is provided, and then the property -- surrounding property owners are notified of the response and the ability to file an appeal, as well as an Page 250 , ._--_._"--_...-_._'-'-~ -~-~-- ..-.-..--.--- Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 50 of 120 December 16, 2008 advertisement is placed in the Naples Daily News with the ability to file for an appeal, and that ability lasts for 30 days from the date of the last advertisement, which I usually count as the newspaper ad. That's usually the last. That's one option. The other option is to do the -- what staff recommended was basically that the applicant can come in and amend the Growth Management Plan and rezone the PUD. Both of those are public hearing processes that are dually notified. MR. KLA TZKOW: Your staff option in your executive summary was to reissue the April 18th zoning verification letter. If the.only issue is notice, would the petitioner be willing to send out written letters to the adjacent property owners in the same manner as MS. ISTENES: He said he would, but -- yeah, but I just want to make sure that we're, again, attempting to create the hybrid process here that doesn't exist, and I think: I'm reading that as your concern. So that's all I needed to say about that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. I've got it. I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? MR. NADEAU: If! may put it on the record. Again, Dwight Nadeau. The applicant is more than willing to send out property owner notification letters, and we have no objection to paying for the advertisement in the Naples Daily News. We know that there is a $1,000 fee that's associated with the appeal of the zoning verification letter. So that would be $1,000 out of my client's pocket, the cost to prepare and mail the letters, as well as to pay for the newspaper ad. It will be properly public noticed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I think: what we discussed this morning -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but we talked to the point to where this may have to go before the Planning Page 251 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14. 2009 Page 51 of 120 December 16,2008 Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, a -- no. A notice -- an official interpretation -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- does not go to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but if the -- in respect to what took place this morning was that there was -- you'd almost have to have a GMP amendment in regards to addressing this particular issue; am I correct? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the -- you're correct that the most full and open process is amend the Growth Management Plan and then follow up with the PUD amendment. Both of those processes require the most notice of any processes you have. Both of those go through a review process that will include the Planning Commission and then finally this body. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what -- I think: we came up with the determination this morning. MR. WEEKS: This morning that was one option. The other option, which I believe the -- Mr. Hancock indicated he was going to pursue, was an official interpretation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That's what Susan identified, which can then be appealed to this body as the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that includes a notice process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to support the motion, so I think there's enough to do the process of the zoning verification, and then notices n the enhanced version of notices, putting it in the newspaper and mailing out in the neighborhood. MR. NADEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And in may, there was backup material in the executive summary package where the draft Page 252 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14. 2009 Page 52 of 120 December 16,2008 ~. appeal letter has already been prepared. So if this April 18, 2008, zoning verification letter were reissued next week, we would be able to response to that, and the appeal could be rapidly provided by staff because it's already been drafted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we go to public speakers? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FILSON: I have two public speakers. Vivilan (sic) Jimenez. She'll be followed by Paul Candi -- Landi. It's a C or an L. MS. JIMENEZ: Here or here? MS. FILSON: Doesn't matter. MS. JIMENEZ: Hi. I'm Vivian Jimenez. I'm a Realtor. I've been here since 1998. And just to let you know, the neighboring surrounding community property owners have asked me to help Mr. Armando and Maria Cabrera to try to get zoning differences for the shopping centers, as they want to rent, and currently their use does not supply what they want to put in. I know that one of the things that wanted to be in the shopping center was a karate school, and the current zoning does not allow that. That's what I have to say. Thank: you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank: you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Paul Landi. MR. LANDI: Hi. How are you guys? I own L'Appetito, the Randall location. I feel that we need tenants out there. I mean, it helps the economy. The economy is in disarray right now. And it takes a community of the plaza to help the plaza be successful. And right now, everybody's struggling out there. As you guys are aware, the economy is hurting, and we need great tenants out there to support that neighborhood. And I think it's -- a karate school out there would by great for kids. It's a great -- it's a great idea. After school interacts with us as a business and interacts with the neighborhood. That's it. Thank: you. Page 253 Agenda Item No.7 A April 14. 2009 Page 53 of 120 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank: you. You know, I don't understand -- well, I'm just going to make a statement here. We have what is a -- in the PUD and in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan a use of shopping, and a shopping center is not a use, but we know what is traditionally in shopping centers. And if you have an area, especially in Golden Gate Estates, that wants business, why aren't we helping them? Why aren't we helping them so they don't have to travel so far, use our infrastructure, and make it happen? I mean, it's a quality of life for them. It's a quality of life for, in this particular case, for people who live up and down Immokalee Road who those residents have to travel across. And it's just a win-win for everybody if we can make it happen. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, you're right. And I was troubled a little bit by this when I talked to staff and I was told why I couldn't do it. I talked to Mark Strain, and Mark Strain also agreed with what we're saying here today, that this is, what do you call it, insignificant and it doesn't require -- shouldn't require the kind of review, that it should be something that we could do by policy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we're taking that extra step with the zoning verification letter, plastering it in the newspaper, which nobody out there reads anyways, okay. I mean, they read the Golden Gate Citizen. That's the one that they read. They don't read the Naples Daily News, and then notifYing (sic) it. So we're going way above board to do a good thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the letters, too. Don't forget about that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, the letters going to the neighbors. But anyways, there's a motion and a second on the floor. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Once again, my only Page 254 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 54 of 120 December 16, 2008 -, concern is that we are being consistent in the way we're treating people. Now, will somebody tell me whether this is consistent with the way we treated the petitioner this morning? Because in my mind, these are identical situations. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, in my opinion, this is not the same. The -- as Susan said, we're creating a hybrid process. We're saying, let's do a zoning verification letter, but let's add a notice requirement. Well, you already have that process. It's called an official interpretation with an appeal process. It's there, it's in the code, everybody can see it. That's what the rules are. But it certainly seems to have -- to staff that you're, on the fly, creating a new process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Creating a new process where, with this motion? MR. WEEKS: With this, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's my point, okay? That's my point. MR. KLA TZKOW: Let me just -- if I may. What is the difference between your zoning verification letting and an official interpretation? Because you've already ruled on the issue. I mean, you can call it -- you can call it whatever you want, but you already ruled on the issue. If they asked for an official interpretation ofthe same issue, how's it going to be any different than your zoning verification letter? MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarify. For the record, Joe Schmitt. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think: that's a good question that needs to be answered. MR. SCHMITT: I'm fighting with my two managers and my director. This morning had to do with a Compo Plan and a Compo Plan interpretation. That was different. This is a Compo Plan, but it also deals with zoning. On Page 7 of your executive summary, one ofthe items we Page 255 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 55 of 120 December 16, 2008 offered to do is to reissue the zoning, zoning verification letter. Now, understand that that is a very narrow process. It only had to do with, was a clothing store allowed at this shopping center. And my concern is - and I think where Jeffwas coming from -- under option one, the zoning verification letter is a very, very simple administrative process. Applicant comes in, says, can I do this within the PUD? The zoning staff says yes or no. Under your Code of Laws and Ordinances under section 250-58, they can appeal a decision of a government official, which is a different type of appeal than what Tim was going to do this morning under the 01, official interpretation. This appeal would be very specific. It would be an appeal basically saying, can I open the clothing store at this location. Dwight wants to introduce new uses. And I don't know -- again, I'm concerned about that becoming part of the appeal process. But your zoning verification letter we redrafted. It's in your executive summary, Page 7. It's a new -- it's a new zoning verification letter, and what it does is just says that a clothing store is not allowed. Dwight would then have to appeal that, specifically concentrating on that one issue, and then he could bring in the issues having to do with C2 or 3 -- C3, but then you may be entering what is kind of slippery slope of almost amending an existing PUD. If you feel that this use is allowed and you believe that it's a use that certainly is acceptable, I would just say, so directed, and we'll do it. Now, that may be a problem legally or otherwise. But if that's the consensus of this board, we'll follow the consensus of the board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why didn't you tell us the same thing this morning when Mr. Hancock was making his appeal for essentially the same kind of issues? MR. SCHMITT: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was a Growth Management Plan . Issue. Page 256 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14. 2009 Page 56 of 120 December 16, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Right. This is a Growth Management Plan issue, but it also is a use based on an existing PUD. Tim was trying to get a policy decision to actually amend how to apply the Growth Management Plan having to do with the enlargement or expansion of an infill district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was more specific than that. It was merely trying to get us to make an acknowledgment that a change in 2007 was not intended to cause the effect that is being caused for his client. You're saying the same thing here. Youtre saying that you want us to make an interpretation that we didn't intend for certain things to happen or not to happen here. You're asking us -- or the petitioner's asking us for a policy decision on the fly. It is exactly the same thing. And I still don't understand what you're telling me. MR. SCHMITT: I understand your logic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And what you're saying is basically that you're __ this is asking you for a policy decision just the same as Tim-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's exactly the same thing. MR. SCHMITT: -- was this morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you give me the same process and I'll support it. You give me a different process, and I'm not going to support it, but I don't know that it makes any difference. MR. SCHMITT: Then that process, to be consistent with what was this morning, would be Option 3, and that is where the -- you take no objection. You leave it up to the petitioner to basically ask for an official interpretation. They would send -- under an 01, ask for how to apply both the GMP and basically, in this case, the guidance in the PUD. They would submit for an official interpretation, which they then could appeal jfthe ruling did not come to their favor. Page 257 _._~-'.'"--'-'--""'-- Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 57 of 120 December 16, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Right. This is a Growth Management Plan issue, but it also is a use based on an existing PUD. Tim was trying to get a policy decision to actually amend how to apply the Growth Management Plan having to do with the enlargement or expansion of an infin district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was more specific than that. It was merely trying to get us to make an acknowledgment that a change in 2007 was not intended to cause the effect that is being caused for his client. Youtre saying the same thing here. You're saying that you want us to make an interpretation that we didn't intend for certain things to happen or not to happen here. You're asking us - or the petitioner's asking us for a policy decision on the fly. It is exactly the same thing. And I still don't understand what you're telling me. MR. SCHMITT: I understand your logic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And what you're saying is basically that you're -- this is asking you for a policy decision just the same as Tim -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's exactly the same thing. MR. SCHMITT: -- was this morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you give me the same process and I'll support it. You give me a different process, and I'm not going to support it, but I don't know that it makes any difference. MR. SCHMITT: Then that process, to be consistent with what was this morning, would be Option 3, and that is where the -- you take no objection. You leave it up to the petitioner to basically ask for an official interpretation. They would send -- under an 01, ask for how to apply both the GMP and basically, in this case, the guidance in the PUD. They would submit for an official interpretation, which they then could appeal if the ruling did not come to their favor. Page 257 Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 58 of 120 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But - and what you said to us earlier, was if you do it through a zoning verification, it would have to be a very narrow issue that had to do with the use of one specific business or use? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In order for them to get changes that would be productive for their facility, they're going to have to look at other changes. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so what you're suggesting is, they're going to come in and try to sneak in those other changes during this debate over the zoning verification letter, and that's exactly what will have to happen if they're going to have a successful business there? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. I think:- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So why not do it right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. The motion is not right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you may vote no or you may vote yes, but let's call the motion and see where it goes from there, okay? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it works. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 2-1. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3-1. Page 258 ..-.--.--------------. Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 59 of 120 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 3-2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 3-2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3-2. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll get it right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. The pontification that's going on in these discussions, it's just unnecessary, and we could get a lot more things done. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just think: we're going -- it's on down a slippery slope here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what I'm talking about here. I have 15 minutes to go, and then I have an engagement. Item #10L RECOMMENDATION TO: DEVELOP A LANDFILL GAS- TO- ENERGY F ACILITY THAT WILL BENEFICIALLY USE LANDFILL GAS FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY AND, IN TURN, GENERATE NEW REVENUE FOR THE COUNTY'S SOLID WASTE FUND BY (A) ENTERING INTO A LANDFILL GAS SALES AGREEMENT AND GROUND LEASE AUTHORIZING WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA TO DESIGN, PERMIT, CONSTRUCT OPERATE AND MAINT AlN A LANDFILL GAS- TO-ENERGY FACILITY AT THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL; (B) AMENDING THE COUNTY'S LANDFILL OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA; (C) APPROVING THE FACILITY THROUGH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS; (D) DIRECTING THE DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO EXPEDITE THE PERMIT AND REVIEW PROCESS, AND (E) AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE Page 259 Agenda Item No.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 60 of 120 December 16, 2008 BOARD TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDFILL OPERATING AGREEMENT - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think: we can do -- I think we can do 10L, because we've got some people that are here that have been sitting here. That has to do-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know how long -- MR. MUDD: Excuse me. That has to do with the recommendation to develop a landfill gas-to-energy facility that will beneficially use landfill gas from the Collier County Landfill to generate electricity, in turn generate new revenue for the county's solid waste fund by, A, entering into a landfill gas sales agreement and ground lease authorizing Waste Management, Inc., of Florida to design, permit, construct, operate, maintain a landfill gas-to-energy facility at the Collier County Landfill; B, amending the county's landfill operation agreement with Waste Management, Inc., of Florida; C, approving the facility through a Site Development Plan process; D, directing the division administrator from community development's environmental services to expedite the permit and review process; and E, authorizing the chairman of the board to execute the agreement and the amendment to the landfill operating agreement, and Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your director of solid waste, will present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need anything on the record? MR. MUDD: No. The reason -- the only reason that he needs to have CDES expedite is so that we meet the threshold, the time cutoff for the incentives, and that's the reason for that one. Outside of that, everything else is clearcut and it seems to be a Page 260 ..~._,,_ _ ..~ _._..___.__ .h~_ ._. ___ '~.__'_ Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 61 of 120 December 16, 2008 pretty good agreement that was negotiated. But Commissioner Henning could disagree with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, it is what it is. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. How late does the board want to go? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to finish it up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I pulled an item off the agenda, if we can go to that. Item #10Q RESOLUTION 2008-388: GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PUBLIC) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD PHASE ONE WITH THE ROADWAY BEING MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY AND THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would be -- that would be 10Q, and that would be -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we do M? MR. MUDD: No. We're trying to get the ones done because he has a six o'clock. He received a memo that he has a prior engagement Page 261 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 62 of 120 December 16,2008 that he has to go to, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: And I'm looking. lOQ used to be 16A3. It's a recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford, Phase 1, with the roadway being maintained by the county and the drainage improvements being privately maintained. That item was pulled at Commissioner Henning's request. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the reason I pulled it is, we just did a Land Development Code amendment not to do these things -- is to approve the -- in PUDs, whether they be public or private roads, that we would not maintain them, and that's why I pulled the item. And Mr. Schmitt, I see, is gone. It's one of his items. MR. MUDD: Go ahead, Norm. You were there part of the decision that the board made prior. Go ahead, Norman, and then Joe will follow. MR. SCHMITT: Apologize. We were clearing up some guidance for Dwight. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're working on the -- on the -- I guess the Arrowhead issue. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, Arrowhead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the Board of Commissioners in the Land Development Code meeting says we're not going to take over any more roads in PUDs. MR. SCHMITT: That was the most recent round of LDC amendments, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So that's why I pulled this so __ it's different than when the board approved the LDC amendment. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. This goes back to a 2002 PUD and a plat that was approved, and I don't have the date in front of me here. The plat was later approved both identifying it as such, and I've got -- this goes back to a -- and it was amended again in '05. 2005 ordinance Page 262 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14. 2009 Page 63 of 120 December 16, 2008 is on top. But under transportation, under paragraph I, it notes, roads will be public and dedicated to county at the time of platting, and that has been in that PUD since the PUD was first adopted in 2002. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it didn't say -- they could be public. Doesn't mean that we have to maintain them. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. There's nothing that states that. Now, Jim, if you could zero in. That's the -- on the plat itself -- and it does highlight. But that's correct. They could be public, but it doesn't state anything about maintaining -- if they're maintained by the county or by the residents. But the pun did state that they would be public roads. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, let's just talk about the maintenance of it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the concern. This was approved in 2003. This plat was approved in 2003. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have the item, the executive summary item, and there is nothing in here that's saying that the county is going to maintain these roads. The board did not approve, give consent to staff, that we would maintain these roads. Do you agree with that? MR. SCHMITT: I agree. There's no -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: But yet this plat was recorded saying that the county would maintain these roads, correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That -- the staff does not have the ability to make those fiscal decisions. It's only the Board of Commissioners. Now, this is the reason why I took my signature away, for these very things. The Board of Commissioners approved things, and what is signed is not what the board approved. Page 263 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 64 of 120 December 16, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: This plat -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: My signature's on this plat. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, what you're suggesting is that we don't keep these roads in repair after we told the people that we were going to do this, that we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We never told-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or is it just a question of whose signature went where or when it went? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nobody told anybody, these people, that we were going to maintain these roads. Nobody said that. We said they'd be public, but we didn't say we'd maintain them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So every road that's public out there that's within any kind of community, we no longer have to maintain them? This makes no sense. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Board of Commissioners approved an LDC amendment that, unless the board directs differently, we're not to maintain any road if they would come to us for maintenance within a PUD. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this date prior to the time that Arrowhead was established? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Normally we do not apply LDC changes retroactively. If the -- whatever agreements were made at the time of either PUD acceptance or the recording of the final plat normally carries. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me tell you what's going to happen here. I'm very familiar with Arrowhead and what's taking place there. At this point in time, they're in serious trouble, just like a lot of communities, more so there than you could ever expect. They only got about 20-some percent of the people contributing to their homeowners' fund that they have. The -- what do you call it, the Page 264 'h_~~""_"""'._ _~.,_.~_.___.. .-'.. ,.-----.--------.--. ..., - -----.--.. "...__.__._-~---~- Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 65 of 120 December 16, 2008 assessments? The place is falling in disrepair, and if the county all of a sudden decides that they're no longer liable for the roads within one gated community, I can guarantee you that they're not going to keep them up and repair them. There's no way they can. It's a desire situation. The understanding was, is that it was going to be taken over by the county. It was brought up to a certain standard. Am I wrong about this? The roads were brought up to a standard? MR. SCHMITT: They were required to be designed to the county standard, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. With the anticipation that the county was going to take them over when they reached that point. And now if we do a reversal on this, it's going to be extremely detrimental to that community. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who -- let me ask you. Who approved to make the county responsible for maintaining these roads? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I can't tell you who did what along the way, but I can tell you the expectation for all these communities out there that enter into these kind of agreements is that that's what happens. It's happened in the past, and it was expected to happen in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But are these agreements a one-party agreement? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I don't have those agreements in front of me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some public speakers? MS. FILSON: I have one speaker. George Hermanson. MR. HERMANSON: Good evening. I'm George Hermanson, partner with Hole Montes. We represent the petitioner. He's -- sends Page 265 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 66 of 120 December 16, 2008 his apologies. He's under the weather today, so I was called at the last minute when this was taken off the consent agenda. The statement that I wanted to highlight is the one in question, that is the plat of Arrowhead Unit 1 which was recorded in '05, April of'05. That was before this Land Development Code amendment was in place. At this time this was recorded there were both publicly and privately maintained roads allowed in the county. We went through the process, as anybody did. The roads were required to be built to county standards. The right-of-ways are to county standard. The plat went through the review and went through the county commission at the hearing and was approved and recorded~ So I'm not here to tell you what you have to do, but I am telling you that's what the documentation says. The developer, when we went through the process, even considered a gated community, but he was told that with a gated community they would be private roads and privately maintained. With open roads they'll be publicly maintained. So he chose that option. I will tell you that Lincoln Boulevard, which is the main road, does connect at both ends. It can be used by the public. So -- and as far as the economics of the situation are concerned, Commissioner Coletta, you're right, there are budget problems. They have not budgeted for road maintenance. They have 44 homes under foreclosure right now. The roads -- they will have great difficulty maintaining the roads. But that's a side argument. I think the documentation indicates, with all due report, that the county commission approved the roads to be publicly maintained. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. Mr. -- Nick, I have a question of you. In your research, can you tell me what the board approved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Page 266 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 67 of 120 December 16, 2008 Casalanguida with Transportation. Going back into the PUD, you're correct, it says to be dedicated to the public, but it doesn't speak to maintenance. And from going through the documents, there's really no recommendation either way of whether it would be maintained or it would not be maintained for the public. We just had that fiscal workshop with the board. And one of the recommendations we'll make as things like this come upon is, there should be a fiscal impact analysis that's done when we accept a public road. That exhibit that's on there right now -- and excuse my voice. It's going a little bit. There is a public road that runs from one end to the other that connects two other roads. Then there are half a dozen other dead-end roads that serve really no public purpose. In our research, we spoke to our road maintenance department and said, over a IS-year life cycle, what kind of fiscal impact are we looking at? It's about so- to $60,000 annually that the county would assume by taking on those roads. So it's not that, as staff, we support or don't support. That's not for us to make that decision. For staff, we just want to make the board cognizant that every time we make a decision, it comes with a fiscal impact. And so you're looking at that with a semi-public through road, but then a bunch of private kind of roads that kind ofT off that really serve no public purpose, that if this goes forward, we would be maintaining. And so that's just information for the board to consider, that as these plats go forward, we should have a good fiscal impact number that you understand what you're incurring in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did anybody tell you in this approval process that you're going to maintain these roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The plat went through transportation for review, and the road maintenance reviewed them. It was, I guess, implied that the public dedication would include public maintenance, Page 267 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 68 of 120 December 16, 2008 but no one told us that that was going to be the case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was it in the executive summary? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it was not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's why I have the problem. I don't see where we have the ability or staffhas the ability to make those kind of judgment calls. Thank: you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got a motion though. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Therets a motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve this item, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Aye. Motion carries, 4-1, Commissioner Henning dissenting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think: we might have some people that were here for the public comments that -- can we hear them today rather than make them come back tomorrow? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think that was the last item that -- the only item that I pulled off the agenda. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's the last item you had that you pulled off. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if you don't mind, the vice-chair will take over. (Chairman Henning left the hearing room.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, sure. After the public comment though, we will close the meeting and then resume tomorrow with the other things on this agenda. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you only have -- Page 26& Agenda Item No. 7A April 14. 2009 Page 69 of 120 December 16, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've only got two items. MR. MUDD: You have one -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have item -- MR. MUDD: You have two items. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- M and we have -- MR. MUDD: P. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- P. MR. MUDD: That's it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do you want to do all those -- you want to do those two? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should take about five minutes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right then. Item #lOM AWARD OF BID #08-5136 TO THE LOWEST QUALIFIED AND RESPONSIVE BIDDER, QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF THE 951 BOAT RAMP PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT NO. 80071. ($1.393.279.65) - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Next item's 10M. It's a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the award of bid number 08-5136 to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder, Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for the construction contract of the 951 boat ramp parking lot expansion project, number 80071, $1,393,279.65. Mr. Gary McAlpin, your Coastal Project Manager, will present. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second. That was a no-brainer, you're right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. Page 269 Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 70 of 120 December 16, 2008 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further -- any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Item #10P AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #1 TO WORK ORDER C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 FOR DESIGN CONSULTANT C3TS FOR THE MANATEE PARK DESIGN IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000.00 ON A TIME & MATERIAL, NOT- TO-EXCEED BASIS TO PROVIDE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REQUIRED SFWMD PERMITS. THE NET CONTRACTUAL VALUE OF SERVICES WILL TOTAL $243,950.00 - MOTION TO BRING BACK WITH CLARIFICATION - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOP, which used to be 16D37, and that is a -- that is a recomm- -- that's to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign change order number 1 to work order C3TS-FT-4153-08-02 for the design consultant C3TS for the Manatee Park design in the amount of $50,000 on a time and material not-to-exceed basis, to provide the Site Development Plan and the required South Florida Water Management District permits. The net contractual value of services will total $243,950. Page 270 Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 71 of 120 December 16, 2008 This item was asked to be on the regular agenda and pulled from the consent agenda by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Very quickly_ I don't have the slightest idea what you're doing with this thing. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifyou'B turn to that section that says caveat, an entire paragraph of caveats. I need to understand what the implication is as far as what you're asking the contractor to do. MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, what we originally set up to do was put a design-build contract on this. And during -- in that process, the contractor would develop the design package up to a point, and then he would bring it, and then we would -- where we would clearly identify the scope, and then we would put it out for a qualified contractor to finish the rest of the design, get the permitting, and do the construction. And we did that because of the relative straightforward nature of this job. It was basically just site development for Manatee Park. Pretty straightforward. We thought this would be the most economical way to do this project, but that implies that we're going to have enough money to move forward with the funding of the construction for this job. As we looked at our impact fees, they continued to get tighter and tighter, so we realize that we're not going to have enough money at this point in time to move forward with the design-build contract. So we're looking to change the scope of this project back to a traditional project where the design is done by a consultant, and we take it all the way through the design and permitting process so we can wrap a ribbon around it. That would take about 18 months for us to complete at this point in time. We'd have all the design and aU the permitting complete. And then at that point in time we would make the decision whether we would move forward with the construction at that point in time if the funds were available. Page 271 -'--~"- ,. ..- ."" .. "---'- 'lP~~222J~~' ~'& ~ "", ~ '""~ :!! 8EP 1998 'b\ ~ RECEIVED . ti I \:;, aerll'. t AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102 THE ,'~ Dllkltnl.. ! /j COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IIHICH './r".. .' . 1,'/ INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR /r..I.~'l"-~/ THE UNINCORPOPATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -- BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS HAP NUMBER 482728; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "E- .. ESTATES TO -PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS MIR-HAR FOR COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED IN THE RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCII\L DISTRICT, AS SET FORTH IN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANDALL BOULEVARD AND THE NAPLES-IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), IN SECTION 27, TOIINSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ., CONSISTING OF 2.38 + ACRES; /\NO BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - . Agenda Item N April 14, Page 72 0 ORDINANCE NO. 98- 72 "" ..) '- If> n- ., ,~ " '" IIHEREAS, Dwight Nadeau of Meanly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing Gerald L. and Marion M. Bray And George A. Cannan, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to ehange the zoning classification of the herein described real property; NOli, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "E" Estates to "PUD" Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Hir-Mar PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit WA" and incorporated by' reference herein. The Official Zoning Atlas Map Number 482728, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. S ECTI ON TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective when the small scale comprehensive plan amendment upon which it is based becomes legally effective pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(3) (c), Florida Statutes. . -1- . .. Agenda Item No April 14, 2 Page 73 of PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commis.ioners of Collier County, Florida, this %#-- day Of~, .rllo-"~ 1998. , ~ ; I, .,. , (.', '" ,ATTEST: ~:Z;\yP:...,..a4i d~tl. . GMT E. BROCK, lerk ~'I. . ,I~' I Att.st Is-tociii,,..s $,0, "'1I7<tAF-rJNLY Approved as fo Form and Legal Sufficiency ~il /no .j!._.bA- Marj rie M. Student Assistant County Attorney PQD-"-4 OkDIRAnCEI BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY:~~E~~ This ordlnor\l::1!' {il..'" wit" ,tie Secretory 01 ~1.:~~ CfHc~~e ~oy of -, Lt. -- and C1ck.nc...v~edt(tmC'nt of tho' fili:1j~~~t!d 1h15~ day . , .L.!!.L.' of " ~/ 1I ~ By 1d~"6t:r_.... o..-wl'l'CIMI. -2- . . --.... Agenda Item No. April 14, 2 Page 74 of 1 MIR.MAR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULA nONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN FOR M1R-MAR, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: GERALD L. " MARIAN BRAY 532 IBIS WAY NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110 AND GEORGE A. CANNAN 696 loni. AVENUE N.E. NAPLES, FLORIDA 34120 PREPARED BY: MeANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN,INC. 5 I 01 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL. STE. 202 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34113 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 8/6198 9/8198 98-72 tlECElVED SEP 0 9 1996 PlANNIN6 SeAVlCEP ExIu"bk "A" PUD98-04 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits and Tables Statement of Compliance Section I Legal Description. Propeny Ownership and General Descriplion Section II Projeet Development Section III Commercial Development Section IV Development Commitments . . ii 3 S 7 EXHIBIT A . . Agenda Item No. 7 April 14, 200 Page 76 of 12 LIST OF EXHIBITS PUD MASTER PLAN . . Agenda Item No. 7 April 14, 20 Page 77 of 1 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 11le developmenl of approximalely 2.38 &cre. of property in Collier County as . Planned Unit Dcvelopmenllo be known as Mir-Mar will be in compliance wilh the soal., objectMs and policies of Collier County as sel forth in the Growth Manasemenl Plan. The proposed limited commen:ial facilities of Mir-Mar PUD will be consistenl with the growth policie.. \and development rcgulalions, and applicable comprehensive planning objectMs of each of the elements of the Growth Manallemcnl Plan for the followinll reasons: I. The subject property for development is within the Golden Gate Estates Dcsisnation as identified on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map, but is proposed to be an expansion area to the Randall Boulevard Commen:ia1 Distnct throush . Small Seale Plan Amendment pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), Florida Statutes. 2. The use. contemplated are consistenl with Randall Boulevard Commcreial Distnct as set forth in the existing Golden Gale Area Master Plan. 3, The proposed PUD and expansion or.lhe Randall Boulevard Commercial District will serve 10 implement Objective 1.4. of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan by providing limited conunercial uses to enhance the quality oflifc ohhe residents of Golden Gate Estates. 4. 11le development lIandards, landseaping and arehitectural design of the projecl will ensure compatibility and complemenl existing surrounding \and uses, ii . . 1.1 Agenda Item No. 7 April 14. 200 Page 78 of 12 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name the Mir.Mar pun. 1.1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject 2.38: acre property is descnbcd as: The East Y, of Tract 54, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 23, according to the Plat thereof, of record in Plat Book 7, Pages 9 and 10, of the Public Records ofCoIIicr County. Florida. J.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject properlY is owned by Gerald L. Bray and Marian M. Bray. husbond and wife. as an Estate by the entireties, and George A. Cannan, a married man. as tenants in common. 1.4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Randall Boulevard and the Naples. Immokalcc Road (C.R. 846), in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. The subject property is presently undeveloped, but has been previously disturbed through the construction of the above.referenced intcncction. Further, the property has been traversed, through the graciousness of the property owners, by the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Department's emergency vehicles to utilize an existing six inch potable water wen for filling their truck water tankJ. The property contains an admixture of both native and pioneering exotic vegetation and ill rucsscd by lIIIrTOunding development and altered hydrology. The property is gcncrally without topographic ",lief; with elevations ranging from t 4,0 to 14.8' above mean sea level. The proposed water management "'gimc for the project wiD direct runoff'to the stonnwater detention areas for water quality treatment, with outfall into the Randall Boulevardllmmokalce Road Rights- Of. Way and to tbe Corkscrew Canal west of the project site. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Mir-Mar PUD shall be an extension of the existing Randall Boulcvard CollllllCfCiaI District, witb conunercial development opportunity limited by the provisions of that District. In an effort to improve ingress and egr... both 10 the PUD property and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station immediately to the west, access shall be shared with the fire station, thus providing greater turning movement onto C.R.-846, which shall be the PUD's only primary ICCC'S. Should an agrccmcnt be reacbcd betWCC1l the OWIlCl'l of the Mjr.Mar PUD, and the owner of lands to tbe cast, vehicular intercolUlCction of the propertico 10 hereby reserved. . Agenda Item No. April 14, 20 Page 79 of 1 Given the nan'OW re<:lanaular shape of lhe propcr1Y IIllI constrainina parkina Ilanclanls, the property cannot be developed wilh more lhan . 20,000 squan: fool shoppina cenler. 1.6 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known IIllI cited as lhe "Mif.Mar Planned Unit Development Ordinance", . 2 . . SECTION II Agenda Item No. 7 April 14, 200 Page 80 of 12 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpoS" of this S.ction is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, ",lationships to appUcabl. County Ordinanc.s, Ibe respective land uses of the Mir.Mar PUD development, as well as other project ",lationshipl. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of Mir-Mar PUD sbaD be in accordJnce with the conlents of this docwnenl, PUD.Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code lIIld Gromh Management Plan in .ff.ct at the time of building permit application. Where lhese regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unle.. otherwise noted, the definitions of aU terms sball be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect II the lime of building permit applica,jon. C. All condilions imposed and aU graphic material p",sented depicting restrictions for the d.velopment of Mir-Mar PUD shall become part of lh. regulations which gov.rn the mann.r in which Ibe PUD site may be developed. D. Unless modifi.d, waived or excepted by lhis PUD, the provisions of other sections of the Land Development Cod., wh= applicable, mnain in full force and efleet with "'spect to the development of the land which comprises this PUD. E, Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency ",view under the provisions of Division 3.1 S, Adequate Public Facilities, of the County Land Development Code,lI the earliest or next to occur of either Final Site Development Plan, Final Plat approval, or building permit Issuance applicable to this development. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN A. The project Master Plan, including layout of proposed land \IJCI, lIIld vehicula: use areas is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. B. In addition 10 the various areas and opecilic items shown on Exlubit "A", ....ments as necessary (utility, private, semi-private) .baD be established within the PUD boundaries as may be necessary. C. The IUbject property, being of limited .ize and width. can only IUpport a ...mm."ll of 20,000 square feel of commercial shopplnll center uses, however, the developer reserves the right to purJ\IC developmenl aUlhority for a .inllular pennltted _, or multiple pennitted uses on 1110'" than one parcel. 3 Agenda Item NO.7 April 14, 200 Page 81 of 120 2.. PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Given that Mir-Mar POO is proposed to be developed with eommercialland U!CS in no more than three phases by the existing propeMy owner, subdivision is not anticipate.!, nor required based on the present development intent. Should the development intent change such that subdivision procedures are required pursuant to the Collier County Land . Development Code (LDC). the provisions ofDivision 3.2, of tile LDC shaD apply. ^- Prior to Final Local Development Order issuance for aU or part of the POO, final plans of aU required improvements shaD receive approval of the appropriate Collier County govenunental agency to insure eompliance wilh the POO Master Plan InCI the Collier County Land Development Code. B. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, conslitutes the required POO Development Plan. Any division of property and the development of the land shaD be in compliance with Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. C. The provisions ofDivision 3.3 ofthe Collier County Land Development Code, when applicable. shall apply to the development of aD platte.! traclS. or parcels of land as provide.! in said Division prior to the issuance of a building pennit or other development order. D. Appropriate instruments will be provide.! at the time of inf'rastruClural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of corrunon facilities. 2.5 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Changes and amendments may be made to this POO Ordinance or POO Master Development Plan, Exhibit "A". as provided for in Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County Land Development Code. Minor changes and refinements as describe.! in Section 4.3.C. of this PUD document may be made in connection with any type of development or pennit application required by the Collier County Land Development Code. 2.6 DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREAS"" FACILmES Easements shaU be provide.! for w.tcr management areas. .cc.... utilities and other purposes as required. All necessary easements, de.!ications, or other instruments shaD be granted to insure the eontinue.! opel1ltion and maintenance of aU service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time of adoption of this ordinance est.blishing Mir.Mar POO. 2.7 LINKAGE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE . Pursuant to Suboection 2.7,3.3. 0 r the Land Development Code, upon adoption of the POO Ordinance InCI attendant POO Master Plan. the provisions of the POO document become a part ohhe Land Development Cod. and shaD be tho Ilandarda of development for tho POO. Thenceforth. development in tho area deIineate.! as the POO District on the Oflicial ZoninS Atlas will be sovemed by the adopte.! development resulations and PUD Master Plan. 4 . . Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 82 of 120 SECTION 11\ COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to texturally articulate the development plan for the project site as depicted on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SQUARE FEET A total of approximately 20,000 square feet of commcn:ialland "'" orca is proposed for the PUD project lands. The developer reserves the right to construct the commcrcialland uses in one, two, or three plwcs as may be dictated by market demand. 3.3 USES PERMITTED In no instance shan the land uses permittccl hcn:in be diminished, or prolu'bitcd except through an arncndmcntto this PUD Document. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: , A. Principal Uses I) Automobile Service Station 2) Barber and Beauty Shops 3) Child Care Centers 4) Convenience Stores 5) Drug Store. 6) Food Markets 7) Hardware Stores 8) Laundries. SelfScrvice Only 9) Post Offices, and Professional Offices (including branch banks) ]0) Repair Shops - Radio, TV, Small Appliances and Shoes 11) Restaurants, including fast food restaurants, but not drive-in rcstaunmts 12) ShoPPinll Center 13) Veterinary Clinics with no outside kennclina 5 . . Agenda Item NO.7 April 14. 200 Page 83 of 12 B. Accessory Uses Accessory uses and struClureS customarily associated with the pennilled principal uses and st!\lctures, including, bul not limited to: I) Parking facilities and Signage. 3,. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below IhaII be understood to be in relalion 10 individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures, Commercial condominium association boundaries shaD not be utilized for detennining developmentltandards, B. MINIMUM LOT AREA: 10,000 square feel. C, AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 100 feet. D. MINIMUM YARDS: I) Front Yard: 75 feet. No parking shall be pennilled, nor any merchandise stored or displayed in the front yard setback area. 2) Side Yard: 30 feet. 3) Rear'Yard: 75 feet. E. MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN .STRUCTURES: 10 feet. F. MAXIMUM HElGlIT: 25 reet. G. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: 1000 square feet gross floor area per principal structure, on the ground floor. H. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS: A. required by Division 2.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code in efl'ect althetime of Site Development Plan approval l. ARCffiTECTIJRAL UNIFORMITY: CommerciaVofIice development in IIUJ POO shall have a common architeclllral theme for all st!\lctures. Guidance for the commonality of architecture may be derived from Division 2.8. of the Land Development Code, or may be unique to the POO. CommerciaVofIice development .ite design IhaII confonn with the guidelines and standard. of Division 2.8. of the Land Development Code. 6 . . SECTION IV Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 84 of 120 DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of lhis Section is to set forth the development commitments for the developmenl of the project. 4.1 GENERAL All facilitics shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development PIIm. Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws. codes, and regulations applicabte 10 this POO. Except where lpCCilicaJly noled or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Land Development Code of Division 3.2 shall apply to this project even if the land within the POO is not to be plaued. The developer, his successor and assigns shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. The developer, his su=ssor or uaiBJlCC, shall follow the Muter Development Plan and the regulations of the PUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agrced to in the rezoning of the property. In addition. any successor or uaigncc in tillc to lhe developer is bound by any commitments within this agreement. These commitmcntJ may be assigned'or delegated to a COl'lllllCrCiaI condominium asaociation. as may be created by the Developer. Upon assigMlCllt or delegation. the Developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments. 4.3 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A.. Exhibit" A ft, POO Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed land use layout shall nol be construed to be final, and may be varied at anytime at any subsequent approval phase. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.7,3.5 of the Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary casements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and all common areas in the project. C. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. or his designee, shaI1 be authorized 10 approve minor changes and refinements to the Mir- Mar POO Master Plan upon written request of the developer. I) The following limitations shall apply to such requests; .. The minor change or re8ncmcnt ahall be consistent whb the CoWer County Growth Management Plan and the Mir-Mar POO document. b. The minor change or refinement shaI1 DOt constitute a substantial change pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.5.1. of the Collier CoWlty Land Development Code. 7 . . c, The minor change or refinement shall be compalible wilh odjacent land uses, and shall nol creale delrimental impacls to abuning land uses, waler management facililies, or external to the PUD boundaries. Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 85 of 120 2) The following shall be considered minor changes or refinements, subject to the limitations of Subsection 4.3.C.l) of this document; a. Reconfiguration of water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of Collier County, J) Minor changes and refinemenls, as dcscnbed above, shall be reviewed by appropriate County staff 10 e!l$ure compliance with all appHcable County Ordinances and regulatio!l$ prior 10 lhe Administrator's consideration for approval. 4) Approval by lhe Administrator of a minor change or refinemenl may occur independently from and prior 10 any applicalion for Subdivision or Site Development Pian approval, however, Ihe Administrator. or his designee's approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all applicabte County or City permits and approvals. 4,4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENTIMONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. This PUD is subject to the Sunset Provisions of Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. B. An aMUlI POO monitoring report shall be submined pursuant to Section 2.7.3.6 of t he Land Development Code. 4.5 TRANSPORTATION A. Arterial level streetlighling shall be required at the projecl access point on CR 846, with said lighting installed prior to issuance of the first Certificale of Occupancy. B, Adequate turn lanes shall be designed to serve the project. and shaD be reviewed at the site plan approval stage of development. A site-specific access plan shaD be developed at the applicant', IOle expense, and shall be reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance of any building permits. C. The POO Docwnent references the potential for future interconnection with adjacent properties 10 the east. NOlwithstanding the provisions of the RandaU Center PUD, for which the developer has no responsibility, such interconnection may be provided al the earlier of either an agreement being reached between the adjoining property owners, or a request by the County Transportalion Services Department to facililate traffic flow, and safe operations. D. There shall be no direct access to Randall Boulevard pennined for lhis site. 8 . . Agenda Item NO.7 April 14, 200 Page 86 of 12 4.6 WATER MANAGEMENT The development of this PUD Master Development Plan shaD be subjc:ctto IIId so>emed by lhe following eonditions: A. Detailed paving, grading IIId site drainage plans shan be submilled to Engineerins Review Services Section for review IIId approval. No construction permits shaD be issued unless IIId until approval of the proposed eonstruction, in accordance with the approved plans is granted by County Engineering Review Services. 4.7 UTILITIES Given that the project site is not presently serviced with centrally provided potable water or sanitary sewer, the project shall utili2e wen IIId septic systems. 4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL A, An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic-free) plan for the sile shall be submilled to Current Planning EnviroMlCntal Review Stall' for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. B. The PUD shall retain the appropriate amount of existing native vegetation to be preserved in its entirety, with aIItrces, understory IIId Sround covers left intact and undisturbed, except for prohibited exotic species removal. For this parcel. a minimum of 9000 square feet of exist inS native vesetation shall be retained or mitigated for in accordance with Section 3.9.5.5.4.. LOC. C. The PUD shall be consistent with the EnviroMlCntal Sections of the Collier County Growth Management Plan Conservation IIId Coastal Manascmcnt Element, and the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of final development order approval. O. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1. of the Land Development Code, if during the count of site cJearing, excavation or other construction activity, an hiuoric or archaeolosical artifact is found, all development within lbe minimum area necessary to protectlhe discovery shall be immediately stopped, and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 4.9 SIGNS All signs shall be in accordance witb Division 2.5 of Collier County's Land Development Code in effect at the time of zoning approval. 4,10 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, benna, fences and walls are senerally pennilled as a principal use throughoulthe Mir.Mar PUD, and except as provided for berein. buffer impro_ shaD be in conformance with Division 2.4 of tho CoWer Cowtly Land Development Code.. The folJowlnS standards shall apply: 9 . . Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 87 of 120 A. Landscape berms shall have the maximum side slopes: 1) Grassed berms 4: 1 2) Ground covered berms 3:1 3) Rip-Rap berms 1:1 4) Structural walled berms may be vertical B, Fence or wall maximum height: 9 feet, as measured from the finishecI Jl8de of the ground at the base of the fence or walt For the purpose: of this provision, finished grade shan be considered no greater than I B inches above tbe crown eIcvalion of the nearest existing road, unIeu the fence or wall is constructed on a perimeter landscape berm. In these cases, the fence or wall shaI1llOt exceed 6 feet in heiaht from the top of berm elevation with en average side slope of greater than 4:1 (i.e. 3:1,2:\, 1:1. or vertical). C. Pedestrian sidewall<s, bike paths, water management facilities end _ may be allowed in landscape buffer areas, so long as landscape buffer is increased by the equivalent width. 4.11 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF.STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off.street parking areas shaI1 be in accordance with Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of Site Development Plan application. 10 ~ ~g~I-~~~ NY N ..LIBIHX3I JU.lIDN NV1d H3.1.SVW and HVW - HIW 00 .. Ul - In Ii iH I i Ii II ~~ ~ ~u I i I ! ~ I I ~I! I I u Ii 111 I I I I ~ ~ I 0 u .' STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) ..... Agenda It~ No. 7 A Aprir'14, 2009 Page,~\l of 120 , . ,- ~~ < ,.,.' I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 9B-72 Which wae adopted by the l'~ard of County Co...issioners on the Bth day of September, 199B, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida, this 10th day of September, 199B. . .,'\~t~:.. . . . '" . . ;". ,~,.,..,..t- ..n.....;. ~, '". Clerk of Courts and, ClIFk'~' . .;,r.;"~ Ex-officio to Board'.o~' . <....~, i. County commi..icn~~.~;, . .~;= ~ '"" " .J....,~. ,.. "r - ~l . f;., . ...... -r-_.n';.J ~~...y. .,~ '.',;:::- ~- ... -,..... .... . ~.. .i~U...' By: Ellie Hoffman Q'/lIu.iil~ .':'f' Deputy Clerk . DWIGHT E. BROCK ~ I Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 90 of 120 (VI)(IX)(X) 3. RandIIII Boulwmd eo...l...-r;'" SU.......... - Recognizing the unique development pattern nl c:h8racteriIIics of IlmIUI'lding land U&8S, the Randall Boulevard Commerdal Subclstrict hall been dllsIgnated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The SUbdl8trict is c;omprleed of the following properties: TI'lIct 71, Golden Gete EIIl8Iea, Unit 23; and the East 165 feet of Tract 54. Golden Gete EIIl8Iea, Unit 23. See Map 14. a) The Criteria for the al.tldistric:t are as follows: . AD commerdal development is encouraged to be In the form of a PUD. . Projects cinlCIIy abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 75-foot buffer of I etlIiIled native vegetation in which no pII1dng or water III8fllllI8IIMl US88 are pemlillBd; except that, when abutting condllionalU&8S no auch buffer is required. . Shared parUlg shall be required with adjoining de1.'O/opmenls whenever postlible. b) Umilallon of Uses . l.I8es ahall be limited to the following: . Aut0m0bIIe Service Station; . Barber & Beauty Shops; . Convenience Stores; . Drug Storas; Food Markets; Hardware Stores; Laundries. Self Service Only; Post Ol'fIoea and Professional Office8; Repair Shops - RadIo, TV, Sma/I ApplIances and Shoes; Restaurants, including fast food restaurants but not drive-in restaurants Shopping Center; Veterinary Clinics with no outside kenneling. . . . . n . . . . (' (VI)(X) ... eon-rct.! W......... Ea""- InfIIlSUbdlatrlct - The purpose of the SUbcll8lrict is to anow for limited commercial and/or medical office uses, in re<:ognlllon of the 8Ubjecl property's unsultal:llllty for 8lngle-family residential development. Umlted commercial and/or mecflC8l UlI8ll at this Iocstion will also 88lIist In reducing the distance and the number of vehicular trips generated within the general area through trip capture. The stanc:Wtl8 contalnecIln this SUbdi8trict are designed to ensure that UlI8ll within the SUbcll8trict win be compatible with nearby re8ldentiaI de\IeIopment. A loop road shall be required through the property to connect Vanderbilt Beach Road with Coller Boulevard wiD allo serve to lessen vehicular trips through the intersection. a) Size and Location: (VII)(V1I1) The SUbdlstri<:t includes a 6.23-acre parcel, located at the southwest comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (see Map 16). The percel is (X) · Plan Amendment by OntIMnCe No. 2007-19 on January 25. 2007 35 I'" ,,~' ;~, ,'J t".UU.",., : ~~.,~ .,f....~i2~;ae 17. 1986 "t""'~'" {';sf ................t."'\. ...~ ...,..'Z~..~.~..> .~. 1'''-''' ,"~1tiF ~ '.\ .... ~ "'~~'I"'i~!';':~"" ;... '..1 ,C1 - ,. '" ,,- :!="' ~... (1:" ..... ... ~'.. .~.~ ~"'.'S . ., ~'c..'. ~ .~.~ . cuu: ... 'J. ~ J.. "" . -.... - ."!ti~, "........".,~c,., I,. _f" ....... .... J" {J.. .l .' . "'~ '~j-~~~ APnOVED AS TO J'ORK ARD LEGAL SUl7ICI!JICT ~., "' ,f. .. !,<,::~' II '~ t:'i' i~~ :- '~;-: .'~ . ,'( :I.::) "'P< :!j) .r ':;'1 :~C7'r~~ ~_ . r 'j " ". '- - - co 0 ~ to >" ", G:i ~ c, ..... W .. '" c, " ~.,",: .. OIDIlWlCE 86- ~ AIl OlUlIlWlCE AI!EIIlJUG OIDIJAIlCE 82-2 TIlE COOl- PIEllE1ISIVl ZOWIWG UGOLAnOWS FOR TIlE tmIWCOR- POllA'I'ED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY AliENDING TIlE ZONING ATLAS KiJ NUXBE.R 48-27 BY CHANCING THE ZONllfG CLASSIFlCAnc~ OF THE BEREnt DESCRIBED REAL PROPEXTT FROM. "E" P.STATES TO "FUn" pLJ...NN'ED URIT DEVPJ..QPKlJi"l' XNO'.IH AS THE RAJr.)ALL BOULEVAJU) Clln'ER, FOR A CONVENIENCE SHOPPING CER'I'ER PACILITY, FOR. PIOPER," LOCATED AT 'Ill! INTERSECTIOR 01 D1KOkALE! lOAD AJfD l.ARDALL BOULEVARD IH SECtIOlf 27, TOWIlSBIP 48 SOUTB, RANCE 27 t.AST. +5.15 ACllES, JJrD PROVIDING API uncrlVE OAT!. -' ,~" <~ o WHERlAS. AgDol1. uuad. Barber' Brundage. repreunt1u1 Doualcl Gears_ Can:c.an. petitioned tbe Board of County C~1..1cn.r. to chaD.a the ZoaiDl Cla8a1f1~.t1an at tha berein deacribed real property; lOW, TBD.UOU BE IT 0IDAI1I'lD by the Board of Count,. eo-ua1.onen of Colliar Couut,.. norida: SECTIOII OII!: Tha Zoniol Cla..ifieatioD of the herain describ.d raal property located iD SectlOtl 27, Township 48 South. Ilatlge 27 !ast, Collltlr " County, Florida 1e changed fr~ "En lata tea to o.pUD" PlA.nDed Dnit Devalo,..nt in accordance with tbe PUD doc~ent attach.d hare to .a !shib!t "An which 1. incorporatad barein and by raferance wade part bereo!. Th. Otficial IoDing Atla. ~p Ru.b.r 48-27, a. de.er-tbee! ia Ord1M.DCa 82--2. b hereby _ended aecardlngly. SECTION 'IVO: Thb OrJiJ:..ance .hall bacOM affective upon rIlceipt of notic. tbat 1. ha. bean fll.d witb the Secretary of State. .hr BOARD OF CflOllTY COII>>ISSIOIIZllS .,COLLIn COUKTT. I'LOI.IDA aT JO (2. AJ;f;t A. PISTOl.. CKAllMAR K <<i.. d. ~ A. J.DJf'ETB B. CU"l'LD. C01lllTT ArroRllET 1001 Thll ordInance fII.d wllh tha ~~.;;{;;,:: Jio.te'!. OfWt and OCknow~ of that ~~ 'OCOlvod~ day . ~_ u.,.".. 023",,271 R-86-3C Ordl~nce n ~ April 1 Page 91 iI'"' ",1 ", . '"e~-:l , ;Ie, "';;i ~;.: J.: f'''f~''rl''''':;'~'~ L ! '. - - , " <'-;19 INDEX & LIST OP EXHIBITS SECTION I GENERAL DEVELOPMENT INPO~~TION SECTION II DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS SECTION III ryEVELOPMENT COi'IJIITMENTS EXHIBIT PRELIIHNARY P.U.D. MASTER PLAN (Prepared by Agno11, Assaad, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Pl1e No. 750) "t.",," , . !OOl. 023"..~272 - lli! 1-1 2-1 3-1 " ~ ~ ~ f - - _Agenda Item N Apri! 14, Page 93 , , SECTION 1 OENERAL DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION 1.01 INTRODUCTIOK AND PURPOSE It 18 the intent of Donald George Cannan; hereinafter called "applicant" or "developer"; to establish and develop a commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD) on certain properties located in Collier County. Plorida. 1.02 SHORT TITLE Th18 Ordinance/PUD development I!lha.ll be known an,j el tee: aa The Rand~11 Boulevard Center. P.U.D.. 1.03 UNIPIED CON1ROL Subject property Ie currently under the unified control of the Applicant/Developer. 1.04 STATEMEIIT OF COMPLIANCE This PUD Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable development regulations In Collier County. 1.05 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Subject property Is approximately 5.00 acres and 18 approximately located at the Inter8~ct1on of lmmokalee Road and Randall Boulevard. It 1s the intent or the developer to provide a convenience ehopping center facility 1n accordance with this document. 1.07 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract 71. Unit 23, Oolden O~te Estates 1-1 1001 [J2:J "'.! 27:1' 'r' .hi ;~ ',-r;-: '':"'r ,'.~ . ~ :'~ ~ j; ~ ;.; r . --'7 ::,. ;: Agenda Item No April 14, Page 94 of r , I :~ r ; i ! , j SECTION II DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 2,01 PURP08E The purpose of this section ia to set forth the regulationa for the development of the subject property. 2.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or u~ed, or land or water use~, 1n whole or 1n part. ror other than the following: ! i I. ! I ~ I n A. Pe rml t ted Prine! pal Uses and Structures: (1) Automobile service stations without repairs. ,:1', (2) Barber and beauty shops. (3) Convenience stores. (~) Drug stores. (5) Food market.. (6) Hardware storel. (7) Laundries - eel! eervice only. (8) Poet ofrices and professional offices. (9) Repair shops - radio, TV, amall appliances, shoes; and .restaurants - not including drive-lna. (10) Shopping c~nter - not to exceed 25,000 square feet. (11) Veterinary clinics - no outside kenneling. 8. Permitted Princlpal Uses and Structures ReQu1r-in~ Site Plan A,proval 1. Child care centere. i-'--'\ j., r 2-1 &ODl 023..,,274 i I j i I ! I - - _ Agenda Item Aprjl14, Page 95 J >,-,;?'!,,$.f" :}-. '. ~ C. Permitted Accessory Uaes and Structures 1. Accessory usee and structureo customarily associated with the usee permitted 1n this district. 2. Caretaker'e rellldence. 3. Signa as permitted by the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 1n effect at the time pe~lta are requee ted. 2.03 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REOULATIONS 2.03.01 GENERAL: All yards, setbacks, etc., ahall be in relation to the tract boundarlea. 2.03.02 MINIMUM SETBACKS: (a) Front yard - seventy-rive (751) feet. No parking ehall he allowed nor an,)' merchandise stored or displayed. (b) Side yard - thirty (30r) feet. (c) Rear Yard - seventy-f1ve (7S') teet. Cd) Dietance between any two prinCipal structures: ten (10) feet. 2.03.03 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: One thousand (1,000) square teet per building on ground rloor. 2.03.04 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES: Twenty-five (25') feet. 2.03.05 SIGNS AND MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING: As may be permitted or required by the appl1cable Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a permit 18 requested. 2-2 IDOl O23m[ 275 .,-_.."--~--' - - Agenda Item _ April 14, Page 96 .r'\ > > 0.:" ~. ;; / tJ .' i', //1/,1,; r&VI)~.b b!I,15' THE RANDALL BOULEVARD CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: WAPAA P. ASSAAD, A.I.C.P. r\ , . JUNE 12, 1986 ~ ,: 1001 023 "',~ 276 ) l - - __ Agenda Item Apr.il1 Page 97 ~ - , r,-.. ~ ~,. I " - p ~~ - 2.03.06 SPECIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPIlENT REGULATIOIIS: A. Landscaping, bufrer areas and supplementary district zoning regulations that may be appllc~ble to certain uses above shall be adhe~ed to unlesa 1n conflict with any of the intent or the provisions specified hereln. B. Merchandise storage and display. Outside storage or dlsplay of merchandise 18 prohibited. C. Lighting facilities ahall be arranged 1n a manner which wl11 protect roadwaye and nelghborolng properties from direc't glare or other interference. Light1ng facilitles ahall be limited to fifteen (15) feet. O. The buffer areas 8a ahown on the master plan are expected to exceed the minimum requirementa and ahall be supplemented with addit10nal nat1ve apec1ee. Landscap1ng ehall be agreed upon by the natural resource management department and planning etaff prior to the 1s8uance or build1ng perm1te. . , "~k .'0. "",I.,f",' 2-3 IDDj 023,,<[ 277 _.__ n___'_~. 'n___'__ r\ - - _Agenda Item April 14 Page 98 f'\ $: :;--. <;;-J/j, SECTION III DEVELOPMENT COMllITMENTS 3.01 PURPOSE The purpose or th1a Seot1on 18 to eet forth th~ gene~al commitments tor development ot the project. 3.02 DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. The proposed Maeter Plan illustrates the tentative devel~pment, usee and locations ot certaln facilities. B. The design criteria and layout illustrated on the Master Plan ahall be understood aa flexible 80 that the tlnal dealgn may best satlety the project and comply with all applicable requirements. C. Minor design changes, such aa but not 11mlte~ to, locations or buildings. distribution ot dwelling unita, building types, ete., ahall be permitted subject to the starr approval. 3.03 FIRE PREVENTION (", , \ A. The development ahall comply with applicable codes and regulations, including the installation or a sprinkler e)'stem~ B. A hydrant or pump system must be included to SUpply the water to .suppress a fire. 3.04 ACCESS/TRAFPIC CONSIDERATIONS A. The project ahall be access1ble only trom Randall Boulevard . B. The Developer ehall provide lert and right turn lanes on C.R. 8~6 at its intersection with Randall Boulevard. The Developer shall also provide arterial level atreet lighting at this intersection. C. These 1mprovements are cons1dered "alte related" as defined 1n OrdInance 85-55 and ehall not be ~pplied as r credits toward any impact fees requi~ed by tnat Ordinance. 3-1 IDOK 023' PI'" Z78 --. . ~:I. t" ;.,- ,"; "'-.'p ~,,~;, Agenda Item N April 14, Page gg of 3.05 WATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Detailed site drainage plana shall be eubmltte~ to the County Engineer for review. No conB~ructlon p~rmlt8 shall be issued unle~s and until approval of the proposed conetruetlon in accordance with the nubmltted :Jlane Is granted by the County Engineer. 3.06 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS A. Detailed sIte plans shall be eubmitted for review. B. Waiver of platting, or platting, ehall be required. 3.07 UTILITIES cnNSIDERATIONS A. Water and Sewer 1) Water dlstr1butl1on and sewage collection and transmission systems wIll be constructed throughout the project development by the developer pureuent to all current requlrements of Collier County and the State or Plor1da. Water and sewer facl11tle~ constructed within platted right5-of-way or within utility easements required by the County ahall he conveyed to the County for ownership, operation and maintenance purpo8es pureuant to appropriate County Ordlnance~ and regulation3 in effect at the time of conveyance. All water and sewer facilities constructed on prlva:e property and not required by the County to be located within utility easements shall be owned, operated and maintained by the Developer, his assigns or succeSBors. Upon completion of construction of the weter and se~er facilities within the project, the facilities will be tested to insure they meet Collier County's utility construction requirements 1n effect at the t~me const~uctio~ plans are approved. The above tasks must be completed to the satisfaction of the Utilities Division prior to placing any utility facilities, County owned or prIvately owned, into service. Upon completion of the water and/or ~ewer facilit1e~ and prior to the 1ssuance of Certificates of Occupancy for structures within the project the utility facilities ~hall be con'leyed to the County. when required by the Utilities Div181on, pursuant to County Ordinances and Regulat10ns 1n effect at the time conveyance is requested. 2) All conatruction plane and technical epeci:icatlone and propoaed pI8t~. lr applicable, for th~ propo~ed vater distribution and sewage collection and 3-2 lOOK 023 "'.~ 279 - - - ? ~ 52 f, (\ . , ~" v' tranemlsalon facilities muat the Utl11tle5 Division prior cOrd.tructlon. be reviewed an~ approved by to comm~ncement of o 3) All customers connecting to the water distribution and sewage collection facilities will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County 1n aeeordance with the County's established rates. Should the County not be 1n a position to provide water and/or eewer service ~o the project, the water and/or sewer cuatomers shall be customers of the interim utility established to serve the project until the County's orr-aite water and/or eewer facilities are available to serve the project. ~) It Ie anticipated that the County Utilities Division w111 ultimately supply potable water to meet the consumptive demand an~/or receive and treat the sewage generated by th1s project. Should the County system not be in a position to !upply potable water to the project and/or receive the project's wastewater at the time development commence!. the Developer, at hi~ expense, wIll install and operate interlm water supply and on-site treatment faclllt1es and/or interim on-site sewage treatment and disposal facilities adequate to meet all requirement~ ot the appropriate regulatory agenclee. 5) An Agreement shall be entered lnto between the County and the Developer. blnding on the Developer, hi8 asslgns or successors, legally acceptable to the County, prior to the approval or constructlon documents for the proposed project, stating that: a) The proposed water supply and on-alte treatment facilit1es ard/or on-aj.te waetewater treatment and disposal facilities. if requ1red, are to be constructed as part of the proposed project and must be regarded as interim; they ahall be constructed to State ~jd Pedera: standards and are to be owned. operated and malntalned by the Developer. his ass1gns or successors until such tlme an the County's oft-alte water faoilities and/or Of[-81:e sewer facilities are available to service the proJect. The Inter~m treatment facilities shall SUPPly' services only to th~se lands owned by the Developer and approved by the County for development. The utlllty facl1ity(les) may not be expanded to provide water and/or sewer servIce o'ltside the development boundary approved by the County without the wrItten consent of the County. 3-3 100! 023..,[280 ("i - . ~.:;. ~~: t! 'i~ '~I/ . '.' '.J~ . " r :, ~ /~. .....;. ~~.t. ~. . ';';;:', '.1. . ~'; , 7 ~ .- , $:f~f! b) Upon connection to the County's orf.s1te water tael1ltie~, and/or sewer facllities, the Developer, his aaeigns or successors shall abandon, dia~antle and remove from the ~lte the lnterim water and/or sewage treatment facility and discontinue use of the water lu~ply source, if applicable, 1n a manner conaiatent with State of Florida Dtandards. All work related with this activity shall be performed at no cost to the County. e~ Connection to the County's off-site water and/or sewer facllitles will be made by the owners, their assigns or successors at no cost to the County within go days after such facilities become avaIlable. The coat of connection shall include, but not be llm~ted to, all engineering design and preparation of construction documents, permitting, modification or refitting of existing sewage pumping facilities or construction of new master sewage pumping facilities, interconnection with County ofr-aite faCilities, water and/or sewer lines necessary to make the connection(s), etc. d) At the time County off-aite water and/or sewer facilities are available tor the project to connect with, the follOwing water and/or sewer facilities shall be conveyed to the County pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulation! in effect at the time: 1) All water and/or sewer facilities constructed 1n publicly owned rights-ot-way or within utility easements required by the County within the project limits required to make connection with the County's off-site water and/or sewer facllitiesj or. 2) All water And sewer facilities r~qulrr1 to connect the project to the County's off-site water andlor sewer facilities when the on-81t~ water and/or sewer facilitIes are constructed on private property and not required by the County to be located withln utility eaaements, including but not limited to the following: a) Main eewage 11ft Btation and (ol'ce main interconnecting with the County sewer facillt~e8 including all utility eAeements neceseary. b) Water di8tribution facilltie~ from the point of connection with the County's water facilities to the master water meter eerving the project, including all utility eaeement~ neceseary. 3-~ IDOl 023 '''~2B1 .. - ~+,,,',, ;i- (": e) The customers served on an inter1m ba~1~ by the ut1l1ty sY8tem constructed by the Developer ;Jhall become customers of the County at the time when C01.:11ty off-8ite water and/or 8ewer facilities are available ~o serve the project and such connection is made. Prior ~o connection of the project to the CountY'B Of:-eite water and/or aewer facilities the Developer. hi! ensigns, or successors shall turn over to the County a complete list or the customers served by the interim utili:ies system and shall not compete with the County for ttle eervice or th)se customers. The Developer shall also p~ovlde the County with a detailed inventory of the facillt1es served within the project and the entity whl~h will be responsible for the water and/or sewer 5ervi~e bi1lin6 tor the pI' oj ect. t) All construction plans and technical specifications related to connections to the County's orf-~lte water and/or sewer facilities will he Bubmitted to the Ut11ities Division for review and approval prior to commencement of construction. r, , ! g) The Developer. his assigns or 8Uccessorn agree to pa1 all system development charges at the time that Building Permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations 1n effect at the time ot Permit rcquevt. This requirement shall be made kno~n to all prospective buyer! of properties for which bUilding permitn wIll be required prior to the ~tart of building construction. h) The County will lease to the Developer for operatton and maintenance the water distribution and/or sewage collection and transmission system for the sum of SlO.OO per year. when such system is not connected to the Off-site water nnd/or sewer facilities owned and operated ~y the County. Terms of the lea8e ahrll be determined upon completion of the proposed utility construction and prior to activation of the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities and/or the sewage collec~ion. transmls810n and treatment facilities. The Lease. if required, shall remain in effect until th~ County can provide water and/or aewer servIce through its Off-site facilities or untIl such t1me that bulk rate water and/or sewer service agreements are negoti~ted with the interim utility system serving ~he prOject. B) Data required under County Ordinance No. 80-112 showing the aval1abllitJ of sewage service, must be submitted and approved by the Utilities Division prior to approval 3-5 IO~' 023,,'.~282 : () - - _Agenda Item r~ April 14, Page 1{)3 0 , 'li. r ~ <r;,' g I" 7:'. ,., ,;; ., or the construction documents tor the project. Submit a copy of the approved DER permits for the sewage collection and transmission systems end the wastewater treatment facility to be utilized, upon receipt thereof. C) It an Interim on-sIte w~ter supply, treatment and tran~mlaalon facility 1a utilized to serve the proposed project, it must be properly sized to supply average and peak day domestic dem~nd. 1n addition to fire flow demand at a rate approved by the appropriate Pire Control District servicing the project area. 0) Construction and ownership of the water and sewer facllities, including any proposed interim ~ater and/or sewage treatment facilitIes, shall be 1n com~llance with all Utilities Dlvie10n Standarde, Po11ciee, :!rd1nances, Practicea, etc. in effect at the time conB:r~ctlon approval is requested. E) Detailed hydraulic dealgn reporte covering the water diatribut10n and sewage collection and transm1eeion systems to serve the project must be subcitted with the conetructlon documente tor the project. The reports shall list all deaign assumptiona. demand rates and other factors pertinent to the system under conL!l1deration. F) This project must have a wastewater treatment plant permjtted by DER. The project is not suitable tor septic system and draintlelds. Potable water must aleo be permitted by DER. Any e~tabllshment reQulr'ng a CCPHU permit must submit plans for review and approval. 3.08 ENVIRO~ENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. If possible. structures should be placed to prevent the destruction of exietlng mature. old slash pines. If necesBary, the mature cabbage palm should be relocated and used for landscaping. B. PacilitieL!l should be deelgned to reduce the amount of impervious surface; perhaps an alternative would be extensive use ot pavement (paver) bricks. c. F1berglass tanks shall be used for underground storage of gasoline; in addition. as outlined In DER regulations, the moat stringent options concerning underground storage, containment. and monitor1ng should be used for the gasoline facil1ties. D. A aite c~earing plan shall be submitted to the Natural 3-6 lOOK 023"'J2B3 . ,. .-'"" tt:' / &;. ~i ... . Resources Management Department and the Comcunlty Development Division tor their review and approval prior to any substantial work on the slte. This plan may be submitted 1n phases to colnelde with th~ development schedule. The elte clearing plan ahall clearly depict how final elte layout incorporates retained native vegetation to the maximum extent possible And how roads. buildings. lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have been orler.ted to accommodate this goal. E. NatIve spec lee ahall be utilized, where ava:lable, to the maxlm'Jm extent possible 1n the aite landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be submitted to the Natural Resources Management Department and the Community Development Division for their review and approval. This plan will depict the incorporation of native species an~ their mix with other species, if any. The goal of site l~ndsc&plng shall be the r~-creation of native vegetation and habitat characterlst:cs lost on the alte during construction or due to past activitie,. ("'- , I , ',Po It durin3 the course of aite clearing. excavation, or other constructional activities. an archaeological or historical site. artiract, or other indicator 1s d18cover~~. all development at that location ahall be Imm~diately stopped and the Natural Resources Management Department notified. Devel~pment will be 8uspended for a suff1cient length of time to enable the Nhtural Re30urce3 Management Department or a de81gn~ted consultant to assess the rind and determ1ne the proper course of action in regard to lts 8alvageabl1~ty. The Natural Resources Management Department w1ll respond to any such notification 1n a timely and efficient manner 80 as to prov1de only a minimal interruption to any con5tr~ctlonal activlt1es. G. The Natural Resource Management Department, Building Department and Water Management Department shall monitor the final deaign. permitting and construction phase to assure greatest protection of the future potable water sOUr'"ce. H. Subject property shall have a maximum of five (5) acres. 3-7 100' 023,,0!284 () .------------.- - - - Agenda Item April 1 Page' 10 ,. n~~;.-.:":". ~ .; ~-/.(t". :," !'.,-- 'i-'~'~'" '.' ... .~.,... '. "':w" , ... . :i, . : ~ ....:~.. . , " .....'i,:~. ,-, :~f~~~~'.~ - ....-......- 1111 ----- j \.. /0:---- -~ ..- ...r" '.' ;fi'Ulr ,.~,~~" .' ". , "'Ii .c: '" .000J. '-../:<:"t '" .,;... . 'I..'!'! ~I !~ (~ - 1001 023""!285 .' y' ~.t~.. . <., - - --,-"-~,"'-- I: " - - .. '-\01'. t~.~:.~t;,-.:- .~:';,:.t:f{!:' ~~r....V- '" ACltE!K!lIT II Vaffa. Aasaad, .. owner or author!%ed asent for Petition 1.-86-3C. agree to the following !Itlpulat1one nquuted by the CoUter Couaty Planning Cammi..lrn in their pub lie hesrina on June 5. 1986. A. Section 2.02.A. Delete 112 .a the liat of us..s appear. to be more than adequate for tbe .1%e of paree!. I. Section 2.03.06A. The landacapins propo.ed ahould b~ batter defined. The buffeT area ahould include all of the aetback are.. and be heavily vegetated with eXisting and additional native speciea. The buffer .hould exceed the minimum requlre=enta to .ittgate the impact on future re.ldenc~s In this area. Therefore at.ff recommend. that the lan.cApiag be agreed upon by the Natural ie.curce ~nagement Department and planning staff prior to tbe i,auanee of building permits. c. Section 2.03.06.11. Ddete "Onlen speeificdly permitted for a 11''''11 \lllle." I). S.ct1ou 2.0:L06.C. Add that l1Shting fadl1t1u should be UJuud to 15 het. I. Sactiou 3.02.D. Delete r. Section 3.08 Add G. The Xatural ....ouree ....nagelllent Depart.u!nt. Building O.part..at and 1fater Hanal_ent Department .ha.ll aonUor the ftCAl d.aiID. permitting and eODatruetion phaae to aSBure greateat protection of the future potable Yater source. G. Add lAC, WHAB, Traffie. Otiliti..s, Engineering. Envlrc~ental B.alth. and the Fire Control District'a etipulations. Ii. fJ.... S"b,J'...t p,..,....f; 1)0..1/ J. ... """";7.,'_,,_ 0-' 5 ...tr"'-'. -,j ~ "v-"-rllet2.1- ) ;JJFt.- @ or SW(llN TO AND SUBSCRIBED JlEFORL HE THIS [}r- ...;;--M DAY . 1986. 1.';' ~~ "--->Gf ...-<--_> NOtARy ?'. r>:''',' J J ilC)('J .J IIW. .) .. '. ..\ . l)dl ' lIT iXHnSSIOll 1:IP1...S: Ko1I1't~\.bpffkr1dl My CoI:l.'(~;.,zi b..n hd, S. tX, .', a-86-3C A&~ement Sheet 1001 023..~ 286 --_.._--_..~~- - - .- "/ .:; STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY Of COLLIER I, JAMES C. GILES, Clee-k of Courts in llMe for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the fore9oing is a true original of: ORDINANCE 66-25 which Wl!IS adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 17th day of June 1986. WI'!'NESS my hl!lnd and the official .:seal of the Bo~,rd of County Comnissionprs of Collier County, Florida, thi~. 18th day of June, 1986. .JAMES C. GI LES'....u:...."...,. Clerk of c?urt;;alJ:ltttkcbJ?~~ Ex-Off ieio ,u1..BOafe:'~i'~.()}'" count'VCo~:r~~~1'1l ". ,_ ~ / .~ I..:> :',t::i:::j:.,: ~.: .... "~ n/ 0' .\=-., I . ,0 ~~'_o. -' >:>.,1';'ii :'.' ('"~i.;,f~lJ;f . Q~ .. . . ,.......~.'r.~.... ~ V H91n !l ~~ l\..f'-::iJ:~,' ... Deputy CleU '" ""''''"..... .,J .;::',r , ,Yo ........... "'':....l'..., .... Q:rtc ~ c~ ..-- "" .~- ""ll"""'- IDD' U23 '1'.' 287 I : ..'1 \ , Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 108 of 120 - ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. REPARESENTING GERALD L. AND MARION M. BRAY, AND GEORGE A CANAAN, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BEK NOWN AS MIR-MIR PUD FOR COMMERCIAL USES PERMITTED IN THE RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCAIL DISTRICT AS SET FOR~H IN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANDALL BOULEVARD AND THE NAPLES IMMOKALEE ORAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES "-. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Moving along. This is an estates to a PUD known as Mir-Mar, permitted in the Randall Boulevard commercial in the Golden Gate area master plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, you said Mir-Mar? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is Mir-Mar, not what is printed on -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not Mir-Mir? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not Mir-Mir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A Russian space probe PUD. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It says Mir~Mar on one of our documents and Mir-Mir on the other one. So it's Mir-Mir on the wall. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I,'m glad to COITect that, because I was going against it all the way with Mir-Mir, the name. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too strange. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record, planning services. This is very straightforward. This is actually a -- I'm sorry, we need to be sworn. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, you do. I apologize. That's my inadequacy and inefficiency. All those wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do we have any disclosures on this? CO:tYIMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I don't think I've had any contact with anyone on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor have I. I don't think -- I don't -- MR. NADEAU: Way baok. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Way back? Way back. You can't get too far back and expect us to remember this. COMJvlISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the .record show that the chairman's memcry stops at three weeks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The chairman admits to mental deficiency, and many of the people have k~own that for a long time. But as -- anyway, if I have had any contact, it has been some time ago. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You forgot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I don't remember it, so it's not going to be influential anyway. Please go ahead. MS. MURRAY: Again, Susan Murray for the record. This is a companion item to a small-scale future land use map amendment which you approved via the summary agenda earlier this morning. It's a 2.38 acre parce~. It's on the south side of Immokalee Road. It's between the existing Randall Boulevard commercial center and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station. The PUD purports to develop the site with a maximum of a 20,000 sq~are foot shopping center -- COMMISSIONER MACtKIE: Ms. Murray, can I interrupt you -- MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to ask a question? How did this one Petition PUD-98-4. for commercial uses district, as set forth ,-. , ' Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 109 of 120 fail to qualify for the summary agenda? MS. MURRAY: I actually received a letter in opposition from an attorney representing the property owners to the east. An objection to a depiction of a potential future access between the two properties. Additionally, the future land use map amendment needed to be approved prior to this rezoning in order for it to be consistent with COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MS. MURRAY: -- the map. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: :'m so=ry. But it does seem to me to be a straightforward no-brainer, unless there's a particular issue. Is there a speaker who has an objection? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm sorry, now that I see the location, Dwight, I think we did have a conversation on this. So rIm fou= weeks, Ba=b. CPAIRPERSON BERRY: Four weeks? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, Itm MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- up to five weeks. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Itll make a disclosure, too. MR. FERNANDEZ: YOL have two speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do have speakers? All right, let's go to the public speakers on it -- MS. MURRAY: Certainly. CFAIRPERSON BERRY: -- please, MR. FERNN~DEZ: Dwight Nadeau. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He1s the petition -- one of the petitioner's representatives? MR. NADEAU: Good morn~ng, co~~issioners. For the record, my name is Dw~ght Nadeau, planning director for McAnly Engineering and Design, representing the applicants for this PUD 98-4, presented before you. As Planner Murray described, it is a 2.38-acre piece of property. And by virtue of the adoption of the CPSS-98-1 in ~he summary agenda, the proposed rezone is now consistent with the Gelden Gate area master plani therefore, we have a piece of Estates property now within the Randall Boulevard commercial designation. The next step, now that we have the enabling legislation, would be to move forward with the PUD, which wi},l allow only those commercial land uses allowed within the Randall Boulevard commercial district. COMMISSIONER MACtKIE: Do you know what the controversy is, or what ~he one complaint is? Because-- MR. NADEAU: Yes, I do, actually. In communications with the property owner and the adjacent property owner, as well as Mr. Kant, from capital projects -- zransportation, ~rm sorry. We were trying to improve some of the traffic circulation patterns, because the Randall Boulevard PUD to the east of me -~ or east of the subject property has some significant intersection improvemen~s that would be required, should they ever expand. And we also had some safety and some security issues with the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, which is immediately to the west of us on the west half of tract 54. And to assist the community needs, we1re going to share access with the fire station. We're going to expand the width of the road on Immokalee Road. We will only take major access off of Immokalee Road. But should there be an agreement between the adjacent property Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 110 of 120 owner, being the Randall Boulevard PUD, where the Mobil Station is and the Taco Caliente and the bank, Community Bank, we suggested, and it was welcomed by the adjacent property owner, to provide a potential future interconnect to relieve some of the traffic problems. Well, ironically the attorney for the property owner of Randall Boulevard Center wrote -- told his attorney to write the letter objecting to that future access. Well, the county loves the interconnection, the petitioner has no objection to it, should there be an agreement to it, but if the adjacent property owner doesn't want it, we'll take it off. But the county encourages the interconnection of two commercial projects, whether they be frontage roads or not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we strongly, strongly do. MR. NADEAU: So that was what the letter of objection was, which really didn't make any sense to the petitioner or I, because it would affec~ -- the interconnect carne as a result of discussions with that property owner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we just want to hear -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dwight, dd,you anticipate the construction of an eastbound right-hand turn lane, a deceleration lane, coming into the shared access? MR. NADEAU: Unfortunately the bridge across ~he Corkscrew Canal, it would be an eastbound turn lane, would be precluded based on the width of the bridge, or the distance from the bridge to the existing access to the fire station. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That bridge is not going to be widened until Immokalee Road is four-laned out through tha~ area, and at such time I'm sure provisions will be made. And we really don't know how far off that is. What turn radius have you agreed to construct there? MR. NADEAU: We really haven't agreed to any type of a turn radius at that primary access. I would -- presently the radius would be at least 50 feet. I would imagine you'~e going to have a widening of the existing access with an additional 50-foot radius to the east. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While whoever is next to speak is doing so, if we could get something on the record about that, because I'd like that turn area to start as close to the existing bridge as possible so that people can get off Imrnokalee Road as safely as possible turning into this. Whether -- I don't see Mr. Kant, but I just want to know that's been addressed to the fullest extent that we can. That's my only concern there. MR. NADEAU: Sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, there's another question that I have, too. It's not only the eastbound, it also is the westbound on Immokalee Road, and having some kind of a lane to turn in. That whole area out in there, I'm -- thank God you carne before us today, because this gives me another opportunity to speak about this whole area. Randall Boulevard itself accessing Immokalee Road. And whether you're east or westbound, with the amount of traffic that's out on this road right now, we've got some serious problems. As far as I'm concerned, there needs to be -- there needs to be an eastbound decel. lane where -- a turning lane to be able to access this property. MR. NADEAU: Okay, and I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Has there been any discussion about this? (Commissioner Constantine returns to boardroom.) MR. NADEAU: Yes, I can respond to that, Madam Chairman. The Orangetree DRI PUD has specific language in it requiring them to do Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 111 of 120 intersection improvements, where Randall -- or possibly after you approve the street name today, Valencia Drive or something -- intersects with Immokalee Road. So there are conditions within that DRI settlement agreement, and PUD, as well as conditions in the Randall Boulevard PUD requiring a westbound turn lane, as well as an eastbound left turn into Randall, or whatever the street may be named at a future date. The subject property does not have access off of Randall, it only has access off Immokalee Road. So if we had an aerial photo, which I do, you can see tha~ itls a very constricted area fer turning movements. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I know. COMMISSIONER MAC1KIE: Personal experience. MR. NADEAU: So to impose conditions on the fire station at this time mayor may not be appropriate. I certainly would have to defer to the county attorney whether or no~ we can require expanding or making the right turn in a little bit longer towards the east -- to the west, s~ch that it would be cleser to the bridge. NmrJ, as :ar as coming in from the ~- going west for a left turn in, it doesn't appear as though there's enough spacing distance between the Randall Boulevard ir.tersection, which is going to be improved, and ImmckaJ.ee Road. So this distance in here is what is problematic. And I can show you here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're starting to see why the adjacent property owner ~- I'm sure they have someone here to speak may be against this future joint access, because there may corne a point that the Randall Boulevard intersection is the way you access all of these parcels, and it may be in the best interest of the public safety~wise to have internal connections ~nstead of an unsafe, you know, secondary drive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And nobody likes to grant access through their project for liability reasons and whatnot, but therets a larger public safety issue he=e. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's a huge p~blic safety problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: :ould we put t~at maybe on the visualizer, or whatever it's called? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have this modern COMlvlISSIONER MAC' KIE: High tech. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: technology here, so ~- COMMISSIONER MACTKIE: Well, is this something that staff has considered in their review? I mean, I would imagine that these aren't -- I would suggest that t~ese aren't things that should come up at the board meeting. They are things that staff should -~ CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would assume -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -~ consider. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- ttis is also going to involve South Florida Water Management Dis~rict. Am I correct, Mr. Ilschner? MR. ILSCHNER: That's correc~. CP~IRPERSON BERRY: Thatts the canal and this bridge. So it's not just Collier -- it's just not us. I mean, it's something that we're going to have to work with the water management district as well MR. NADEAU: CHAIRPERSON MR. NADEAU: CHAIRPERSON When BERRY: to do -- -- Irnmokalee is four-laned BERRY: That's right. Agenda Item No. 7A April 14. 2009 Page 112 of 120 MR. NADEAU: CHAIRPERSON MR. NADEAU: -- yes. But as far as the petitioners -- BERRY: Yes. -- they would not be subject to south Florida permitting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I understand that. I'm basically just talking about the traffic issue in this area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the possibility that are in the Orangetree PUD and the Randall roadway improvements, maybe those triggers are future, if the problem is currently existing. blown it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In my opinion? Yeah. You didn't ask, but yeah. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, first, I have to disclose, I have had conversations in the past three years with George Canaan on this property. Can I just ask, is there general consensus that it makes perfect sense to develop -- to redo this as commercial -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the question is the access question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The question -- that's -- in my opinlon, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine, too. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman, if you will, we do have language under the transportation section of the PUD document. We could, if the petitioner agrees, maybe tighten that language up a little bit just to say that prior to development of the site that they would confer (sic.) work with the transportation department to ensure that the -- a turn lane or access is adequate enough to minimize to the greatest extent possible the impacts on Imrookalee Road, if we could tighten that up a little bit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's really all we can do today. Because, you know, there's already a turning area there. So that's really where I was heading. The other question I had was -- wonderfully detailed site plan, D'Vlight. MR. NADEAU: Well, actually -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for the sarcasm. MR. NADEAU: -- Commissioner Hancock, I had a very detailed site plan, but it was requested to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take it out? MR. NADEAU: -- minimize it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has been effectively minimized. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why was -- do you mind? Why was there a request to minimize it? MS. MURRAY: Most of your PUD master plans are pretty general. This is only a two -- less than two and a half acre site. The applicants indicated they weren't sure if they were going to do out parcels or subdivide. The first indication it was going to be a shopping center, the next indication it might be -- so rather than we just -- actually, what we did was verbalize that in the PUD document and show this master plan as just a general plan. that these triggers something PUD for those too far out into the Is that where we've Agenda Item No.7 A April 14. 2009 Page 113 of 120 COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You might want to recommend in the past that -- you did what our staff requested, so I don't -- yeah. But maybe bring as an exhibit for the board to see, because it does help us visualize the site. But I -- because of location, I'm sure this complies -- has to comply with the commercial architectural standards; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hancock's Law from now on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam next speaker -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: at this time? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. MR. FERNN~DEZ: Next speaker COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had lister:, Jim. MR. SIESKY: Yes, Commissioner. Good morning, commissioners, Jim Siesky, representing Orangetree and Associates, the developer of Orangetree, the Orangetree area, along with Waterways. I don't represent Waterways. And also Francisco Colasso, the developer in ~he Randall Center PUD. We basically have two concerns. First let's say that we're not unhappy with the fact that there's development next to us. That's good. We're happy with that. It brings se=vices that are need -- will be needed for the people in the area. What we're concer~ed about is first the -- the turn lane. Let's talk about that. Orangetree, in the past year, was in negotiations with the school beard to sell the corner area to the school board for a new school. Those develop:nents failed, or those negotiations fail. But while we were negotiating that, issues about the turn ~ane came up and how much had ~o be expended to put the turn lanes in. It was really quite a big number. It seemed like 300,000 cr more. I don't recall exactly right now. But there was some complex negotiatio~s on how much the school board would spend, how mu::::h Orangetree would spend, how much Randall Center PUD would spend. Now our neighbor's askirlg for access, but there's nothing in ~he PUD as there is in the Randall Center PUD and the Orangetree PUD that would require them to pay any portion of the turn lane cost. That's the first objection. With regard to the timing of those turn lanes, they are to be installed -- at least the responsibilities respectively are for Orangetree, when the residential developme~t of Valencia occurs, and for the Randall Center PUD, when it further expands its development. COMMISSIONER ~~C'KIE: =ould I ask you a question about that? MR. SIESKY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When -- because apparently that's like the key here is how soon can we get those done. When Orangetree starts Valencia? Which it's already got the golf course. MR. SIESKY: The residential development. When it starts the residential development. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: _~d you represent them. idea when that is anticipated to occur? MR. SIESKY: No. ~he developer's here. COI~ISSIONER HANCOCK: They're still doing -- they're still doing Okay. Which will forever be known as Yeah, the Hancock standard. Thank you. Chairman, wo~ld you like to hear from the is Jim Siesky. a feeling you weren't here just to Do you have any Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14, 2009 Page 1140f120 Waterways, which -- MR. SIESKY: He says three or four years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what about the Randall Center, when they expand, when do we think that might happen? MR. SIESKY: Probably when it's not cost prohibitive as it is right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the turn lane? MR. S:ESKY: Because of the turn lane, yes. The other and more direct impact to the Randall Center PUD is the proposed connection where it's located, and that is directly behind -~ or in front of, as you look at it -- the gasoline pumps, where all the traffic is coming into the Randall Center PUD. And this would propose to add further traffic right there as you turn into the gasoline pumps. We think thatts just a traffic hazard and a problem. The document, as it's drafted, we don't have a problem with section 1.5 which says should an agreement be reached between the owners of Mir-Mar PUD and the owners of the lands ~o the east, there would be a vehicular interconnection. Because tha~ puts it in our control as to whether there will be an agreement. And we can maybe take care of a lot of these issues by sayi~g okay, we'll give you a vehicular access, but not right there at our gasoline pumps and yes, if you'll pay for a portion of the turn lanes. The problem comes, in my mind, with section 4.5(c) that says notwithstanding the provisions of the Randall Center PUD, for which this developer has no responsibility, such interconnection shall be provided at the earlier of either the developer's option, which meaning this developer, the developer of Mir-Mar, or at the request of Collier County transportation services to facilitate traffic flow. So that almost says that, at least the way I read it, that Randall Center PUD is at the whim of this developer and at the whim of Collier County transportation services. Both of these are unsettling and not satisfactory for my client. The other thing I wanted to mention, when we were talking about the turn lane with the school board, the transportation department was requiring those three parties to put in a box culvert at the canal there, an $80,000 expense that this developer is not being required to expend. And we think that's also unfair. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions for the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? That's right, stay there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky, if this parcel were not a part were not corning in today for any kind of development, that obviously doesn't change any of the commitments that Randall Center PUD made in obtaining its zoning. I guess my question comes in that I'm not sure that we can legally require this property owner to be lumped in with the Randall Center PUD and the commitments made by that zoning if it can be demonstrated that a safe vehicular access can be provided to the parcel. Absent something from our transportation staff that says what is being proposed based on traffic volumes or warrants is unsafe, I donlt know that we have the legal ability to make them share in the cost of the turn lane for Randall Boulevard. And that's not so much a question as it is -- I'm just trying to walk through the process. Because obviously what I'd love to see is one single improvement at Randall Boulevard and shared access for all sites, because it just makes the best sense transportation-wise. I'm not sure that we have the legal authority, if it can be demonstrated Agenda Item NO.7 A April 14, 2009 Page 115 of 120 that safe access can be provided. And it safe, that we can force them to be a part commitments made in the Randall PUD. MR. SIESKY: I don't necessarily disagree with you there, but if you leave it within the owner's control of Randall Center PUD to negotiate an agreement, he can take care of that. If it's within the whim of this developer or the Collier County transportation department as to whether that interconnection is made, then he has no bargaining may not be optimum, financially of the but power. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: think corrects that? MR. SIESKY: I think if you just eliminate the language in sec~ion 4.5(c). As lo~g as you have the :anguage at the beginning that says where there's a negotiated agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you discussed this with Mr. Weigel or staff prior to the meeting? MR. SIESKY: No, I've submitted a letter of objection but had no correspondence in returr.. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. MURRAY: First of all, Ed Kant's on vacation. no excuse, but he's in Europe, so my apologies for him COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Get him on the phone. MS. MURRAY: 1 contacted him about a month ago to be sure he was going to be here. Regardless, this -- this whole transportation section was reviewed by him. In fact, you know, if you look at 4.5(d) -- and I believe Commissioner Hancock, that's exactly what was probably going through h~s mind at the time was -- and one of the stipulations in there that he wanted to see was that there should be no direct access to Randall Boulevard permitted for this site. And he didn't feel the need to assess this property owner for intersection improvements or turn lane improvements. If you all want to do that, you certainly have that right, but he did not at the time of his review. COMMISSIONER HAN"COCY.:: Mr. Siesky has a point, as I read 4.5(c) It is a little -- I think it goes outside the bounds a little bit of what we normally do. Page 38, where it says shall be provided at the earlier of either the developer's option or a request by the county transportation services department to facilitate traffic flow and safe operations. You know, what does that mean for tte Randall Boulevard center when our transportation director says no, I think it's ~mportant for us to facilitate traffic flow that there be an interconnect at this location? That in essence is taking the development of one parcel and imposing a restriction on an existing zone parcel. So I think I understand that point. We want to leave it available. And ~'d like to find a way to to be honest, I'd like to require an interconnect, as long as it's mutually agreeable in a mutually agreeable location, because that takes the rest of the iss~e away, in my opinion. That way transportation's no~ getting involved down the road saying you have to interconnect, you know, if -- we can't do that, because we're only looking at one piece of the puzzle today. But that wording -~- that wording does seem to open up doors down the road that are rather nebulous, I guess. MS. MURRAY: I think the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the same time, that sounds like -- we Do you have proposed wording that you I know that's not being here. Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 116 of 120 don't want to repeat the mistake of the past ~- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: ~- where we haven't been able to get this roadway improvement that's already desperately needed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. MURRAY: I think the intent of that language was basically to establish a time frame. And perhaps that could be clarified a little bit just to take into account what's described earlier in the earlier portion of the document that -- with consent of the adjoining property owner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Murray, what does -- the it, item (b), 4.5(b), talking about the adequate turn MS. MURRAY: 11m sorry, what are you asking me? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are they going to be -- is the Randall Boulevard -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's exactly what I was talking about earlier when I was trying to kind of nail it down today what the turn radius -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HAl'iICOCK: -- is and whatnot. That, r s typically done as a site development plan stage where they bring in a detailed plan and transportation looks at it and determines if the volume of traffic is commensurate -- item right above lanes? Are they -- this related to CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is gOlng to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: with the turn radius -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: and so forth and so on. I was trying to kind of nail that down on the front end to get a picture. I know our staff is going to address it, I just was trying to see if we could get more information early. That's as I understand it, Ms. Murray; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, yes. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning director. I just wanted to add one comment on item (c) on page 38 under 4.5 that we've been discussing. One of the -- I think that it's important that the county have some authority for requiring that interconnect in a timely manner, and if left solely -- and in the past I think there have been some PUD's that have been approved which provided for interconnect, but left it up to the discretion of the property owners. And we have situations where one property owner attempts to hold the other property owner hostage in order to obtain that access. And since the genesis of such a stipulation is to benefit the community, Collier County traveling public, so that we, you know, minimize the impacts on the roadway, the external roadway system, I think it really is important that we maintain that authority at the county level for when that access at a minimum -- you know, if the developer wishes to do it prior to that point in time, so be it. But that if the county goes in and says we need this interconnection at this point in time, it gives us the teeth to be able to make that happen. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that. I just think the wording in 4.5(c) just leaves it a little open. That needs to be altered a little bit. I don't think that the property owner here should be able -- should have the authority or even the perception of the authority to require an interconnect for the adjacent property. However, our transportation staff, which in their foresight has said an interconnect at some point is going to be a good idea here, Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 117 of 120 that right should be reserved to them. But it needs to be done at the expense of -- you know, I see we have like a drainage swale in here. Well, we're not going to pay to put culverts in and to create the interconnect. That's a design issue for the property owner to deal with. But if we could leave in the county transportation services department but take out the developer's option part of that, I think that gets us part of the way there anyway. MR. SIESKY: Corrmissioners -- excuse me, Corrmissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just suggest a change that might help you a little bit, Mr. Siesky, is instead of having it at the earlier of either the developer's option, have it at the earlier of an agreement between the adjoining property owners, or a~ the request of the county transportation services. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Siesky? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. MR. SIESKY: I like tha~. But I wanted to also go further with what Commissioner Hancock said, a mutually acceptable location, which currently drawn with t~e arrows right at the front of the property -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The gas pump thing. MR. SIESKY: -- that's a real proplem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, but see, what I would be an agreement between the two property owners. agree, then our transporta~ion staff steps in and says here1s where you put it in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a way it says -- MR. SIESKY: I agree with you. All I was arrows off the drawing. So we're not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't having objections taking the arrows off of that piece of paper. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, me neither. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe we shou~d have at -- it says potential future access, you know, eastern property line, I mean, if that makes you COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to make it to say that it can move one way or the other. They're going to have to fac~o~ it they bu~ld first, it's somehow probably point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're built. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're built? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Siesky's-- COMMISSIONER HANCOC:K: No, no, I meant Mir-Mar. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, but yeah, they1re built. COMMISSIONER WU,COCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is that clear enough CFAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Sies -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- direction to staff? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just ask one question. How far back does that property go, the Randall Boulevard center? How -- if look at this drawing that we have and where they currently have arrow, the east-west arrow, how far back does the property go? you were to interconnect, where else could you connect? MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, I wish I could answer that I can't. But I think Mr. Nadeau says that it goes all the CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As deep as the -- said was it If you don't you put it in, asking was take the taken the ar~ow off at some point on the feel better into their design. going to get locked And if in at some you the So if question. way back. Agenda Item No. 7A April 14. 2009 Page 118 of 120 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So in other words, the fact that the arrow is located where it is, that could just as well be moved working -- in other words, if people could agree and work on the site itself, they could agree that it could be moved elsewhere? MR. NADEAU: Yes, Madam Chairman. For the record again, Dwight Nadeau, representing the petitioner. I obtained a copy of the site development plan for the Randall Boulevard PUD. And the only logical place for that arrow was on the frontage on Randall Boulevard. There would be -- there's some drainage swales and there's some water retention requirements -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At the back of the property. MR. NADEAU: -- that are required by the Randall Boulevard Center PUD that mayor may not preclude the interconnect COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me -- MR. NADEAU: -- to slide back and forth. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: ~~ just ask a question. at all? Does that depiction or the arrow on the MR. NADEAU: Keeps me out of a PDI. MS. MURRAY: Susan MurraYr for the record. I think we could accomplish the same thing by removing the arrow and putting language in -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, fine. MS. MURRAY: -- the document that says along the eastern property boundary. I don't think we need to design the site. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I like Corrunissioner Norris! verbiage change, because it says either you kids go figure out a way to do it, or we're going to figure out a way to do it for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Worse than Dad. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like that. That says either work together or we're going to make a decisionr and you don!t want us making a decisionr if you can come to it yourselves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that change. And both parties have agreed to that change? Because I know Mr. Siesky said it was okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One's more begrudging than the other, but I think we're as close as we're going to get. It makes sense, anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we need both parties' acquiescencer Mr. Weigel, or are we still waiting for Mr. Nadeau's? MR. WEIGEL: Wellr if Mr. Nadeau can speak on behalf of his party, then you've got the record you'd like to seer I think. MR. NADEAU: I can represent for my petitioners that we will are agreeable to the new language such that would if I can have it restated for mer Susan? MS. MURRAY: It!s my understanding that -- MR. NADEAU: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Randall Center PUD for which the developer has no responsibility, such interconnection shall be provided -- MS. MURRAY: Either at the earlier -~ MR. NADEAU: Of? MS. MURRAY: of u MR. NADEAU: -- either an agreement between the two property Is this pertinent have any weight? owners. MS. MURRAY: Between adjoining property owners or the transportation services department's request. MR. NADEAU: Or the request of the county transportation. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MR. NADEAU: Okay, so we're only inserting agreement between the two property owners. Agenda Item No. 7A April 14, 2009 Page 119 of 120 MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And removing either the developer's option. MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. NADEAU: And removing a~ the developer's option. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MR. NADEAU: Yes, we have no problem with that. And we'll remove the arrow from the plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And insert language into the document indicating a future interconnect along that property line. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, ~hat's the only place that it could have done -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the only place they had joined -- COMMISSIONER HN~COCK: I'm just saying that the=e has to be a reference -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something in the document. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to an interconnect, either in the document or on the master plan. MR. S:ESKY: He's talking about the eastern property. MR. NADEAU: Okay. So we just insert in eastern property line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. Right there in that MR. NADEAU: In that same -- COMMISSIONER ~AC'KIE: -- second paragraph. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: .~d what will happen eventually, I'm sure, is the Randall Center PUD comes forward, our transportation staff is going to either dictate where that interconnect occurs on good transportation planning, or you guys wil~ work it out ahead of time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any other public speakers? MR. FERNN~DEZ: No others. CF~IRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, this ~- I have no problem with the rezoning, but I sure do have a problem with the traffic situation. But I'll support -- as I said, I don't have it with the -- going from the Estates to the PUD because thatls consistent with the master plan. So that's -- I'm looking strictly at that. But I'd like to add a footnote that this traffic situation out in that area has got to be addressed quickly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close ~he public hea~ing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, 1111 close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then Itll make a motion that we approve ~he PUD-98-4, changing the language in section 4.5(c) to reflect the discussion that we had earlier that Ms. Murray has reiterated for us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, and removing the arrow from the map as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And i~serting in that same language, because I don't think Ms. Murray actually said it, come to think of it, that this would be pertaining -~ in 4.5(c) would be pertaining to the eastern property li~e. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further disc~ssion, all in favor? Opposed? Agenda Item No. 7 A April 14. 2009 Page 120 of 120 (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. MR. SIESKY: Thank you, commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe that could be sort of a prototype, you know, for this kind of language in the future? Yeah. Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 98-73 RE PETITION PUD-87-33(21, MR, BRUCE J. SICILIANO, OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING MR. URI ELI-AV, ELIAS BROTHERS, INC. REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE "WINDSONG" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUDI, ORDINANCE NUMBER 93-74 FOR THE PURPOSES OF ELIMINATING THE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING TYPES AND THE ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY (ACLFI UNITS AND IN ITS PLACE PERMIT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELING UNITS UTILIZING THE ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THEREBY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELING UNITS FROM 134 TO 145 UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF R~TTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AND COUNTY BARN ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item is PUD~87-33(2). This is an amendment to the Windsong PUD. This is not the Windsong on Irnmokalee Road, this is the Windsong down at the northwest corner of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road -~ COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not the same old song. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not the same old song. -- and County Barn Road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody had to say it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same '01 same. lIve-- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is actually the eliminating and increasing and so forth. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had conversation with the property owner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As have I. have T. Representative I have spoken of the property owner. with the petitioner myself, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, all persons wishing to speak to this item, would you please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sW8rn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of planning services staff. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Windsong PUD to dele~e the multi-family tract and delete the ACLF tract and to convert that ACLF tract, which is four acres, into residential, which would allow for three additional units per acre on that four-acre tract, or 12 additional units. This would in fact increase the density from 134 units to 145 units. As you can see on the original approved plan, the master plan showed an access point off of County Barn Road. This has been deleted. The conservation area here has been moved around this side. The currently approved master plan shows a centralized lake system. In addition, the retained native vegetation has been increased from six percent to 16 -- not to be less than 16 percent. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this and approved it by a seven-zero vote. No letters against have been received.