Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/15/2000 RJune 15,2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, June 15, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Gary Wrage NOT PRESENT: Sam Saadeh Michael J. Bruet ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED l0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITrEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITtED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUN2~ STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 17, 2000 & May 18, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. V-2000-11, Jim Allen of J. D. Allen & Associates, Inc., representing Bill Chapin, requesting a variance from the required combined side yards of 50 feet in the Industrial zoning district to 40 feet for property described as Lots 12 and 13, North Collier Industrial Center, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtehian) o V-2000-13, Jim Allen of J. D. Allen & Associates, Inc., representing Bill Chapin, requesting a variance from the required combined side yards of 50 feet in the Industrial zoning districts to 40 feet for property described as Lot 7 and part of Lot 6, North Collier Industrial Center, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PUD-2000-02, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Mark L. Lindner, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hibiscus Village PUD for a maximum of 200 affordable residential housing units for property located on the west side of S.R. 951, approximately Y4 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.76:1: acres. (Continued from 5/4) (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CU-2000-06, David W. Rynders, representing James K. Keiser, requesting Conditional Use "14" of the "A" zoning district for a social club per Section 2.2.2.3 for outdoor sunbathing for property located at 1311 Dog Ranch Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.714- acres. (Coordinator: Susan Murray) Eo PE-2000-01, R. J. Ward of Spectrum Engineering, Inc., representing Bishop John I. Nevins of the Diocese of Venice, requesting Parking Exemption approval for St. Peter the Apostle Church for off-site parking on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road across from the Hawaii Boulevard intersection, in Sections 18 & 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PE-2000-02, William C. McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing Golf Club of' the Everglades, requesting a parking exemption to reduce the required 122 parking spaces to 71 parking spaces and to reserve land for 60 parking spaces for a private golf club located on the northeast comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and Douglas Street, in Section 36, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) OLD BUSINESS Discussion of Petition V-2000-12, Browder Variance NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 6/15/00 AGENDA/RN/im 2 June 15, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: We will call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order, and we will start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Both Commissioner Bruet and Commissioner Saadeh had called and they will be absent today. And Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any addenda to the agenda? MR. NINO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Approval of minutes. We have two different minutes, May 17 and May 18. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Move for approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that motion and approval for both? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Both. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, motion by Commissioner Rautio, second by Commissioner Pedone. All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Minutes are approved. Any announced absences? We're all going to come to work, so that's fine. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, we already talked about CHAIRMAN BUDD: Nothing new from the other previously announced absences? MR. NINO: That's July the 15th -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: -- meeting you're talking about? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Board of County Commissioner's report. Anything, Ron? MR. NINO: All land use petitions were dealt with in the Page 2 June 15,2000 manner that you had recommended. Last night the board had its final LDC hearing, and they approved the LDC amendments, with the exception that there was considerable controversy again on the gopher tortoise issue. And consequently, we will amend that further to specifically provide for an exemption for single-family platted lots. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have no chairman's report. We will move into the advertised public hearings. We will begin with V-2000-11. Any disclosures? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: I forgot, Item C has been withdrawn indefinitely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. NINO: Continued indefinitely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. NINO: Continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Item C as in Charlie? MR. NINO: Yes, as in Charlie. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. Back to the first agenda item, V-2000-11. There are no disclosures. All those wishing to present testimony in this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.} MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a side yard variance in the industrial zoning district for a property off of Old U.S. 4t. In the industrial zoning district, side setbacks are calculated at 20 percent of the lot width, which in this case since the lot is 260 foot wide, comes to 50 feet. There's a maximum cap of 50 feet, combined side yards. And the applicant is requesting to reduce that from 50 feet to 40 feet. Staff recommends approval, because in the industrial district, for some reason the side setbacks are excessive for larger lots. In the commercial districts, we have 15-foot side setback, and in the industrial, it is minimum of 10, but maximum of 50 and it goes with the width of the lot, which basically in cases like that when you are building a warehouse or you are building a mini storage, wastes a lot of industrial land just to Page 3 June 15,2000 have setbacks on the sides when you don't have any use for it. And next to it you can have a smaller lot with a 10-foot setback. And it doesn't really make sense to have such a large setback in the industrial district, especially for lots that are not deep but wide, which we don't have that many of them. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this variance. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Chahram? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Have you thought about changing the Land Development Code? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Probably we will in the future. MR. NINO: In the next amendment cycle. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maybe reduce it from maximum of 50 to maximum of 30, something like that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That was my question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. NINO: We will deal with it in the next amendment cycle. We will propose an amendment that treats the industrial district similarly to the commercial district. I agree with Chahram, it doesn't make any sense for an industrial area to have a larger setback than the commercial. It's not a people -- you know, not an intense people type of development versus commercial. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that makes a lot more sense than having to go through variances every time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And there's no justification on the record why it's such a large setback? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It's goes down to 1970's. Since that time the 1974 code had this 20 percent of the lot width, and it was continued in different zoning codes, and nobody knows why 20 percent. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? If not, does the petitioner have anything to present? Is there anyone from the public that wishes to comment on this item? Being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, I make a motion we forward Petition No. V-2000-11 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Page 4 June 15,2000 Pedone, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Moving on to the second agenda item, that is V-2000-t3. Any disclosures? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Same thing -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Seeing as it's the same thing, basically -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the same thing. Same size lot and same area. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay. I make a motion that we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, let's-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, we need to get the public hearing closed and go through formality. We have no disclosures. We will close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' I make a motion that we forward Petition V-2000-13 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a point of order. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do we actually have a public hearing by not swearing anybody in? MS. STUDENT: Well, I don't think there was really any-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any testimony. MS. STUDENT: -- testimony. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, motion on the table. All those in Motion carries. Page 5 June 15,2000 Item C was continued. We will move to Item D, that is CU-2000-06. Any disclosures on this item? There being none, all those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MURRAY: I'm Susan Murray, with planning services. I hope you can see this, because it is really a pretty good picture. I'm sorry, Mr. Keiser, is Mr. Rynders here? MR. KEISER: He's not here yet. MS. MURRAY: Would you possibly like to wait? Maybe we could move this to the end of the agenda? MR. KEISER: If that would be all right. He said he's going to be here at 8:30. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Do we have a motion to move agenda Item CU-2000-06 to the end of today's agenda? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by-- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- Commissioner Rautio, second by Commissioner Wrage. All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: The agenda item is moved. And we will go to Item E, which is PE-2000-01. Any disclosures? All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a parking exemption, which as you remember from the last LDC hearings is a combination of several of our parking public hearings. This one is for an off-site parking petition for St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church. The location, you can see U.S. 41 South here, Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Hawaii Boulevard coming in. The blue is the current St. Peter PUD, and the red is the C-4 parcel that is the subject of the petition. As I said, the subject site is C-4. This petition could have been approved administratively, except for the fact that Page 6 June 15,2000 Rattlesnake Hammock Road is a collector. A collector roadway designation requires public hearings. St. Peter's PUD has 100 percent of the required parking for a church of its size; however, through various theories, Mr. Ward presents a good theory that there are a lot of single occupancy drivers going to St. Peter's, and therefore, since our code predicts that people will go to church in groups, if you've got people going in single cars, you're going to fill up the parking lot faster. So the parking is going to be basically used for overflow at this time. At some portion -- at some time in the future it's going to be a parish life center, but what's being considered now is overflow for the church. I did receive two letters of objection. One I gave to you in your packet. That person wanted the property to remain undeveloped. And the second letter that I just received the other day are parishioners of St. Peter's, and they had -- maybe I shouldn't say it's an objection, but they had concerns about flooding. They said they didn't really have too bad flooding problems until St. Peter's was -- the new St. Peter's was built, as it is today. And they say they are against the parking lot, unless it is surrounded by trees and grass. Now, we do have our buffer requirements. There's going to be a 10-foot buffer along Rattlesnake and 15-foot buffers along the residential property lines. Since this was a letter, I couldn't respond directly back to that. The letter writer said they wouldn't be here today. But there will be the buffers surrounding the parking lot, so that may address their concern. Staff recommends approval with the buffers that are listed in their resolution, and also, that the church construct a crosswalk across Rattlesnake Hammock Road. There's currently a crosswalk along Hawaii Boulevard, but this would allow safe crossing of pedestrians that cross Rattlesnake Hammock Road. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I had one, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me in your narrative somewhere you talk about a signalized crosswalk, yet in the resolution approving, it just says maintain a crosswalk. There's a difference, isn't there? MR. REISCHL: Yes, that -- Page 7 June 15,2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you want a signalized? MR. REISCHL: My recommendation would be a signalized. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then you want to change this resolution. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Isn't Hawaii Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road signalized already? MR. REISCHL: Signalized, yes, but-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But not for pedestrians. MR. REISCHL: Correct, the walk/don't-walk sign. There is a traffic signal there, right. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Does the petitioner have any comments? Yes, sir. MR. WARD: My name's R.J. Ward. I'm with Spectrum Engineering, and I'm representing St. Peter's. A year ago we came to try to get a site plan approval for this project and found out that because of the situation, it wouldn't -- we couldn't use the area for overflow parking. The idea was to put this parking area in there in support of a future building. And we were told, no, we'd have to build the building now. So the church had a choice between putting in a temporary modular building to satisfy that requirement in order to build a parking lot, or to go ahead and do a real building. Well, they've hired an architect and they have started designing a building and trying to raise the funds. So in essence what we're asking to do is to build a parking lot in advance of the building and use the parking lot to meet the overflow parking need. When the funds are raised, the building will be built, the apostolic life center, and the parking will be able to serve the uses for that building and would be able to be used as overflow parking. Now, there is a traffic signal at the intersection, and of course we would put in sidewalks with pedestrian -- all the requirements to make it safe for pedestrians to cross. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes, Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Have you given some real thought Page 8 June 15,2000 to what type of fence you're going to have there, the buffer? Because it says that it may include a wall, a fence, a hedge, a berm or combination thereof, which is six feet in height and 80 percent opaque within one year. What are you anticipating blocking the residential section using? MR. REISCHL: If I could add a comment. Since this is zoned C-4, any wall or fence would have to meet commercial design guidelines, so it could not be chain link, could not be wood within 100 feet of the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And -- MR. REISCHL: So if it was a wall, it would have to be architecturally finished. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So if it's a hedge or a berm, there are stricter regulations because it is commercial? MR. REISCHL: No, not for landscaping. It would still have to be 80 percent opaque within one year, but it's the -- any structural components that would have to meet the commercial design guidelines. Landscape would be the same as other designations. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I lost my train of thought. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If it comes back to you, we'll be here. Any other questions for the -- MR. WARD: Well, just to say, we haven't specifically addressed that issue, but of course it would be done in conjunction with a licensed landscape architect in accordance with the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know what it was. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You heard my colloquy with the county's representative about a signalization of the crosswalk, or -- do we have a meeting of the minds on that -- MR. WARD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- walk/don't-walk business? MR. WARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many parking spaces -- well, let me ask it in a different way. You're going to use this parking for the present for overflow parking, and then you're Page 9 June 15,2000 going to use it for this building. The people using this ancillary building are not going to be using it as (sic) the same time as the principal church services? MR. WARD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So they're not competing for same spaces at any time? MR. WARD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: People using this ancillary building could in fact use the church parking for their overflow, if the need should arise. MR. WARD: I would presume so. I really hadn't thought about that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many spaces are you putting in now? I notice on the form that calls for that information, it was left blank, for whatever reason. MR. WARD: Well, I -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You talk about how many are there now, but not how many you're going to put in. MR. WARD: I have a plan, if you'd like to see it, which I could pass around. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't know the number? MR. WARD: We started with 170, and it's back down from that, and I think we're about 130 spaces. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How many are over there on the other side of the street presently? MR. WARD: I don't know that number. MR. REISCHL: I don't know either. Just I was going to say, Mr. Ward's -- I don't want to say defense, but with the code change for the parking exemption, rather than off-site parking. Off-site parking used to require a site development plan be submitted with the public hearing petition. That was changed. The rationale was let the petitioner find out if they can use the parcel before they go through all the designs for a parking lot. Because a parking lot is fairly standard. You're not going to have a building in there, you're going to have required buffers, you're going to have islands every 10 spaces and two-way drive aisles. So staff felt that was fairly standard and, therefore, we eliminated that extra what we thought burden upon the petitioner to provide a site development plan before he even knew it would be approved by the board. Page 10 June 15,2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Since your extra spaces are not based on a deficiency vis-a-vis the code, it's just based on a visual observation that there's people parking on the shoulders; is that it? MR. WARD: That's correct. And basically what we did is we tried to put as many spaces as the space would allow, in compliance with the Land Development Code's requirements. I say we started with 170 spaces. The building that was -- originally we simply had a space for future building with no specific building in mind other than they knew they wanted to do something with that in the future. Now we have a specific building which is larger than our original intent, we lost some parking spaces to provide a space for the building. Because churches are allowed some grass parking. We figured where the future building is going to go initially, we'll have at least one row of grass parking that would later -- that would encroach into the building site and later would be lost. You know, I could count here. I have a plan, I don't have an actual number, but I think it's about 130, 135 spaces. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? Is there anyone from the public that wishes to make any comments? Yes, sir. Please come forward and state your name for the record. MR. ROSS: I'm Byron Ross, with Guardian Property Management. We're the property managers for Pepperwood Condominiums, which is right next door there. This might already have been put in the request, but Pepperwood has a concern regarding water storage and drainage, and whether -- in the -- when we get the summer rains, we have a problem in that area with drainage. And we want to be assured that the drainage on that property after they put the parking lot in will be sufficient and won't be backing up onto Pepperwood or the other adjoining residential properties. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Reischl? MR. REISCHL: I can assure you that this will meet Collier County Land Development Code's standards for stormwater management. It will hold the water that falls on the site up to a Page 11 June 15,2000 standard maximum amount, yes. MR. ROSS: Okay. All right. And there's a plan for maintenance and cleanup of the area, you know, after it's put in, or is that part of the -- is that part of the application? MR. REISCHL: That's not a standard part of the Land Development Code. I'm sure the church will do that as part of a good neighbor policy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Would be no different than their project. There's no -- nothing in there to require them to clean their trash up either, right? MR. REISCHL: Aside from a required dumpster or something like that, no, you're right. MR. ROSS: That was our concern. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, sir. Anyone else from the public to present testimony? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we forward Petition PE-2000-01 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Also to include the crosswalk construction. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Moving on to our next agenda item, F, that is PE-2000-02. Any disclosures? All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: And I also don't see Mr. McAnly at this time. Do you want me to proceed? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We not only don't have the petitioner, but Page12 June 15,2000 we don't have anybody speaking. And with your recommendation of approval, unless somebody shows up and wants to give some negative comments -- MR. REISCHL: And I received no negative comments. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's an announced hearing. I'm inclined to proceed. MR. REISCHL: Okay. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a different kind of parking exemption. This one is for reserved parking. It's for the previously approved conditional use Golf Club of the Everglades. And to give you the location, Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road, Vanderbilt Road -- Vanderbilt Beach Road, excuse me. It's outside of the urban area, but it was approved prior to June 22nd of last year. So this is the approved golf club conditional use. And you see Vanderbilt Beach Road basically ends at the golf club. Again, Vanderbilt, the entrance to the project. The clubhouse, cart barn. What the petitioner has provided is the blue, being the parking that he will build. And the 122 spaces that are required, he will build the blue and the green, that I've shaded in green, he requests that be left. The area be reserved, but that the parking spaces be left unbuilt, unpaved, but nothing else can be built at that location except for parking spaces. The reason is it's a private golf club and due to the makeup of the future members, they feel that 58 percent of county requirement is all that they will need. Staff feels comfortable with this, because at the discretion of the planning services director and/or Board of County Commissioners, at any time the owner may be directed to complete a portion or all of the rest of the required parking. So staff recommended approval. And I received one phone call asking a question, but she didn't object. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: As a practical matter, how's the planning services director going to find out that they need more parking? MR. REISCHL: The lady across the street assured me that she would let them know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: People like that even out Page 13 June t5, 2000 there, huh? CHAIRMAN BUDD: As a practical matter, that's a good cross-check. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'm just curious. I ask of my fellow members on the board, are they really going to save that much money? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Probably save more grass and trees than money. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I was going to say, because they're building everything with it. I mean, I don't have a problem with it, but if the issue is money, I can't see they're saving any. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Skipping around; where are they doing the saving? I mean, they're not even all in one place. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Strikes me as more of an as aesthetic issue. It just would be nice with a little less paving. Does the petitioner wish to make any comments? And if you would, you first need to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. McANLY: The -- my name's Bill McAnly, first of all. I represent the Golf Club of the Everglades. And the same developers developed Golf Club of the Everglades. They also developed Old Florida. And these clubs are developed basically with the same -- they're going to be operated the same, and they're very low activity clubs. What they found at Old Florida is they have about twice the parking that they actually need. And it doesn't have anything to do with money, it doesn't -- they want to preserve as much of the greenery as they can and to cut down on the asphalt that's there. Because they just plain are not using the parking places at Old Florida, so why put them in? And the county always has the authority. If they change their method of operation, they require more parking, then the county can always see that they put it in. That's it, basically. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm just curious, what's the difference of a golfer parking on grass versus a church-goer parking on grass? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Probably more activity at the golf Page 14 June 15,2000 course. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: churches would be weekly. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: the daily. Golf courses would be daily and The grass wouldn't stand up on MR. REISCHL: have grass parking. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: MR. REISCHL: Daily use. And the code doesn't permit golf clubs to That would have to be paved. It's a big difference. Because of the issue of daily-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- daily use versus occasional. MR. REISCHL: Rather than the once or twice a week. MR. McANLY: We don't think that this is really grass parking, because we don't think we need it at all. But if we do, it would have to be paved. The county club can't use grass parking because of the volume on it. It would wear the grass out. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So this is going to be grass and not going to have other landscaping or shrubs or anything? MR. McANLY: It may have some shrubs, but it would be something that could be moved real easily, and in the event parking would be required later, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So truly this is an idea to perhaps provide better aesthetics and more greenery. MR. McANLY: Yes, definitely. And less asphalt. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I guess, right, less asphalt, so it's better water flow and that type of thing, absorption, the water that falls? MR. McANLY: Well, yeah, probably. Yeah, that helps a little bit. There would be some improvement there. But basically every shrub and tree around the country club they tied ribbons around to save. I mean, they're really trying to save-- I mean everything that had a leaf on it had a ribbon around it if it was not in an area that had to be cut down. And I don't know, one of the developers is out there every single day seeing that no tree gets cut down. And as a matter of fact, there's an oak tree on that golf course that he thinks is particularly pretty. We had to put lightening protection on that oak tree so that oak tree would never get hit by lightening, that it would always be there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's encouraging. Page15 June 15,2000 MR. McANLY: They're very interested in saving the foliage and greenery there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? Anyone from the public wish to ask any questions, present testimony? There is none. We will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we forward PE-2000-02 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We will move to Item D, which we had postponed earlier. That is CU-2000-06. Any disclosures? All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, with planning services. The petitioner is requesting conditional use approval to legitimize an existing social club in which persons engage in social and recreational activities and who are not clothed. And this property is located in an agriculture zoning district. I'm sure you're probably familiar with the location of the site, simply because there's been a lot of rezoning activity in the area. It's located south of Pine Ridge Road, east of Whippoorwill Lane, and abuts 1-75 on its eastern boundary. So this is the Whippoorwill Lane/Livingston Road area where recently when zoning approvals are complete in that area, over 2,500 dwelling units will be authorized for development. Access to the site is provided from Whippoorwill Lane, then via a 60-foot wide unimproved access easement, which is Nighthawk Drive, which leads to Pet Ranch Road (sic}. And Pet Ranch Road is a state owned right-of-way which abuts the subject property to the west, and it is currently approved. It's believed at one time the state utilized this road to dig the burrow pit which now forms the lake which is part of the Page 16 June 15,2000 subject property and also part of abutting properties. You can see that on the map right here. This is the subject property. And then these are abutting properties, which also utilize the same lake. The property is comprised of approximately eight plus or minus acres, two acres of which are upland and are currently developed with -- let me get the site plan. On the site we have an access drive from Dog Ranch Road leading to parking. There is an enclosed pole barn with a deck and a hot tub. There is an existing grill and picnic area, an open sunning area, a dock on the lake, and that's about it. Out of all the criteria that staff is required to analyze -- and you can find that analysis in your staff report -- one particular criteria, Criteria D in your staff report, was a little bit troublesome to staff, and I would like to expand upon that a little bit, just to make you aware of some of the issues that staff is concerned about. And that criteria was compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. In light of the recent rezonings in the area, staff recognizes that this property at one time was located in what could be considered a relatively remote area of the county in that it probably enjoyed and still enjoys a lot of privacy and surroundings by undeveloped property. However, as we know recently, and in particular, three rezonings surrounding the property to the north, to the west and to the south have recently been approved. The property to the north -- actually, all three properties allow multi-family development with buildings 40 feet in height, three stories high. Those properties to the south and the north will also be enjoying the facilities of the lake. And I think staff's concern here has to do with the need for privacy for the club members, as well as privacy for abutting property owners. Staff's concern is that this privacy may be difficult to achieve with those development regulations that were permitted with the PUD zoning, i.e., buildings 40 feet in height, three stories high. Recognizing that the PUD master plans for these properties also encompass development areas which abut the same lake as the subject property. And I have those master plans, if you wanted to take a look at them. Page 17 June 15,2000 The concern is that there may not be the ability to achieve a significant landscape buffer between the properties, especially to the north and to the west. We have formulated stipulations that require a 100 percent opaque landscape buffer within a specific time frame at a typically wider than normal requirement. However, with buildings 40 feet in height, what you really need is a mature landscape buffer, and that really is almost impossible to establish, unless it's already existing, which it's not. So that was one of staff's concerns. The other concern was that obviously you would not be able to construct any type of buffer across the lake. And if different property owners are sharing and recreating in the same lake, there would -- the element of privacy and buffering just would not exist on the lake itself. The third concern was with increased development in the area, obviously that leads to increased traffic, and the potential for curious onlookers. We -- staff has crafted a number of regulations with regard to fencing and security that we think will help ameliorate that concern. However, I just wanted to go ahead and note that to you on the record. With that said, staff has conditioned the approval of this petition to assist in achieving adequate privacy and buffering to the extent that we feel it's reasonably possible to achieve under current conditions, and we are recommending approval of the petition, with the stipulations found in your report. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The second paragraph of your write-up talks about the petitioner proposing to legitimize an existing social club. Why are we here at this particular time? Can you tell me a little bit of the background of that? MS. MURRAY: I probably can't tell you in as much detail as the petitioner's representative could. But it's my understanding that for quite some time there has been -- the club has been in existence, and there has been numerous code violations. And there has been an argument as to whether or not the use is, I think, permitted by right or is it a conditional use, and is the Page18 June 15,2000 petitioner required to come through this process. I believe this case was taken to court. I believe in court it was determined that they are required to have a conditional use and that's why they are here. There's also a number of issues, I believe, that have to do with the fact that the petitioner did not obtain building permits for certain structures on-site, and that would also need to be rectified through this process and the building permit process, of course. But this process being one step in the process leading to the obtaining of the building permits. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There haven't been any changes to the code that have impelled him to come at this time? MS. MURRAY: Not that I'm aware of, no. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just that there's no living structures on this site? MS. MURRAY: No. According to the petitioner, there's the existing pole barn which is enclosed. When I toured it, it simply had -- there was a kitchen there, restroom facilities and an office facility. The petitioner informed me that nobody lives on-site. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: With the CU, though, they could still -- under the ag. zoning still build one residence there, though, right, if they wanted to? MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? If we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. RYNDERS: Good morning. My name is David Rynders, representing the petitioner. And we're pleased with the staff report and in agreement with the recommendations and conditions that are suggested. And the only elaboration I can make on the litigation was that for about three years now we've been disputing whether -- you see, there's no construction proposed for the site -- I mean, there's no development proposed. The outdoor use is an outdoor use. And we don't propose any buildings or anything like that. And we've been kind of arguing about this little technicality of whether a site development plan is necessary for a site where no development is planned. And the court said this is not right Page19 June 15,2000 yet. You haven't even been turned down for a conditional use, and you're wasting our time, so get out of here until you've got a problem. You haven't got a problem until you've had it denied, and maybe they'll approve it and then you won't have to bother us. And that's -- we took the court's philosophy to heart. So we're here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm still not exactly clear on what it is we're trying to do here. Could you summarize that in maybe 25 words or less? MS. MURRAY: Essentially we are trying to legitimize -- there is an existing social and fraternal organization, as defined by our code, that exists on the site. And in the agriculture zoning district, that is allowed by conditional use approval only. So we are trying to basically legitimize the fact that that club exists on-site and make it legal in terms of the Land Development Code requirements. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And within what you've presented other than the possible curious onlookers and the 45 height buildings when things develop, everything seems to meet the criteria to allow the social club to exist under our Land Development Code? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. And the criteria are considerations that you need to consider when evaluating and making your recommendation to the board. I presented staff's evaluation and recommendation based on the criteria, and our recommendation is for approval, with stipulations. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had another question. Susan, I notice one of your stipulations is that the portion of Nighthawk Lane that I guess is the portion that abuts this property be maintained in a dust-free condition. If I were the petitioner, I'd take exception to that, because the dust is the same dust since they've been there. It seems to me all these Whippoorwill folks ought to be addressing the dust, if it's going to bother them. Weren't we supposed to look at all the roads in that area as a unitary whole at one point when we were talking about making Whippoorwill an east-west, as well as north-south? And it seems Page 20 June 15,2000 to me that Dog Ranch Road, if it impacts the Whippoorwill's, ought to be part of that same package. MS. MURRAY: Well, a couple of conditions. It's important to note that at this point really Nighthawk Lane only provides access to the subject property and another agriculturally zoned property abutting it to the south. So those essentially are really going to be the only users of this road, once these PUDs are developed. What we were looking at was kind of -- we were looking towards the future -- I was looking towards the future in that knowing that properties to the north and south of this road were eventually going to be developed with residential dwelling units, and there may be some dust or dirt impact with regard to those future dwelling units. The state maintained -- or state owned right-of-way, Pet Ranch Road is already improved and maintained by the state. I don't know what will happen with that in the future, if they own it, according to Mr. Rynders, in fee simple, if they would try to sell it back to the property owners abutting the road or what, I really don't know. But it is already improved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But Nighthawk cuts between two of those Whippoorwill PUDs. MS. MURRAY: Correct, right. It's currently an access easement over -- and I believe it's Whippoorwill Lakes PUD, but I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Any other questions? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. Has there been any objections from any of the adjacent property owners? MS. MURRAY: No, I haven't received any phone calls or letters. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to present testimony? Being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we forward for approval Petition CU-2000-06 for Conditional Use 14. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? Page 21 June 15, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, when it comes to conditional use, we're supposed to determine about the compatibility of adjacent properties and other property in the district. I'm still not completely convinced that this is going to be compatible in the future. But if we need to legitimize the social club that's there now, we won't have an opportunity to deal with complaints, that will all be code enforcement, right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Conditional uses come back up every how many -- MS. MURRAY: Well, really, they remain in existence until they either don't operate anymore or they change. And if they change -- if conditions were to change, they would have to come back before you and the Board of County Commissioners to be reheard, and a new conditional use would be authorized. I mean, that could -- you know, that change could be a change to the site plan. I mean, the site plan is part of the record of what you are approving as part of the resolution. So if there's any significant change to the site plan, it would have to come back before you and the board. But that would be the only way it would -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Joyceanna, we could analogize it to my problem with rock quarries. When people come in and build next to a rock quarry, they take what they find. It seems to me that people on Whippoorwill are taking a sunbathing facility as they find it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. And I guess probably the only real time that a lot of discussion will occur will probably be when everybody tries to use the lake, the clothing optional and the regular clothed people. That's when I think we're going to have some real difficulty here. And then that would be incompatible. But these people are here first so -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: It's like moving next to an airport. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Ideally, two issues. One, I think it's an opportunity, it sounds to me like, to clean the property up. Plus I don't see any objection from adjoining property owners here today, or see anything in my packet, which tells me that they were notified and they don't seem to have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Or the public. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Or the public, right. Page 22 June 15,2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: none. aye. Which I was surprised to see CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other discussion? We'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, say Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Please pass your Finding of Facts down to Mr. Wrage. And the next agenda item is some old business. Discussion of Petition V-2000-12. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is basically a mea culpa on my part. You recall last meeting, Commissioner Bruet asked to find out who the surveyor was on the -- what was represented to me as a surveyor's error. It turned out it wasn't a surveyor's error, it was a customer department agent, building department staff error. Going a little farther into the case, I found out that that person no longer works as a customer service agent in our building department. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Anticipated Mr. Bruet's next question then, huh? CHAIRMAN BUDD: comments? We are adjourned. Okay. Any new business? No public There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:15 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL BUDD, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 23