Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/17/2000 RAugust 17, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August t 7, 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: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Michael Pedone Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Gary Wrage NOT PRESENT: Russell A. Priddy Russell Budd ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I August 17, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I'm going to call to order the August t 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Individuals speakers will be limited to five minutes on any item. If you're speaking for a group, then you can have t0 meetings-- t0 minutes. So we'll start off by roll call, starting on my right. Commissioner Priddy, not here. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Pedone, I'm here. Commissioner Budd is excused. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Commissioner Bruet has got jury duty. Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. I've had a request that Item No. F, CU-2000-t0, be moved to first because of a conflicting meeting with the Airport Authority for the attorney. So I'll entertain a motion for that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. We have the minutes of July 20th. Do I have a motion to accept the minutes? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 2 August 17, 2000 Opposed? None. Motion carries. Any planned Planning Commission absences? None. That's good. Mr. Nino, do we have a BCC report? MR. NINO: No, we don't. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, there's no -- as acting chairman, I don't have a report, and the chairman isn't here, so we don't have his report. So we'll go right into the advertised public hearings, and the first will be CU-2000-10, Signature Communities. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter, would please stand and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, planning services. The subject site is located on the east and west sides of Gulf Shore Drive, as you can see from the map. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use approval to conduct a beach club on the subject site. And there's a little bit of history behind this in that this site was originally approved for a very similar conditional use back in t998. And it's my understanding that the property has been sold to Signature Communities. It was originally owned or maybe still under contract by TwinEagles Development. And that's significant because there is a stipulation in the originally approved resolution, I think you can read that, which limited the membership or-- limited the users of the club to the TwinEagles Golf and Country Club Development for use only by members and guests of the development and country club. Obviously that stipulation is no longer applicable, because the owner is now Signature Communities, and they would like to market this beach club to their property owners. So the request is simply for a new conditional use and to remove Stipulation No. 3, which is shown on the screen. All of the other stipulations that you see in your packet were actually composed during the t 998 hearing by a -- a number of members of the public who I think had some concern over the use of the club. And I believe with their attorney, they helped craft a number of those stipulations that were agreeable to them. And with that, I believe there was very limited public objection, Page 3 August 17, 2000 and the conditional use was approved. I have been in touch with the same attorney, and a number of members of the public, and he has expressed to me that he is in agreement with all the stipulations, as presented to you, with one minor change, and that would be to Stipulation No. t4. And he would just like to put on the last sentence where it says "shall require an amendment to conditional use approval," to change that to say "shall require a new conditional use approval." Because according to our attorney, we cannot amend conditional uses. So any change to the approved site development plan would require them to come in and get a new conditional use. So with that, I'd just like go ahead and say that the project is very similar to what was approved back in t998. I did receive one letter of objection from a nearby property owner who objected to the use in general, but other than that, have not received any public objection. And we are recommending approval. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Grant, we have a question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does the conditional use run with the land or with the owner?. Land? MS. STUDENT: Runs with the land. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question, Mr. Chairman, to staff. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Does the person who objected know that that type of zoning is already existing, we're not really changing -- MS. MURRAY: I believe they do, because I believe it was the same person that objected to the 1998 -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: TwinEagles. MS. MURRAY: -- hearing. And they were aware, I believe, that it was approved for TwinEagles, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other question? Mr. Grant. MR. GRANT: Thank you. I appreciate you taking us first to accommodate my schedule. I don't really have an awful lot to add to what Ms. Murray said. The conditional use petition and the proposed approval of it really is verbatim, the existing one, other than for the linkage Page 4 August 17, 2000 that would require that only members of TwinEagles can make use of the facility. Otherwise, it's essentially identical. Physically, it's the same facility. There's no proposed change to the proposed facility. For the record, Signature Communities does not presently own the property. It does have it under contract. The entity that owns the property is part of the TwinEagles group of related companies. It's in bankruptcy, and Signature is an approved purchaser of that property pursuant to bankruptcy court order. And basically Signature's intention is to operate it just as was originally permitted by the original conditional use permit, but without restriction as to the source of the members. Richard Corace is one of the principals in Signature Communities, is with me today, if anybody has any questions. Other than that, we'd appreciate approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. Did I misread, or is it -- is your -- you're not just substituting Signature Communities for TwinEagles, it's Signature Communities plus unrelated people; is it not? MR. GRANT: Well, I mean, the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I mean, you're saying it's going to be made available to people who own in Signature Communities? MR. GRANT: Actually the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- plus others is the way I read it. MR. GRANT: That's correct. There's nothing that says -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's members of the public now. MR. GRANT: Members of the public, that's correct. There's nothing that says it can only be used by people that are purchasers of product from Signature Communities. That certainly is a business plan to market it that way. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could be a significant difference, I guess. MR. GRANT: Well, I appreciate it's different. But I mean, I think the point -- and I can understand the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're limited by the size of the facility in either case, I guess. MR. GRANT: The facility limits itself. There's a numerical Page 5 August 17, 2000 cap in the petition and in the proposed ordinance that would approve the conditional use permit that limits the number of people that can be on the premises at any one point in time to t t 2 people. So there are constraints. But no, there's no constraint in terms of the source of members, that's true. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does it still qualify as a private club then? MR. GRANT: Well, I don't know what the definition of a private club is, to be real honest. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was going to ask you if there was any significance to that. MR. GRANT: I think private club would be defined by the owner in the sense that the owner is only going to allow people that have chosen to join it on whatever conditions that establishes to be members. But other than that, I don't know how else to define private club. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, we did kind of look at that very same issue that you're bringing up, and this is basically a removal of the stipulation limiting membership. There's no substitution for Signature Communities. There are existing structures on-site that have been developed once that SDP was approved back in t 998 that I referenced earlier. So there are existing structures. They do not plan any change to those structures. I think there's a total of 20 parking spaces on-site, and the site is very small. So it's a very self-limiting facility. Especially since there's no proposed change in any type of building or anything at this point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I guess what I'm driving at is if it's not a private club, does it then become a transient lodging facility of some sort and subject to those sorts of rules? MS. MURRAY: It is defined as a private club by our LDC. That's why they're coming in for conditional use approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, where does it switch between being a private club and a -- MR. NINO: It always was a private club. Ron Nino, for the record. Its first approval was for a private club but with a specific membership. Now it's simply a private club. That hasn't changed. With no membership, no geographical membership Page 6 August 17, 2000 requirements. So it's-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And you know what a definition of a private club is, and Mr. Grant and I don't. MR. NINO: A private club is -- MR. GRANT: I don't know if there's one in the Land Development Code. I'm just -- I don't know what it is. Somebody's going to need to tell me. I think we all generally know what -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Well, wouldn't a private club be one where you had to pay to become a member of it? MR. NINO: Exactly. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And a public would be one where you went in, you paid an admission and got in for the day. MR. GRANT: I mean, if your question is, is Signature intending to operate this on the basis where somebody can show up at the front door and say I'd like to become a member and pay COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: For the weekend. MR. GRANT: -- a dollar to become a member for the next two hours, I think the answer to that is no. But I'm not able to tell you, because they simply have not articulated and defined at this point what the criteria is, exactly what it would be. But it's certainly intended to be in a good faith legitimate manner and not some Mickey Mouse kind of artifice to get around that. That's not the intention. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just want to make sure it's taking its place in the right pigeon hole, so to speak. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. If you're going to limit the number of people on premises to t t 2 at any one time, is there an upper limit to the number of members that actually can pay to belong to this facility, private club? MR. GRANT: Well, that's a very good question, and I'm not -- I'm sure that there will need to be something like that. Otherwise, the facility's either going to get overtaxed, which obviously will be a problem, and neighbors will complain. And Signature's not going to let that happen. Or there will be members that want to make use of the facility that won't be allowed to because it's reaching its limits. So I think the answer is yes, there will have to be limits. I don't know that number is today. I somehow don't think it will be t t 2 members, but it -- you reach a point of ridiculousness if you Page 7 August 17, 2000 don't set numbers, I would agree with you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It would almost have to be somewhat exclusive. MR. GRANT: Right. I mean, I'm sure that someone can develop criteria as to what a reasonable number of members is and the frequency that members of a club like this are likely to make use of it. So as to define what that upper limit is, Signature would like to be able to define that itself and self-operate the facility and live within the constraints of this conditional use permit, which obviously can't be exceeded. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have -- the restriction is simply on probably the t t 2 because of fire codes, versus something in our land code that would define square footage and maximum membership or something like that; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Well, if you look at that stipulation, that really is related to the six events a year which the facility may be open until t0:00 p.m. Otherwise, the facility has to close and people have to leave 30 minutes after sunset. So I guess what they're saying here is when they have their special events, they're going to limit it to t t2 people, and it's going to close at t0:00. And I think the concern is between the hours of sunset and t 0:00 that the facility not turn into a huge party every night. So there's a limit on the number of special events and a limit on the time frame, and then a limit on the number of people as well that can attend, to minimize that impact to the neighbors after sunset. So that is the only limitation on the number of people between those hours. Otherwise, the facility is very self-limiting in that it has limited parking, limited area that people can utilize, and limited square footage of the building. MR. GRANT: I mean, there are limits in terms of the beach area in front of it, that the club can't have lawn chairs spread out beyond its property lines. So I mean, there are a lot of limiting factors in here that will constrain the usage. MS. MURRAY: I think also if you look at the limitation that was originally approved for TwinEagles, I think it's pretty wide open. It talks about limiting -- operate as an amenity to TwinEagles Golf and Country Club for use only by members and guests of the development. Well, TwinEagles is a fairly large facility and I don't know that -- you know, there really isn't a defined limitation there as well. I mean, there certainly isn't a Page 8 August 17, 2000 specific number. I suppose there could be, if somebody was to count all the members of the club. But it certainly wasn't defined in the original stipulations. I think that's because the facility is pretty self-limiting in the way it's -- in its size. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure that there's not a lot of people that have complained to you. We're not going to create a monster here that would appear to be something so friendly and self-limiting and then suddenly we have all sorts of complaints. MS. MURRAY: The questions I've gotten is concern over what is going to change. And what I have explained to the people, how things will change, that the limitation on the members of TwinEagles is now coming off and there is now essentially unlimited membership. Although Signature Communities has indicated to me that they are going to limit their membership to the residents of Signature Communities and their guests. I have not had any complaints by members of the public, other than the one letter just in general opposition to the whole project. MR. NINO: We have members of the public here. Mr. Lydon, who represents the Vanderbilt Beach Association, will be addressing the board. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. MR. GRANT: Any more questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: None. We'll look for comments from the public now. MR. GRANT: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Who's first, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Go ahead, Dick. MR. LYDON: I'm Dick Lydon. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. t998, I stood here at this same podium and we worked out the program. Actually, we're very happy to have a beach club over there, rather than a 27-story high-rise. There are a couple of things that I think should be clarified. First of all, at the time that it was originally set up, the number of people that were going to build at TwinEagles was a restrictive number. We were concerned at that time about traffic. There are in actual fact 33 parking slots at that unit across the street Page 9 August 17, 2000 from each other. We were concerned about traffic and we were assured at that time by Mr. Colosimo that they would be providing t 7 15-passenger vans to bring people down there, so we would not have all that traffic coming in place. The 33 parking slots, if you do your multiplication, is how the t t2 is arrived at. And I take exception to the comment that you made, Ms. Murray. It is not restricted to t t2 for the evening events, it should be restricted to t t2 at all times. I do not read that, and I don't think anybody who reads it can tell me that that is a restriction for the evening activity only. And I -- if that is not clear, let's make it clear. One other question that I have. There are six apartments on the lagoon side, addressing your question of whether this is a rental thing. I don't know what they're planning to do with those, but if in fact TwinEagles had planned to use them for guests of the owners at TwinEagles, it would be interesting to see what their clarification is on that. The only other thing, Mr. Abernathy, in reference to your private club comment, there is a lawsuit at the moment against the county saying that the county does not have the authority to issue a private club license up at La Playa. Where that goes may have some bearing on where this goes. Frankly, we at Vanderbilt Beach are delighted to have this as a private club with limited membership and with the stipulation of t t2, period, not t t2 for evening activity. Any questions, I'll be glad to answer them, since I've been fighting this thing for a few years. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I read this section that you're talking about. It's for sub paren. B. And the first sentence and the last sentence refer to evening events, and the sentence stuck in the middle says, "The maximum number of people which may be on the premises at any one time shall be limited to t t 2 persons." MR. LYDON: That's the way I read it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's day, night, party or otherwise. MR. LYDON: That's exactly the way that I read it and. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the way that it's drafted. Page 10 August 17, 2000 MR. LYDON: That's the understanding that we've had since day one. MR. GRANT: I agree with Mr. Lydon. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would suggest that that sentence be located somewhere else. Perhaps our attorney could give us some advice. Because to me, that's referring basically to B. It's a very specific sentence. But I would think with the items that are included, the first part of core you could probably put that somewhere after "all users must depart the facility within 30 minutes after sunset." It's a very general specific requirement. MS. STUDENT: It should go in the more general part. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's should be much more general. Because it would -- on the surface of it, it appears to be referring to the evening events, because it's in B. And I would agree with the confusion there, and I would prefer that it be clarified. MR. LYDON: Any other questions? Thank you very much. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other speakers? Mr. Nino, any other speakers? MR. NINO: Oh, yeah, Don Pickworth. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Were you sworn in, Mr. Pickworth? MR. PICKWORTH: No, I got here late. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PICKWORTH: I'm Don Pickworth. I'm an attorney, and I represent the condominiums to the north and to the south of this project. Most of the stipulations you see in here are stipulations that we negotiated with the TwinEagles people back a couple of years ago when they were coming in. So are were not -- I'm not here at all to object to that. Because if Signature is willing to live by the same conditions that we were agreeable with two years ago, then we're still agreeable. I guess one thing I just want on the record is a clarification. I didn't get here at the beginning of the meeting and I apologize. The stipulations I saw in the staff report, have they changed at all? MS. MURRAY: Don, I put on the record that you indicated that Stipulation t4, conditional use approval, should be -- not be Page 11 August 17, 2000 amended, but they should actually have to come in and get new conditional use approval. So I did put that on the record. MR. PICKWORTH: Okay, fine. And other than that, they're the same? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MR. PICKWORTH: Then we -- you know, we certainly then, on that basis, we do not object. And I guess when we wordsmithed it before, I did not see the concern that Mr. Lydon raised about the 112. I think, just in our -- and I'm only going -- and this ,s just my say-so, based on what we talked about with TwinEagles, I thought the t t2 did apply at all times. And we never really thought about where we placed that limitation. But other than that, I mean, what this is is what it was two years ago, and we're in agreement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just as a comment to that, it does say the only exceptions authorized are as follows, and then it's A and B. So I would strongly urge -- I don't know if we can put it in our motion or not, but that sentence that we're talking about, t t 2 people, needs to be moved up in the general part of Paragraph 4. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other speakers? Mr. Nino, any other speakers? MR. NINO: No, I'm sorry, no. No other speakers. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Did the Signature Communities want to comment on the t t 2 at -- you know, at any time? MR. GRANT: Well, I said -- I came up here when Mr. Lydon was speaking. I mean, I agree, I read it as an absolute limit, not an evening limit. Anything that anybody wants to do to make that more clear is fine. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, there being no further discussion, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to forward conditional use Petition 2000-10 recommending approval, subject to the staff conditions as amended, with regard to Number t4, and with the understanding that the t 12-person provision will be pulled out and made a separate paragraph. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second it. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by Page 12 August 17, 2000 saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I make a point of clarification? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In the staff recommendation, when this goes forward, you refer to Petition CU-2000-06 instead of CU-2000-10. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It's a typo, Susan, that needs to be corrected. MS. MURRAY: Thank you very much. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, now we'll go to No. A, BD-2000-12. Ben L. Nelson of Nelson Marine Construction, representing Patrick Ciniello. Is Mr. Nelson here? Okay. Anyone wishing to speak, will please stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. Petitioner is requesting a 10-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 30 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 70 Southport Cove in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 125 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock and boat lift. Eight similar extensions, ranging from 29 to 46 feet have been approved on this waterway in the vicinity of this site. No objections to this project have been received, proposed facility meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Nelson, do you wish to speak? MR. NELSON: Not unless there's any questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Are there any questions from the board? There being none, I'll call -- anyone else wish to speak? MR. NINO: No speakers. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: There being none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve Petition BD-2000-12. Page 13 August 17, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Motion carries. Okay, next, No. BD-2000-t6. Mr. -- would anyone wishing to speak on this, please rise and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Gochenaur. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 16-foot after-the-fact extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 36 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 92 Southport Cove in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about t40 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the addition of a boat lift to an existing 23-foot dock, which was never permitted by the previous owner. This extension would legitimize the existing dock and allow addition of the lift. Six similar extensions have been approved on this waterway in the general vicinity of the subject property. We've received no objections, the project meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: How long has the dock been there, if it's an after-the-fact? Does anybody know? MR. GOCHENAUR: There's no record that we can find, you know, permitting record or record of the property card that indicates when it was built. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Why is it coming up now? MR. GOCHENAUR: The current owner wanted to add a lift to the dock. And when we researched it, we found that the original dock that was put in by the previous owner was never permitted, so we didn't want to penalize him other than the double after-the-fact fee, but we wanted to legitimize the whole facility. So we just processed it as a petition from scratch. Page 14 August 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Another question, Mr. Chairman. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You said six similar petitions have been approved recently. When you said that, did you mean that they were all after-the-fact, or six boat docks were approved in -- MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, these were just extensions. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Just extensions, not after-the-fact? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? Petitioner?. MR. NELSON: No comment. I'll just answer questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else wish to speak? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve Petition BD-2000-t6. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Next we have Petition V-2000-t4, Kirk Sanders, owner. And Mr. Badamtchian. Would anyone wishing to speak, please stand and be sworn i11, (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Kirk Sanders is requesting a 2.3-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 10-foot rear yard setback established for accessory structures, such as storage building, to 7.7 feet. The property is located at t t 30 Sperling Avenue. The petitioner purchased this house last year. And the code enforcement received a phone call that a storage unit was converted into a rental unit. And what the code enforcement Page 15 August 17, 2000 investigator discovered was that not only it was converted into a residential rental unit, but the building had also setback problems. As you can see, the setback is 7.7 on one side and 7.8 in the other. And there's also another shed, which is something like two feet from the property line. The applicant has agreed to remove that smaller shed and convert the unit back into a storage building. However, a variance is needed. This building was built in the mid Sixties, and we couldn't find any building permit for it. However, we don't know if a permit was ever issued for it or not. We have to assume that it was and we just couldn't find it, since we didn't have a good recordkeeping in the mid Sixties. Staff recommends approval of this variance. In the past we had several of these things. It's real hard to prove that permit was issued in the Sixties. In the Seventies or Eighties we have a good records, but from the Fifties and Sixties, we don't have much. And when you cannot prove it either way, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Did you say that the complaint came because the storage unit was changed to a living after the property was purchased for income purposes, or was this before? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We don't know when it was converted into a residential unit. We received a phone call after it was purchased by Mr. Sanders. And maybe Mr. Sanders can say when it was changed into a residential dwelling. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would certainly like to know a little more information about that aspect. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? There being -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm just curious as to why this shed that's two feet from the property line, why it hasn't already been removed. Is it a bargaining chip in this process? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, there's no bargaining chip. That must be removed. There's no doubt about it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it hasn't -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is a code case on it, and he has agreed to remove it, but he was waiting for the result of this Page 16 August 17, 2000 variance to see what happens, so he will remove that shed. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. Could we have the petitioner?. MR. NINO: Is the petitioner present? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Would you like to speak? MR. SANDERS: Not really, unless I have to. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you like to come up to the microphone? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yeah, I think we have some questions for you. Was he sworn in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SANDERS: I'm Kirk Sanders. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: My first question is, when you purchased the property, was the shed in question already a living facility? MR. SANDERS: It was listed as a playhouse, and it was already -- it was already pretty much finished off the way it is. And it wasn't really called a guest house, but I pretty much assumed it was by the way it was listed through the listing broker. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, you're saying it was a playhouse and there's probably water and a kitchen or something in there? What's in the structure? MR. NELSON: There's a bath and a kitchenette. And they said they used it mostly like a Ping-Pong type playhouse situation. And maybe if they got a pool table or something like that, weightlifting benches they had in there and stuff like that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And did the complaint come because you rented this? MR. NELSON: Yes, ma'am. As far as I know, the reason come up is because there was somebody living in the facility at the time. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you own other income properties in Collier County? MR. NELSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are you aware the rules of what you can and can't rent? MR. NELSON: Now I am, ma'am. At the time when I purchased it, it was -- I checked it out through the county, and it Page 17 August 17, 2000 was listed for a duplex, a two single-family home on that property. And then come to find out, the property square footage wasn't large enough to handle two single-family facilities. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You checked with whom in the county? MR. NELSON: I had the title company take care of it. And I also personally went down to the -- I'd have to pull out my records and find exactly who I talked to. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would have thought today presenting to us to get an approval of something, you might have brought that information with you. MR. NELSON: No, ma'am, I didn't. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because people can always say I talked to the county, but who did you talk to at the county, what type of information did you really seek out to determine whether you were buying something that was appropriate or not or that once you purchased it you knew that you could not rent? That's a big question in my mind. MR. NELSON: Right. At the time when I checked it out, it was zoned -- I went to the planning, when you walk into the Horseshoe, the planning podium there, and they had mentioned that it was zoned for a duplex or two single-family homes. But later on when I got cited with a red tag, then I found out that the square footage, there's something to do with square footage on that property. You have to have a certain amount of square footage, and it doesn't allow for two living facilities on the property. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Tom or Ron, can you -- MR. NINO: I think what he's saying is that the property -- his lot is zoned RMF-6, which is a multi-family zoning district. However, the dimensional and area requirements of the lot are not large enough for two units. And -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So even if we didn't have the lot line problem, he still couldn't have two residences. He can have a storage building there. MR. NINO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So all we're addressing is the fact the storage -- not the storage building but the one-story residence is not where it's supposed to be. MR. NINO: All you're addressing is the need for a variance so Page 18 August 17, 2000 that any nonconformities can be removed from the property. And the other issue will remain probably a code enforcement issue over the years. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So when the gentleman came to the county, he probably didn't have his survey with him. And as planning staff just said, that they looked at the record and they said it's zoned for multi-family, therefore, you're allowed. But if they don't have the actual dimension, they couldn't have told him that's not big enough. MR. NINO: No, we -- at no time did the county ever allow the use of that building as a residential use. Somebody just went ahead and did it. But that's not really the issue here -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Right. MR. NINO: -- because it's a code enforcement issue. It's going to be rectified. But in the process, they want the cloud removed. Otherwise, the building has to be removed. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And Chahram mentioned that that's happened quite a few times in that general area. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's an area that was developed in the Sixties. And at that time, we did not ask for a spot survey. We issued the permit, told the people what the setbacks were. We never asked for a spot survey. So we have several buildings which are on wrong setbacks in the area, yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MR. NELSON: Can I make one more comment? Actually, down in the building down below, I went to the records and I also pulled up the schematic on it, on the property at the time, and it does show a house. And I was getting taxed for two -- a house and a guest house at that time. And that's what made me feel it was adequate to make it a guest house, because it was being taxed for that reason. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have another question. The staff description here says that you agree to remove all living quarters from the structure. In your opinion, what are you going to remove that removes living quarters? What do you have to remove from this structure to not allow it to be lived in? MR. NELSON: Actually, the cooking facility, there's no stove in there at all right now, so it can't be cooked in and things like that. As far as the bath and the shower, I'm under the impression Page 19 August 17, 2000 I can keep that, just for the reason of I shower off after weightlifting and things like that, if I choose it to be a weightlifting room or storage shed. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: A 10-foot setback applies for a storage building. And I've never seen a storage building with showers and a refrigerator. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I haven't either. That's my question. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If he wants to keep this building and be legal, he must remove everything and keep a shell and use it for storage. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And then how does this get enforced? Code enforcement goes back out and looks at it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Code enforcement will enforce that part. I thought we had an agreement that everything was to be removed, but I guess we don't. MR. NINO: We have two speakers. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other question for the petitioner?. If none, we'll open up to the public. Who do we have, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Johnson and Kramer. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Would you identify yourself, please. MS. JOHNSON: I'm Julie Johnson. I live next to the property that's in question. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Can you speak into the microphone. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yes, some of us are a little hard of hearing. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes, speak up, please. MS. JOHNSON: My name is Julie Johnson, and I live right next to the property that's in question. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: I have no objection for it being a shed at all, a storage shed, but I do object for it to be for a living quarters, because it is so close to the property line. But for a storage shed, it's fine. Page 20 August 17, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: speak? MR. NINO: Patricia Kramer. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: please. Okay. Anyone else wish to Would you identify yourself, MS. KRAMER: Patricia Kramer. And I live at 1150 Sperling, across the street from this place. And I have no objection to it being a storage unit. But the living quarters, when the place was put for sale, it was advertised as a guest house. And I had talked to the realtor that was selling, and I told him it was not a guest house, it was a storage unit. And so far as I know, that was then built into a place for living quarters. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you recall the realtor?. MS. KRAMER: Not now, I don't know. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How long have you lived in this neighborhood? MS. KRAMER: Going on six years. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So that it's possible that since they offered it as a guest house, it actually had living quarters, somebody was living in it maybe before this gentleman rented? Are you aware of whether they rented it before he bought? MS. KRAMER: No, she never rented it before that. But then she did list it as a guest house. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Anyone else wish to speak? There being none, we'll close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, I'll make a motion that we forward to the Collier County Planning -- that the Collier County Planning Commission forward this petition to the BZA as a recommendation for conditional approval as presented by staff. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I've got a comment. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yes, I have a discussion. Does your motion include the staff's recommendations to the T; in other words, remove all living quarters out of that? Because Page 21 August 17, 2000 apparently staff had an agreement with the gentleman and then they thought they did and now they don't. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I thought that was still code enforcement. If it's not a residence, code enforcement is the one that's going to make them remove that stuff, right? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Well, we'll have it here on the record that -- as far as -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, my motion doesn't include that. If Chahram wants to recommend that as -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If you want, I can add a stipulation that all living quarters must be removed and restored -- the building must be restored back into a shed or a storage building or something like that -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Because right now it's not -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- as part of this approval. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- it's not part of the stipulations. Right now it's in the staff report -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: No, my recommendation, as per staff stipulation. If that's staff stipulations, I'll go along with it. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll approve it with that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the staff's stipulation? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What are we approving? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The only stipulation I have in the resolution right now is that if they remove the building, the variance goes away. They cannot rebuild it. However, I think it's wiser to add another stipulation saying that all living quarters must be removed and the shed must be restored back into its original use as a storage building. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Don't we usually define -- MS. STUDENT: I don't think you'd say living quarters. I think you'd say amenities that -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Living amenities. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, living amenities or amenities that make it living quarters or something like that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought that normally involved a kitchen rather than a commode or a shower. I think we're straining at gnats here. If the guy wants to go out there and lift weights and store extra beer and soft drinks, let him. What the heck? Page 22 August 17, 2000 MR. NINO: I -- Ron Nino, for the record. I don't believe there's any prohibition on having a refrigerator in an accessory building, or for that matter electricity in an accessory building. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: My motion still stands -- MR. NINO: I think you see it all over the place. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: -- to staff stipulations. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I think that that would be a code enforcement -- MR. NINO: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: -- problem. MR. NINO: Definitely code enforcement. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And I think our venue here is strictly whether or not to grant the variance on the setback. And that I'm sure code enforcement will handle it well. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: With that in mind, I'll go ahead and approve the motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay. So we've got 3-2. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And my basis is I don't believe the staff stipulation ought to be included. I would just grant the variance, period. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That was the motion, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He said my motion stands and my motion is with the staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But it's not part of the stipulation. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: It's just the variance, isn't it? Wait, let's do this again. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is an existing stipulation saying that if this building is removed, they tear it down, they cannot Page 23 August 17, 2000 rebuild with this setback. They have to build it according to the setback at the time of construction. That is the staff stipulation. However, we were discussing another stipulation, which we decided not to have it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Which is about the living -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Which is about the living. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Indicia of living? Okay, well, then I'm on the other side. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Let's call for the vote again. All those in favor of the motion, which is with the one staff stipulation about tearing down the building and not being able to be rebuilt, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. I have a point of clarification to the attorney. We had a vote that was 3-2. How can we re-vote again? Are we supposed to make a different motion? This is a parliamentary procedure. MS. STUDENT: I've been sitting here thinking about this, because this doesn't happen very much, if at all. And I think what you probably need to do to clear the record is to withdraw -- vote to withdraw the first action. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think that's probably -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I was here sitting thinking about -- I wasn't -- because this hasn't happened, so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, so moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I'll entertain a motion to withdraw the vote -- the original vote on this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved, since I caused the problem. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Wait a minute, who gave the motion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: He did. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: The motion -- the original motion was made by Gary Wrage. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Withdraw your motion and withdraw the second. I think we're in better parliamentary Page 24 August 17, 2000 procedure there. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I think it's better that we do that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, we voted on that motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Wrage, do you withdraw your motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: If that's the expedient way to do it, I will. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: And the person who seconded, does he withdraw his second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think I seconded it. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, we have a motion withdrawn and the second of the motion has been withdrawn. Now, can we have a vote? All in favor of that withdrawn motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Now we will entertain a new motion. Mr. Wrage, would you like to make a new motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I make a motion that we forward to the BZA with a recommendation of conditional approval Petition V-2000-t 4. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Sure, I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: We have a second. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, now-- MS. STUDENT: I just want to make a point for the record that it's good to clean up the record that way, but it doesn't Page 25 August 17, 2000 affect the outcome, because either way it would have been approved. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, motion carried. Next would be PUD-2000-t0, Karen Bishop representing Royal Palm Builders. Okay, Mr. Bellows -- would anyone wishing to speak, please stand and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, my name's Ray Bellows, current planning staff. Petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject 48-acre site from agriculture to planned unit development. As you can see on the location map, it's located on the east side of Airport Pulling Road, south of the Carillon Shopping Center and north of the Timberwood multi-family development. Petitioner is proposing a residential development consisting of 293 dwelling units at a density of six units per acre. As you can see, the surrounding densities of Kensington is at t.6 units per acre. Timberwood to the south abutting is at six units per acre. The commercial Carillon has a residential tract at t6 units per acre. Across the street at the Naples Bath and Tennis, it's 3.36 units per acre. And the World Tennis Center is at 4.5 units per acre. The PUD master plan indicates that the primary access will be off of Airport Pulling Road, with a secondary access through an access easement to Pine Ridge Road, giving the project access to two arterial roads. The residential tracts are designed around a central lake, with a height limit of two stories for all residential structures. There's a recreational tract up front that will allow for clubhouse, swimming pool and tennis courts. The project also has type B buffers around the north and south and east sides. On the west side is a type D buffer. As you can see on the Future Land Use Map, the subject site is located within a density band, meaning base density is four units per acre, plus they're eligible to receive three additional units per acre for a total of seven units per acre for being within the density band. The site also has access to a road serving as a traffic congestion boundary, which is Airport Pulling Road. The dotted line means you subtract one dwelling unit per acre. But since Page 26 August 17, 2000 they also have access to two arterial roads, they gain that back. So they still have an eligible density of seven units per acre. They're requesting six, so they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The traffic circulation review indicates the project is consistent with the traffic circulation element. It will not impact any roadway operating below adopted level or service greater than that five percent. So it is consistent with that. The plan improvements of Pine Ridge Road and the extension of Livingston Road to the east, Airport Pulling Road is projected to be operating at an acceptable levels of service, along with Pine Ridge Road at that time. Any questions on the traffic? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a question, Ray. The access road going to the north. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Is that their private road, or is Carillon going to have access out of their residential area? MR. BELLOWS: I have it here. Purchase -- a declaration of grant of easement from the owner of Carillon to allow this developer to have access on it. The petitioner will be having access from that access road to Carillon. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Actually, Carillon owns that. They're -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: -- going to -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, excuse me. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: -- grant that easement to put the road on. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions on traffic? MR. BELLOWS: As you can see on the air photo, the subject site has been cleared for agricultural purposes, so therefore no Environmental Impact Statement was required. It was not required to go through the EAC. The surrounding developments are all pretty much developed and in place. From a compatibility standpoint, the two-story structures will be consistent and compatible with adjacent residential uses, along with the type B buffer that's Page 27 August 17, 2000 bordering those residential units. Staff has received one letter in opposition concerning the density from a resident in the Timberwood development. I believe they're here to speak on this issue also. Staff is recommending that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval at six units per acre. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes, Mr. Abernathy. MR. NINO: Just for the record, this Planning Commission recommended approval of a prior project. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, this was submitted earlier in the year. MR. NINO: What was the name of that? MR. BELLOWS: Banyon Woods. MR. NINO: Banyon Woods, thank you. MR. BELLOWS: It was submitted previously as Banyon Woods. It was approved by the Planning Commission, went to the Board of County Commissioners, and was withdrawn at that time because of concerns raised -- the issue of the access easement and ownership and that issue. So the applicant withdrew it at that time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had a question, Ray. In Section 3, residential development regulations on Page t3, there's a discussion of buffering, landscaping, and it indicates that the landscape buffer on the east side will be put in concurrent with the use of that roadway for construction purposes? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When is the buffering to the south and the north and the west, when is that put in? Upon completion of construction? MR. BELLOWS: Of the -- let me get the master plan so I can fully -- MR. NINO: Whenever a site plan is approved that is contiguous to the road, then the buffer is put in contiguous -- concurrent with each site development plan as it's approved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So before you start construction, you put in the buffer; is that right? MR. NINO: Well, no, before you get at C of O for a particular project. Page 28 August 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The end of construction then. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. So you're not damaging the landscaping with construction activity. Yeah, if you're referring to this landscape buffer, yeah, that would be installed after the site development plan's approved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: South, north and west? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and the utilities' infrastructure is put in. MR. NINO: Ray, would you point out the condition that says the timing of the road out to Airport -- Pine Ridge Road? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The PUD document includes the stipulation that the applicant cannot build and have CO'd more than 50 residential dwelling units until that road to Pine Ridge Road to the north is completely installed with landscaping. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Paved. MR. BELLOWS: Any other questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any--will the petitioner-- MS. BISHOP: Good morning, Karen Bishop, agent for the owner. I'd like to clear up this ownership on that roadway, because I don't believe that Ray stated it exactly correct. Carillon -- there are separate owners for that piece to the north. The lady who owns the piece that we bought also has a 60-foot easement. That's all she owns. She did in fact give Carillon's multi-family parcel access over the same easement. But she owns it separately from them. And it is in this agreement that they get to share it. And as far as the -- the buffers will go in as we construct, as Ray would say, because of the -- you don't want to damage any of your facilities, and obviously you've got to have water and electric and all these other things that you need to have to have your irrigation running. So that will happen as an ongoing thing. GOMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You have to put in a construction fence, I guess. MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. GOMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Gould you put in a snow fence or sand fence along there on the south to try to diminish the dust that might be created? MS. BISHOP: We'll be doing -- we won't be allowed to -- there's a canal along Airport Road which is on that site, so we will be not allowed to have dirt go into that canal. So I'm Page 29 August 17, 2000 imagining we'll have to have some sort of silt fence up there along that edge so that we do not silt the canal. The same with our neighbors and stuff, we will not be allowed to do those kinds of things. As a normal construction process, usually those things are put in. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The subdivision to the south there is going to be impacted by the construction to some degree. MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, they will be. The vegetation buffer between us and them is all exotics. So the first thing that we have to do is remove that vegetation buffer. Which already they're in violation of the code, because that should have been removed a long time ago. So we'll be removing that vegetation, saving what we can. There's hardly anything to save, but saving what we can and then going back in and enhancing it, as per the PUD later. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask you one other question. MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On Page t2 and t3 of this section of residential development regulations -- MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- there's a table on Page t2. In most cases, it looks like side yards setbacks are zero or six or six of one story. The very last entry it's zero or five. Is that a scrivener's error?. Should that be six? Do you see what I'm talking about, minimum distance between principal structures, zero or five is inconsistent and then six -- MS. BISHOP: Oh, that looks like a typo, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then on the next page, Note 3, you have zero feet or a minimum of five feet (6). So you really mean that to be six and six, do you not? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. BISHOP: We'll need to fix that. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll hire you as an editor. MS. BISHOP: The grammar police. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions for Ms. Bishop? Page 30 August 17, 2000 Being none, we'll listen to whoever would like to speak from the public. MR. NINO: Yes, Catherine Todd. MS. TODD: Good morning. My name is Catherine Todd. I am a resident of Timberwood of Naples, and I'm here this morning representing the owners' association. And as you have been previously advised, Timberwood is the community immediately to the south of the proposed Meadowbrook site. First of all, I would like to say that I am not here to represent our association as being in opposition to or as objecting to this proposal. That is not the case. We realize that it is inevitable that that site is going to be developed. That has only been a matter of time. The other factor would be that based upon the information we have received to date, it sounds to us that when completed, Meadowbrook will be another very attractive gated community. We're here today because we have three very specific concerns about how we feel this development is going to impact on us. First of all, let me just put Timberwood in a frame for you. I don't -- I don't mean to characterize us as the poor cousins, but there is a bit of truth in that. It's an older community, 13 years old. It is small in terms of units and in terms of acreage. We are not a gated community. We do not have a light at our entrance on Airport Road. We do not have significant lavish landscaping and deep buffers on our perimeters. We're a very diverse community. The vast majority of our residents work, they do not own second homes, and we have lots and lots and lots of children. Our three concerns: Landscaping, and what is going to happen and over what period of time will it persist on our common boundary line with the Meadowbrook development. As Karen very accurately said, that line is approximately a quarter of a mile long, and it consists of a very dense hedge. Quite high, about 20 to 30 feet deep. It is primarily exotics. And we're under no illusions that they're not going to come out. When they do, we have been led to believe that our existence is going to change substantially for a substantial period of time. We have five buildings, two tennis courts, a basketball court and our children's playground area almost right smack on top of Page 31 August 17, 2000 that borderline. Our setback is approximately 26 feet from the property line. So we have a concern about what it's going to look like when all that comes down, and how long we are going to be presented with the situation of looking out daily at an ongoing construction site. My understanding, from talking with the developers, is that when all of their licensing and permitting has gone through, they will come in, clear all the vegetation. The second step will be to blast the lakes. And they have to raise the property approximately three and a half feet. So there is massive amounts of dirt that is going to be redistributed over that 48.87 acres. I'm also under the understanding that one of the last things to go up will be the landscaping in back of the buildings. That as the unit -- as the unit lots are sold and developed, then the landscaping will be put in place. The -- I have been told by the developer that he foresees an estimated build-out period of up to three to three and a half years. So the situation along our common property line could reasonably go two to two and a half years. That concerns us. There are also approximately, within that dense hedge area -- we've done a walking calculation. There appeared to be approximately 40 mature established pine trees. We're concerned about what's going to happen to them. We've been told some may stay, some may go. No guarantees. The -- I picked up a PUD packet from Mr. Bellows' office on Monday. The language on Page t3 detailing what the buffer will look like once in place has modified a number of our concerns. I think our principal landscaping concern now is how long is it going to take to get that to happen. Our second concern has to do with density and traffic congestion. We have no lighted airport, and we rely almost entirely upon the Airport light that is immediately outside Naples Bath and Tennis. That's now going to have four-way traffic. Before it has always had three. I think we are not unrealistically concerned about the impact of the Meadowbrook traffic upon the congestion at that light. If there is a significant backup at that light, then entrance and exit to our community just stops. There's nowhere for us to go, because we cannot access either onto or off of Airport Pulling. Page 32 August 17, 2000 Now, there has been some question, and I'm not clear from the discussion this morning, my understanding from previous information was that the access to Carillon was going to be pedestrian access. That at this point in the plan, there's no automotive. And I expressed for our community concern that that means that people at Meadowbrook who want to go down to Carillon have to get on Airport Pulling or Pine Ridge. It would -- we think it would be just a lovely thing if somehow automotive access to Carillon could be negotiated. The other area for us is we have a little sidewalk area, and it runs along the east side of Airport Pulling, from our entrance way to the Naples Bath and Tennis intersection. Nobody has been able to give me any information about when development on Meadowbrook starts, what's going to happen to that sidewalk. And who -- and what arrangements are made for-- or what arrangements will be made from marrying our little strip of sidewalk to the sidewalk which goes in for Meadowbrook. We rely on that sidewalk. We go out of our community, we turn right, we go up to the intersection outside Naples Bath and Tennis. And that is the only way that pedestrians or cyclists can access the expansive sidewalk which runs along the west side of Airport. So those are our three concerns. And I think, you know, my -- the intent to be here this morning is not to object or oppose or say we don't want this to happen, it's to get our concerns in the process as early as possible and see if anything can be done to dissuade them. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, we'll let Ms. Bishop answer some of your concerns. MS. BISHOP: Let's start with the access to Carillon. We have exhaustively tried to negotiate with Carillon to allow us to have pedestrian access. I'm a big fan of interconnecting to commercials because I like everyone else don't like to go out on roads if I could just -- when I'm next door to a commercial facility. Unfortunately, there's no mechanism that will allow us to do that, short of us paying them a substantial amount of money to come across, and that number hasn't even come up yet. We are at the very least going to have a pedestrian access. We want to have a car access. If there's a possibility that we can get that from the owner, we in fact will build that. We don't want Page 33 August 17, 2000 our people going out on the road if we can get them connected. Theoretically, when the multi-family goes in for Carillon, we may have access through there to cut through to get to the shopping center, and that light intersection, because we would love to have access to that second light. I mean, everybody would. Because our access right now comes out between the Kensington light and the Carillon light, which means it does nothing for traffic in any sense at all. We'll have no left-hand turn-out, it's just right out only, right in only. So we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place there. If we can, we will. And we are actively pursuing that connection. The landscaping. Timberwood doesn't have a landscape buffer. The trees that exist there now and the vegetation that exists there now, anything that we can save, we will. I don't know if too many people understand how pine trees are, but running bulldozers anywhere near them or piling fill on them has a tendency to lessen their longevity big time. So it is our intent to the save those trees along that buffer. We believe it helps with the character of the community to have the maturity of these trees. You can't buy trees that big, so we'd prefer to save those. Realistically, when it comes to buffers, I lived at Pebblebrook, and I'm next to Laurel Lakes and Indigo and all these and of course the same situation occurs. They have to remove the vegetation, they go back in. Our water management berm is on the exterior. The landscaping -- the irrigation for the landscaping is attached to each lot. So if you build it before the construction of the lots go into place, you will destroy your landscaping, you will destroy your irrigation, and you'll be constantly replacing it and spending money after money. Instead of using that money to enhance, you will be replacing it. So that's a typical construction practice in general, is that that landscaping be put in. Now, it is the intent of the owner to start with that side of the project and work their way to the north. Their commerc -- or their recreational facility is right at the entry on both sides. Their models will be directly on that south line. So they will build like the first four as models, and then the intent would be to sell those lots and then work their way from south to north to the multi-family area. So that would in all reality put the buffering on Page 34 August 17, 2000 a faster track from for that side than it would for the other sides. Obviously we're building a project that's going to be not affordable housing, and so it is something that we're concerned about for our sales is how does this look out -- how do we look from the inside to the outside. So I can assure you that when this is all said and done, that it's going to be a lovely project. For ourselves, the view. And of course I don't want to consider Timberwood the poor cousins, because, you know, that's not fair. But the people that live in these homes are going to want to have sufficient buffering from the two-story buildings behind them. We will be required through marketing and just through to be able to sell our product to have to do that. The sidewalk issue. You know, sidewalks are a pet peeve of mine. I like pedestrian access. And so what our owner has agreed to do is we're going to connect our sidewalk inside the canal across our property to the Carillon. Now, when we build our turn lane into our project, that will require a reconfiguration of that sidewalk that they use that comes up Airport Road. We will be made to connect those two and made to make this marry as nicely as we can do that. What I'd like to see ultimately is that Collier County embark on a sidewalk program along the canal on the east side of the canal, so that all of those sidewalks are away from Airport Road and not along Airport Road. Right now Carillon has done that, will do that, and hopefully the sidewalk program will continue doing those all along the way. But at this point, their sidewalk sits along Airport Road. Now, I'm not sure how it's going to work yet, because we have to go through the permitting process. We have not done any of those things yet. We have to go through Ed Kant's department, the right-of-way department to make this work. But we will not be allowed to not put that sidewalk back. We will not be allowed to eliminate that sidewalk. We will have to, like everyone else, make it work. And that is what we will do. And also, this gives the people from Bath and Tennis the ability to come across and then use our sidewalk to get to Carillon. So now you'll have a sidewalk on both sides, but our sidewalk won't be along the traffic. Our sidewalk will be on the other side of the canal. So that will be a more pleasant -- along with the landscaping there, it's going to look more like a linear Page 35 August 17, 2000 park than it is that nasty sidewalk that exists now along that road. Any other questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I've got a quick question. You said there's no vegetation on Timberwood side at all? They have no buffering, nothing over there? MS. BISHOP: That's what they -- I've been back there. Apparently there's no buffering on theirs at all. All the vegetation, the exotic vegetation, exists on our property. And right now I can tell you that the man is definitely not in compliance, and that vegetation should be removed already. But there is no buffer on their property at all that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And so these 30 or 40 mature pine trees, if you clear around them and you have a good clearing contractor-- MS. BISHOP: We can save them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- you can save them. But did you have to raise the elevation of the property to get -- MS. BISHOP: Right, but what we can do, you can well around these trees. I mean, the key to those, first of all, you've got to hand clear around them because you can't take equipment around pine trees. They're just way too picky. And then the second thing is we would well around them. So we can save them. That is our intent. Like I said, we can't buy these trees. I mean, it's just not possible to buy a pine tree that mature. So we do want to save them and keep them in place. And the same with the Kensington site, we'll be enhancing to the level of landscaping they have, using the same materials, the same type, so it's a common theme across that edge. And then we will go back and enhance in between us and Timberwood to get back that vegetation buffer that we're losing by removing the exotics that exist there today. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: When you say welling the pine trees, are there a group of them that can be welled, or it's going to be-- MS. BISHOP: We're going to have to do individually. I mean, they're kind of scattered along the edge. And I know that that sounds like a pain in the butt, because it is, but the reality is that Page 36 August 17, 2000 to save these trees, you have to do it that way. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Go look at the Wal-Mart north site MS. BISHOP: Oh, don't even go there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- and that's $150,000 we spent just in -- MS. BISHOP: But that's not -- their elevation difference is about -- I call those kid pits, because I figured you could throw your kids in there before you go to Wal-Mart and fish them out when you come out. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Exactly. MS. BISHOP: Those are, what, four feet deep? But welling -- right, these welling of these in the back of your yards, remember your finished floor elevation, you can slope down from the back of the building back to your back property line, and usually you have a swell along that back edge. So it's a lot easier to well around those. We won't have to put three-foot back there as we do for the pads and the road area. So we'll be able to work that out with just the grading of the backyards. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And the drainage is such that we're not going to have -- MS. BISHOP: No, we'll put-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- mini swimming pools around each pine tree. MS. BISHOP: No, what we'll have to end up doing is probably using yard drains to keep those. But pine trees like their feet wet. I mean, they are indicator species in wetland areas too, so they don't mind water around their -- as a matter of fact, there's a drainage canal around those irrigation canals back there, too. So my guess is the little bit of water that would be there, they would like it instead of not liking it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's encouraging. It sounds like you've really made an effort to at least analyze what's there for vegetation, what you can save. I'm encouraged. MS. BISHOP: This client specifically has been involved in several projects that I've been involved in where we have relocated vegetation, hired 90-inch tree spades to come and move them to save oak trees and to save as much endangered vegetation out of Pelican Bay. We have saved rosemary and oaks and relocated stuff, all in that thought that you can't replace this Page 37 August 17, 2000 stuff. Let's try to save it and use it. It doesn't really-- it just takes a little more thought. It's not that it takes any more cost, it's just a little more thought before you do something. And that's the kind of job that this client does. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. BISHOP: Anything else? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I recall the Banyon, when Banyon Woods was approved, that there was a requirement that there be a connection between Banyon Woods and Carillon Shopping Center. And I'm surprised that I failed to note that it wasn't in here. MS. BISHOP: It still is. The sidewalk connection is in. MR. NINO: Yeah, but I think we need more than the sidewalk connection, Karen. There's a road right there. I mean, here's the road going into Carillon. Right here, goes around the back of that building, almost contiguous to your property line. I don't know for the likes of me why we can't have -- MS. BISHOP: Ron, we are definitely trying, but the gentleman won't let me cross his property without paying him big bucks. I mean, if-- MR. NINO: I think we'd be remiss not to require -- not to have the master plan show the ability to do that. MS. BISHOP: I'll be glad to do that. MR. NINO: I mean, you can't pull it off and -- MS. BISHOP: Right, I'd be glad to show a connection there on the master plan. Not a problem. And my client is anxious to see this happen, too. I mean, we're very cognizant about that intersection. Every one of us know. And most of us try to avoid that intersection like the plague anyway. So if they can get to that shopping center through Carillon, that's what we want to do. But unfortunately, the access management plan and apparently the zoning for Carillon doesn't have enough teeth in it, so to speak, to where they are conducent (sic} of giving this to me. Instead they're trying to hold me up for it. Which I've seen happen in other projects, too. So, you know, I'd like to believe that this guy is going to come around and we are going to pursue that. And that is our intention. But at the least we're going to make sure that there's a pedestrian access. Page 38 August 17, 2000 (Commissioner Bruet enters the boardroom.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Let the record show that Mr. Bruet is finished with jury duty today. MR. NINO: Let me emphasize again, I think -- we recommend that when this committee -- commission acts on this petition, that it include a provision for an auto -- a vehicular interconnection with Carillon. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I don't see any objection from the petitioner on that. MS. BISHOP: Uh-uh. No objection. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? Anyone else registered to speak, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: I don't have any other speakers. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: That being the case, I'll close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we recommend for approval Petition PUD-00-t0, and to include the vehicular access, I guess if at all possible to Carillon Plaza. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have amo -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a second. Any discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, next it's CU-2000-08, the First Haitian Alliance Church. Would anyone wishing to speak, please stand and be sworn in, (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Thomas Brown of Vega, Brown, Stanley and Burke, representing First Haitian Alliance Church, Inc., is requesting a conditional use for a property located on the west side of County Page 39 August 17, 2000 Barn Road and the zoned E estates. The site consists of 2.3 acres. This is for a small church, and that basically they are showing a 5,000 square feet church. And they are hoping to grow, and in the future have a classroom in the back. The traffic they will generate will be, the best case scenario, or worst case scenario, t 8t trips on the weekend -- on the Sunday, and 48 trips on the weekday. Staff reviewed this and recommend approval of this petition, subject to all the staff stipulations. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff has not received any letters of objection, only phone calls. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions of staff? There being none, Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: My name is Thomas Brown. I represent the petitioner. Recognizing the facts that a church always impacts on residential, I'd like to point out that County Barn Road is especially suitable for locating churches. It's on County Barn Road. It's main north-south feeder traffic between Rattlesnake Hammock and Davis Boulevard. It takes a lot of commercial and local traffic, which makes it basically unsuitable for future development of residential and makes it very suitable for location of churches. And this is shown by the fact that there's approximately five churches located within less than a mile of this particular site. Also, the county has their transportation department there, which increases the use of the road. It's presently a very narrow two-lane highway. And if you've ever been on it, you're really -- at times you're pretty nervous driving on it. I assume it will be shortly -- will be shortly a four-lane highway. I don't know where it works into the county plan. But it's certainly something that's necessary. And when that's done, of course it becomes less and less desirable for residential and more and more desirable for, you know, a variety of other certainly multi-family, when multi-family, I think, is a little more suitable for churches, a little less -- more compatible. I don't think there's an area in Collier County or in the Naples Page 40 August 17, 2000 area that is more suitable for the location of churches than County Barn Road. This is, as you said, a rather small denomination, very -- but of course they hope to grow. The -- we accept the recommendations or the conditions of the planning department. If you have any questions for the parishioners, the pastor is here, he could ask (sic} some questions. I think one of the parishioners is slated to speak. And if there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them or for him to answer them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Have you had any contact with the one resident who's just the one side or the other?. Have you all had any assuage their concerns? MR. BROWN: There is a residential house immediately south. I have never had any contact with them. They've never called me. I've not attempted to contact them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you know whether any member of the congregation -- MR. BROWN: I think -- well, that would be a question they'd have to answer. I think Homere, who is here who's in real estate, could address that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. BROWN: Any other questions? I think the only other speaker is Mr. -- MR. NINO: Ciro Migliore. No? MR. BROWN: They asked a question whether you've had any contact with the residential owner south of the property. Did they ever talk to you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: If you could identify yourself, please. MR. HYPPOLITE: My name is Homere Hyppolite. I am a realtor with Naples Realty Services. And also, I'm a church member of First Haitian Alliance Church. And we are here today to request the approval for that site that Mr. Brown just mentioned to you on County Barn Road, to build a small church, because we're a small group right now. We hope to grow. But yes, there is a house south of this site. And then we haven't done any contact with the owner of the house; however, we intended to do so, but we didn't know if that was -- would be appropriate or not, so we didn't do it. We didn't do it yet. But anyway, we think that this site is the best suitable site Page 41 August 17, 2000 to build a church, because we've been looking around. And I think God led to us this site, because we think it's the best site for us. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling of your name, please? MR. HYPPOLITE: My name is H-O-M-E-R-E. That's my first name. And my last name is H-Y-P-P-O-L-I-T-E. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, staff notified the neighbors, and we did not receive any response from that person. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, any questions from the board? MR. NINO: I have a speaker. Oh, who is this? This is the -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Nino, do you or don't you have a speaker?. MR. NINO: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is you is or is you ain't. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, if Gary would allow me, I'll make a motion. He's been the one here that's been making them all. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: hearing, first. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Petition CU-2000-08. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any further discussion? First I have to close the public I'll make a motion to approve Second. I have a motion and a second. There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. MR. BROWN: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Last but not least, SB-2000-02. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian, from planning services staff. Mr. Mario LaMendola, representing Mr. and Mrs. Filkoski, is requesting a 40-foot -- ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Excuse me a minute, Chahram. Page 42 August 17, 2000 Excuse me, would you mind taking the conversation outside? Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Mario LaMendola, representing Mr. and Mrs. Filkoski, is requesting a 40-foot variance from the required 150-foot road frontage for a pole sign to 110 feet. This place is located -- this property is located at t 30t Airport Road, approximately 650 feet north of Davis Boulevard on the east side of the road. The property has t 10-foot road frontage. They used to have a pole sign in the past, which was located right in here. And the sign was removed several months ago. And now they are requesting to place a sign there. Our code requires t 50-foot of road frontage, which they don't have. Staff recommends denial of this variance. We usually -- we never approved any sign variance for lots less than 50 foot that I know of-- less than t 50 foot that I know of. Staff has received the one letter from Mr. Ciro Migliore. He is not really opposed to the variance; however, his business is right next door, and he's saying that in the past when they had a sign there, everybody wanted to go to this business would come and park in his parking lot, and he has a very small parking lot. And he is request (sic} that if the board decides to approve this, he asks they move the sign to the other side. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Let me -- let me ask you a question. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I know that that's Universal Transmission. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Are you talking about where the Maaco Painting was? MR. MIGLIORE: Exactly. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maaco has moved out and now they are renovating the building and basically adding landscaping and redoing the parking lot. And that's why they're asking for a sign also. As I said, staff recommends denial of this variance. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any question for staff? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I've got one. If the sign were erected, how large would it be? How many Page 43 August 17, 2000 square feet? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The sign on this segment of the road could be t5 foot high and 80 square feet in the area. COMMISSIONER BRUET: t5 feet high from the ground to the top of the sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: From the crown of the road to the top of the sign. COMMISSIONER BRUET: t5 feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes, Mr. LaMendola. MR. LaMENDOLA: Yes, I'm Mario LaMendola. I'm an architect and am presently working on the redesign of this building. It will be -- we have to bring it up to the present architectural code. Building will remain where it is, but with many -- some real change. It won't be -- it's a steel building now, it will continue to be a steel building, but it's going to have a lot of stucco and hopefully be very attractive. But the building, and I think, Chahram, I may be mistaken, but I think that the pole is still there. The sign was removed by the people from Maaco Painting. We're about -- we're 650 feet from Davis Boulevard. I've -- when I first started even coming to this building, I would almost miss it because it sat back 42 feet from the sidewalk. The building to the south of us is t9 feet. I measured it last evening. And you don't really know that that building is there until you're there, practically. I feel the sign would give them a warning so that folks -- and I timed it at 35 miles an hour, and I did some mathematics. It takes t2 seconds to get from Davis Boulevard to that building at 35 miles an hour. But I think, you know, there would be a real hazard because people would be going to stop very quickly to turn in or unfortunately they probably missed it a few times, and even then with the sign, and I don't think the sign is going to make the situation better, I mean, less worse. They're probably seeing the sign and turning too late. But I really think that approving this variance would give people somewhat of a warning that they're coming upon this building without having to, you know, cause a quick stop at that Page 44 August 17, 2000 location. Again, I figured 12 seconds from Davis Boulevard at 35 miles an hour-- that took a lot of mathematics -- at 650 feet, 35 miles an hour. Again, I feel that it would be a life safety addition to the whole street by allowing that sign. Strict interpretation of the sign. I know we're asking for a large variance, but again, it would be -- it would eliminate, I think, somewhat of a hazardous situation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Chahram, this is not an all or nothing proposition. What can they have there? Could they have a monument sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code allows them to have a six square feet sign. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 60? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Six. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Without going through a variance. But I don't know if they will be happy with a six square foot sign. Probably can give only the building number or something, an address on it. MR. LaMENDOLA: Is that a -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yeah, it has to be no more than six feet high also. That is something that they can have without the variance. However, anything else requires a variance. Even should you decide to approve a variance for this, you don't have to go with t5 foot high and 80 square feet. You can recommend something less. MR. LaMENDOLA: I guess I missed the six square foot. That's a ground sign just out by the sidewalk, is that what we're talking about? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You see some places, you know, six square feet is the McDonald's entrance or 7-Eleven entrance, something like that. That wouldn't require a permit. MR. NINO: Other than that-- Ron Nino. Other than that, they do have the ability to put a wall sign up. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct, they can have wall sign. I believe the problem here is the building is, according to survey, it's 54.5 feet back from the property line. And on either side they have building that has a lesser setback. And the building is not visible until you are right in front of it. And that's why they are Page 45 August 17, 2000 requesting this variance. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Maybe I could have one. Mario, what is the smallest height and smallest square footage sign, if we were -- had a tendency to approve this? I mean -- MR. LaMENDOLA: Well, there are going to be two businesses. I'm not sure what they are. Tenants come and go. And most of it is dependent on the sign. One of them I'm pretty certain is going to be a windshield replacement operation. The other one will probably have something to do with some sort of automotive repair or accessory use. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Chahram, you're saying they can't advertise on the side of the building because it's going to be blocked; is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's going to be blocked from the view, correct. Especially going north on Airport Road. And the sign on the building is not going to be visible unless you are right in front of it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sounds like you're going to need some clever advertising/marketing to make sure people know where your location is. MR. LaMENDOLA: You know, I've lived in this town 30 years, and if somebody asked me -- told me an address, it would mean nothing. If they said Airport Road near Davis, then I'd be looking -- driving slowly and looking for that business. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? Any other speakers? MR. NINO: Unless Mr. Ciro wants to talk. MR. MIGLIORE: I am the owner of Universal Transmission, which is next door to this property. You know, when -- years ago we agreed to that sign on a pole, which the poles are still there. At the time, we never thought of the problem the sign was creating that was issued. In one day, there were 28 people that came into the wrong property, came into my property. There's been a lot of rear-end accident. Because when people -- by the time they realize the time with the sign to turn, they just realize the building is right there, they pass. So they would try to stop and turn into my property. Lot of accidents with that. Then when you would tell the people now they must remove Page 46 August 17, 2000 the car from there because they are in the wrong place, we are in the hardship because everybody now would have to go around the block to go back to the right place. At the first I never thought that the sign was going to create that much problem until we realized that the sign being past the driveway created a problem. So, you know, I even -- at that time we had an agreement which says that if there was any change of ownership, this sign must come down, which, you know, now the place has been closed, I don't want to go through again that. You know, my place has been there for 20 some years, way before the building was put up. So, you know, they-- I don't see why the reason. I mean, I don't mind it to get the variance if they put the sign before the driveway. If they do not want to do that, I'm against the sign. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Question of staff. If you move the sign in front of the driveway, before the driveway, does that take another variance, or can we even do that at this point -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Should you decide to approve this variance, there is room on the other side of the driveway. This is the driveway. They can move to the other side of the driveway, this sign. That shouldn't be a problem. The way it is right now, Mr. Migliore is correct, the people, they see the sign, and this is a driveway for Universal Transmission place. And after seeing the driveway, they turn in and there's no way to get out. It's going back to this business, they have to come to Airport Road, make a U-turn and go back to Davis, make another U-turn, Davis intersection, make another U-turn to go in. MR. MIGLIORE: I remember at least 12 to 15 accidents myself on a day time in there. You know, like rear-end collision because people would -- you know, they were watching and they realize. And then, you know, cars do get in accidents. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So you're saying that the pole sign for the previous business created more problems -- MR. MIGLIORE: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- than it helped? MR. MIGLIORE: Right, because that sign there before, the Page 47 August 17, 2000 only reason why they had a sign there was because I have an agreement with them. They combine at that time, the county, whichever the engineer was at the time, we go back in t 985, because they had already invest money in this sign, when they went to get a permit, at the time they realize they couldn't get the sign, because they only had the t t 0 feet. Well, the county at the time said well, there is only one way around to get this sign up at the time was if they could have got an agreement with me whether they combine the property, which then we found out was illegal. But that's what actually they did. Which I have the agreement here that I can pass around. Well, but nobody ever pictured it was going to create so much problem, you know, by having the sign. I mean, I wanted them to make a living, regardless, while he's in business. But I don't want to pay the price, you know, knowing now from experience what we have been going through for t4 years when the place was open. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So we could actually put a monument sign on the other side of the driveway that might draw attention -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, on the east side of the -- on the south side of the property. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: South side of the property. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Somewhere here, maybe. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure, you really do not want this pole sign located at -- MR. MIGLIORE: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- at its present position, and it's probably not good to be there at all? MR. MIGLIORE: It's no good -- the sign shouldn't be there at all, period, on that pole there. Because it doesn't matter how you look at, you would think that it's my place, you know, the sign there. Because it's closer to my place than their place. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I don't happen to be a fan of pole signs in the first place, so I think -- you probably know that I'm not also a fan of variances, so I'm not really supporting this petition. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other questions? Any other speakers? MR. LaMENDOLA: Excuse me, if I could respond. Page 48 August 17, 2000 ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. MR. LaMENDOLA: He's a fine gentleman. He called my office originally with his concern, and I directed him to Chahram. The one thing, and I think it -- you know, I'm looking at some of your discussion here, moving the sign to the south would probably be a real improvement for both of us, because I still feel that if we put a building sign on our building, that somebody's going to drive by and see that, they'll try to stop real quick, and they're either going to -- I don't know what they're going to do with the guy behind him, or they're going to turn into this gentleman's driveway. So possibly a sign variance to the south, which again, we have t9 feet. I hope we can be within that -- I don't know how close we can be with that. I have t9 feet to the building next door, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, you can be t0 feet from the -- MR. LaMENDOLA: Within t0 feet-- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- property line. MR. LaMENDOLA: -- from the property line. Might, you know, help us all. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Ron, if we made the recommendation to remove the pole and have them place a ground mounted sign on the south side of their property, what kind of square footage is reasonable? I mean, I don't mind the ground mounted sign, but I don't know how big you'd -- without it looking like some other signs that we've done in the last few years. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: May I suggest same size as gas stations and shopping center out-parcels, which we have in our code says eight foot high, 60 square feet in area. COMMISSIONER BRUET: t67 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 60, 6-0. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And how high, eight? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Eight. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And that fits in well with the community over there? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That is what all gas stations, they have to have now and all shopping center out-parcels. Page 49 August 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET: That will look in scale with this property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it would. The gas station at the corner of Davis and Airport, they have the same size sign. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And a ground sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ground sign. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Ground sign. MR. LaMENDOLA: Six foot high -- I mean square feet, eight feet high. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 60. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: 60 square feet. MR. LaMENDOLA: Oh, 16. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: 60. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 60. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six-zero. MR. LaMENDOLA: 60, okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And eight feet high. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Eight feet high on the south side of the property. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any other discussion? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. And do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion this board, we approve this -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: No, goes to the BZA. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We recommend our approval to the BZA for -- to remove the existing pole, but allow the construction on the south side of the property within the current setbacks a sign eight foot in height and containing 60 square feet. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: I have a second. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Point of clarification to the attorney. I think the petition -- we're approving something different than the petition? And we're saying that if we put the ground sign, which is already part of our Land Development Code, in there the way it's stated, does this not completely change Page 50 August 17, 2000 what this petition is about? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I think it does. But you have a recommendation, it goes to the board, because the board has the final authority. Now, I don't know if these gentlemen, if they're in agreement with it. And have I to ask staff, does this then render the thing moot? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, there is still the variance. But if the Planning Commission recommends that size sign, that's what we go to the board with. MS. STUDENT: You can go with that recommendation, because as a result of the hearing -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, but are we actually saying that he has to have a variance to have any sign there? Because we're asking for a ground or a monument sign. MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: For any sign at all? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, bigger than that little two-by-four thing. MR. NINO: Other than -- yeah, other than the directional sign COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MR. NINO: -- any sign, whether it be ground mounted or pole, is not allowed unless the frontage is t50 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Yes, because as I understand it, it's still a variance. It's just a different -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We changed the variance thing. MR. NINO: Yes, you changed the variance. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They haven't mentioned any size of height, so they were going for the maximum. We are just putting a limitation on it. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Mr. Wrage? MR. NINO: Now, are you talking about a ground mounted sign in the sense of the entire structure goes all the way to the ground? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Petition SV-2000-02. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: question? By the way, my motion is for Mr. Wrage, did you have a Page 51 August 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So in fact we're recommending approval with his recommendations for the signs which do not meet the Land Development Code. So in effect we're recommending approval of a variance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Other than the one he asked for. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay, as long as I'm thinking. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, any further discussion? There being none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Motion carries. Okay, any old business, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: No, there isn't. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Any new business? MR. NINO: Yes, I wanted to -- I don't know if you want to take that much time. I want to introduce the notion of a summary agenda. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Nino, I've been replaced by Mr. Bruet, so you won't lose a quorum, but I really have to go excuse myself and go catch my flight. (Commissioner Saadeh exits boardroom.) MR. NINO: I want to you think about the idea of adding to your agenda a summary agenda item -- a summary agenda procedure. You know, the board has a summary agenda whereby if there isn't any objection at the beginning of the meeting, much like a consent agenda, you can approve those items, those summary agenda items. I don't recommend that you take action at this meeting, but that you think about the opportunities here. It's not really -- quite frankly, I don't view it as important for the Planning Commission as I do for the board, because they have so many other things. And your meetings traditionally aren't that long to begin with. However, if we're all interested in saving time, not having staff standing here waiting for their petition to be heard, there might be some advantage to a summary agenda. I don't think it would have wide applicability. We don't suggest you use it for anything other than a boat dock or a PDI, those issues that you are the sole decider of, anything that goes to the board. It's just something you might want to think about and we put on another Page 52 August 17, 2000 agenda. Marjorie may have some thoughts about it. MS. STUDENT: Yes, Mr. Nino and Mr. Gochenaur and I discussed this, and we don't see a legal problem with those items that you have final order authority on. On the other items, you have to make findings to send a recommendation to the board, so you need a full-blown hearing for those. And the only other thing I would state, that once you decide, I believe we're going to have to re-do a resolution that sets up procedures for the board and the Planning Commission and insert that provision under the Planning Commission so -- for it to become effective. And I've discussed that with Mr. Nino as well. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I think the question is, do you think it's worth considering, or do you just want us to drop it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think it's worth considering. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I don't have a problem with considering it, but, you know, on boat docks, a lot of times people show up here, that's their only chance to stand up and say their piece. And this board historically has allowed people a little more latitude than, say, the County Commission. Obviously we're going to -- you know, to eliminate that, you know, and we only have two or three, and generally, if no one's here to talk, we're done with those in five minutes anyway. So I'm not sure we would gain -- MR. NINO: I agree, it's not that imperative. COMMISSIONER BRUET: But Ron, if someone wants to speak to a specific item, you can simply take it off of consent and make it part of the agenda, right? I mean -- MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- if there's no objection. You know, Gary, we could take it from that point of view. If somebody wants to discuss one, then boom. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: That takes about as long as it does to approve a boat dock, historically. But I mean, I don't want to remove a chance for some of these folks, it's the only chance to stand up and say their piece. They just want somebody to hear their complaint and that's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I don't think it will do that. If people want to speak, do it, then it comes off the consent and Page 53 August 17, 2000 becomes an item for discussion. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Well, we don't have to vote on that now. We can just mull it over. MR. NINO: No, I just wanted to introduce it to you. COMMISSIONER BRUET: But I would certainly support, Mr. Chairman, moving forward and doing research and putting together a program that we can look at. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Okay, any other new business? MR. NINO: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Public comments? I don't see anyone. Discussion of any addenda? I don't think we have any of that. And I guess that leaves No. t2. I make -- who makes a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER BRUET: So moved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: All in favor?. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) ACTING CHAIRMAN PEDONE: Meeting adjourned. Page 54 August 17, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:25 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL PEDONE, ACTING CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 55