Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/07/2000 RDecember 7, 2000 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Planning Board in and for the County of Collier met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in a REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: Gary Wrage Russell A. Priddy Kenneth L. Abernathy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam M. Saadeh Russell A. Budd Michael Pedone Dwight Richardson Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Ron Nino, Chief Planner Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND'MAY BE ALLOT~FED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 19, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 6. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Bo BD-2000-29, Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Alvin S. Tibbetts, requesting a 5 foot after-the-fact boat dock extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 25 feet into the ,natea~vay, for property located at 1869 Outrigger Lane, further described as Lot 6, Nature Pointe, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-2000-21, Chris Allen requesting a 7.5 foot side yard after-the-fact variance from the required 30 feet to 22.5 feet for property located at 555 Hickory Road further described as Lot 21, Block Y, Pine Ridge Extension. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-23, Tom Masters, P.E., representing Vineyards Development Corporation, requesting an after-the- fact variance of 1.34 feet from the required 5 foot rear yard setback to 366 feet for property located at 1006 Fountain Run, further described as Lot 112, Fountainhead, in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-24, Michael and Lorraine LaPiatte requesting an after-the-fact variance of 25.6 feet from the required 30 foot side yard setback for an accessory structure to 4.4 feet for property located at 5075 Tamarind Ridge Drive, further described as the east 180 feet of Tract 84, Golden Gate Estates Unit 32, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-25, Joseph Sabatino requesting a variance of 7.5 feet from the required side yard of 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the east side yard of Lots 44, 45, and 46; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the side lot lines and within the courtyard walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the required rear yard of 10 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the rear lot lines and within the courtyard walls for property located on 111th Avenue North, further described as Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47, Naples Park Unit 6, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-26, Joseph Sabatino requesting a variance of 7.5 feet from the required side yard of 7.5 feet to 0 feet along the east side yard of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7; a variance of 7.5 feet from the required 7.5 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the side lot lines and within the courtyard walls; and a variance of 10 feet from the required rear yard of 10 feet to 0 feet for accessory structures along the rear lot lines and within the courtyard walls for property located on 95~ Avenue North, further described as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Naples Park Unit 3, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-30, Schenkel & Shultz, Inc., representing the District School Board of Collier County, requesting a variance from the 35 foot maximum building height restriction for principal structures in RSF-3 zoning district to 5 stories, not to exceed 80 feet for property located on Cougar Drive, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) CP-2000~01, Final Adoption Ordinance to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to establish the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 10. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 11. ADJOURN 12/700 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im 2 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, are we on? I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. We will start the meeting by calling the roll. Commissioner Priddy called. He will be absent. Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is present. Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD'- Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'd like to make an announce for those folks in the public that wish to make comment on any of the petitions before us today. Fill out a slip out in the hall, give it to Ron Nino over here, and he will call your name when the time comes. For those of you who haven't been here before, generally we allow the staff and the petitioner a fairly unlimited amount of time. We ask the public to hold their comments to five minutes, and please don't be repetitive. With that, we go to the agenda. I don't have anything different. With that we do have a set of minutes, which seems like it's been a while since we had a set of those, for October 19th, 2000. Any additions or corrections? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: by Commissioner Rautio. signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: not having been at that meeting. Moved by Commissioner Budd, second Any discussion? If not, all in favor I'll be a "no vote" on that, Page 2 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Very good. Let it show that Commissioner Richardson abstained. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Quick question? Commissioner -- excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if staff could provide an explanation why we got the October 19th minutes before the October 5th minutes, I believe, and what has happened to the four sets of meeting minutes for the month of November. MR. NINO: No, I don't, but I'll check it out and let you know at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would appreciate it because it's very hard to sit and review five or six sets of minutes at one time. If we can get a standard procedure, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any planned Planning Commission absences? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I plan to be out of the country between December 18 and February 18. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You haven't been deported or anything, have you? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No, I have not. But very funny, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's going to be a great day today. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I will be absent at the next meeting on the 21st. I am not leaving the country, I'm only going as far as Denver. So if my vice-chairman be advised. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I will be in town. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Two of us will be absent. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm supposed to be in Bangkok, but I'll be here in Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The Chairman has no report. Anything from the CBC? MR. NINO: There is nothing startling that would indicate that you made an ill-advised decision. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Only thing with the folks in Goodlette, we voted one way, they voted the other on the amendment. Is that true? MR. NINO: They haven't voted on it yet, but the final meeting will be next Wednesday. They have indicated a preference, but they haven't voted on it yet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. With that, we're going to go to the advertised public hearings. And, please, fellow Page 3 December 7, 2000 Commissioners, if you need to abstain from any of these, just jump right in at the announcement. With that we will start with BD, Boat Dock, 2000-29. All those wishing to give testimony on this please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers sworn.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner's requesting a five-foot after-the-fact extension to allow a docking facility protruding a total of 25 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 1869 Outrigger Lane and contains about 189 feet of water frontage. The project consists of an L-shape dock and boat lift. The contractor's error resulted in the measurement of the protrusion from the wrong survey marker, and the dock as a result, protrudes 24.8 feet into the waterway. We have received no objections to this project. Proposed facility does meet all of our criteria and we recommend approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a couple of questions. In the very beginning in your purpose of description, it says "misrepresentation, location of survey marker on the part of the dock contractor, resulted in the measurement of the protrusion being taken from the wrong point." MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The dock contractor actually is the person accepting fault here and who's the dock contractor? MR. GOCHENAUR: According to the permit application, that would be Naples Dock and Marine. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And we are talking about -- B on page 3 -- about the riprap and they are talking about the shallow water, et cetera, on page 3. It said that in combination with shallow water, the site would probably have made an extension necessary anyway. Are we looking at a situation where we're asking for forgiveness rather than permission? Because I think it's pretty obvious from the pictures that the dock contractor would have realized that indeed they're going to have to be out in the waterway a little further even though it's not 10 or 20 feet. It seems pretty obvious to me from the pictures that we have a contractor who made a mistake with a Page 4 December 7, 2000 survey marker. Wow! I've got riprap in the way. I will just move it out a little further and didn't come and ask for permission to do this. MR. GOCHENAUR: My only comment on that is we have not had a lot of problems with Naples Dock as far as this sort of thing, and if the petitioner had come to us with this before the fact, it would have met all of our criteria and he basically could have gotten approval for half of what it's costing him now. He is being charged the "after the fact fee," twice the permit application fee. So in the absence of any real evidence of wrongful intent, we are still recommending approval of the petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Maybe I read it and missed it, then why -- what triggered the events of today? MR. GOCHENAUR: The spot survey, when it came in it showed that he was 4.8 feet further out in the waterway than the dock could go. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What survey is required at that point in the process? MR. GOCHENAUR: On completion of the dock. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just if I may. I am still a little confused about this. If he had come in and said the water was so low that he had to put the dock further out, you would have granted it without bringing it to us? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir. We would have recommended approval, and since it met all of the criteria, it's likely this commission would have approved the petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you are predicting with your comments what we would have done rather than saying it was a right that he had? MR. NINO: He had a right to apply. MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. And I'm saying that we would definitely have recommended approval, and since the planning commission's decision is based, according to the code, on the criteria and since the project met all the criteria, I think a prediction of approval was probably not too far out of line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just confused about what the criteria is. The criteria have nothing to do with how Page 5 December 7, 2000 many feet he's out into the waterway then? MR. GOCHENAUR: There are 10 criteria in the Land Development Code for boat dock extensions beyond the permitted protrusion into the waterway. These are based on safety considerations, the need for an extension to gain adequate water depth, the effect of the dock on neighboring docks, and on the view of the neighboring property owners. We weigh all of this and if the criteria or the main criteria are met, then we are basically required to recommend approval. And again, the code does say the Planning Commission shall base its decision on the criteria. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this isn't approval for a variance to permit this to occur? MR. GOCHENAUR: What we're asking is approval of an after the fact extension. It's not quite the same thing as a variance. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay, Ron, I need my Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Ross, just to summarize here, after I read everything, went back through, I made a note right near where it says, "Based on the above findings, you recommend approval." Could you restate your above findings in a one, two, three format for me, please. The above findings are telling me that there's certain criteria that would have been met. And I just want you to restate what those findings are, like, number 1, number 2, number 3. MR. GOCHENAUR: Under the staff comments we have the criteria and then we have our finding under each of the criteria, A through J. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. GOCHENAUR: If you want, my restatement would basically be reading my staff report. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I was hoping you would not have to say that because it's not really very enlightening to me. I was just wondering if you could. So, you can't summarize those points there. I understand what you're saying because I can read what was written here and I just wanted a one, two, three over the principal points. MR. GOCHENAUR: The principal points is the waterway was wide enough that the dock's not going to interfere with Page 6 December 7, 2000 navigation. He's got 189 feet of water frontage, he's not going to interfere with neighboring docks. As you will notice on the drawing here, he's located on the point at a right angle so that he's not going to impact the view of any of his neighbors. Those are the main points, we have other additional points that deal in more detail with the view and impact on the navigational channel. Again, it does meet all those criteria. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. My name is Rocky Scofield, representing the petitioner. I've got a survey here, and I'll bring this up, and maybe it will clear a few things up for you, and I will explain it. What you have is the after the fact survey. On this job, Naples Dock and Marine, as Ross said, they've -- this is a very rare occasion for them. They are a pretty reputable contractor. They hired a surveyor -- before they did this job, they hired a surveyor to go out and stake out the property lines. Now, as you can see there, it's a corner property with the property being at a 90-degree angle. The riprap extends far out beyond the property line. Now what happened, the surveyor put a pin up in the property line which is in the riprap -- it was an iron pin about level with the riprap. There was an old survey marker down where you see the mean high-water line. In most cases like this, we take a dock extension from the mean high-water line. However, if the property line is further upland, then that's the measurement they go from. It's whichever is most restrictive in a boat dock extension. So when the contractor went down there and he saw this -- it was an old survey stake that was in the riprap but it was down at the mean high-water line. He did not see the survey pin up which was 4.8 feet up further into the riprap. Had they seen that and noticed it at that time, they probably would have stopped, hired me to get a boat dock extension and then done it. And then proceed. What they did is they pulled their measurements from the other survey marker that was left in the riprap prior by some other survey. And that's when they Page 7 December 7, 2000 sent their crews out, they pulled from that and they had enough room. The dock right now is right up against the riprap. The back of the dock is right there at the riprap. This is Gordon River, it's shallow in this area. And they needed the extra four feet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: In other words, what you're saying is they -- with the old stake they didn't even need an extension, they could just pull a permit? MR. SCOFIELD: They pulled 20 feet from that stake which happened to be right about at the mean high-water line. The crews that were sent out, they didn't know that 4.8 feet up into the rocks was the actual property line where the surveyor came out and set the iron pins. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But that's what I'm saying. If they would have used that stake you didn't need an extension. MR. SCOFIELD: That is correct. That's why we're here today. Then the surveyor came out, made the spot survey and that's what happened. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I ask who the surveyor was that placed the pin? MR. SCOFIELD: It's on the survey. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's the one where the pin was placed? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. They come out and they put a more permanent pin in and they drive it down in. What happened is there was a wooden survey stake that was three feet out of the riprap down lower about the mean high-water line. And most of these cases, we do -- the mean high-water line is usually what we go off of. However, in this case, the property line is further upland and that's where they pull the measurements from. Again, this is a very wide part of the waterway. It's on the corner of the Gordon River where it goes straight and turns, there's no -- there's no problems with navigation or anything else in this area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I must be mellowing because this whole thing sounds sort of de minimis to me. So I don't have any problem with it at all. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What was that word again? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: De minimis. Page 8 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? Anyone from the public that wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: I have no registered speakers on it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve petition BD2000-29. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A motion made by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Actually, before we vote I want to say that I came here thinking that I probably would vote against this from the presentation we got from the staff report because it looked like a specific error that could have been caught originally and that they should have come in for an extension. Hired you before they did this. But your explanation of the pin versus the survey stake, I think I can accept the fact that -- and it's only four feet. But I can support this motion although I'm not overly impressed with the mistake that was made. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You are very impressed with the mistake that was made. No further discussion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If not, all in favor of the motion signify by saying "aye." Opposed? Carried. Next on the agenda is Petition V-2000-21, owner is Chris Allen. All those who wish to give testimony on this petition please rise, raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers sworn.) COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, in way of disclosure, just want to make the comment that I've known Mr. Allen for many years and have done business with him in the past. And based on my experience with Ms. Student and possible conflicts, this -- my vote or any action taken by us today isn't going to result in any benefit to me. But I just wanted to disclose that I have had past dealings and didn't want to create any impression of impropriety, and unless recommended by Ms. Student, I did not intend to recuse myself. Page 9 December 7, 2000 MS. STUDENT: Do you have currently dealings or future contract -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. I very well may have future because we are both in construction in the same town. But there is no known contracted future relationship. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And nothing on this particular variance either? COMMISSIONER BUDD: And absolutely nothing on this variance. I had no dealings on this property. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I'm in the very same boat. I do dealings -- I'm also a builder in town, I do deal with Mr. Allen. And I have dealt with him in the past, and I will be dealing with him in the future. MS. STUDENT: And you know that you will be dealing with him in the future? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I know I will be dealing with him in the future. MS. STUDENT: I think Sam -- Commissioner Saadeh's situation is closer than yours, Commissioner Budd. Because you don't specifically have anything in the future, but Mr. Saadeh does. And so I'd already advised Sam that he could conflict out on the appearance of impropriety, but because you don't -- you can't say that you've got anything future right now. I think yours is distinguishable. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I will abstain from voting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for seven and a half foot, after the fact variance, from the required 30-foot side yard setback in RSF1. As you can see from the map it's located in the Pine Ridge subdivision close to Goodlette Road. The building plans indicated a setback for the pool and enclosure of over a 30 feet -- 30 feet, four and a half inches. This was taken from the building permit site plan. And then the spot survey indicated the encroachment of seven and a half feet. This appears to be due to a building construction error, and Page 10 December 7, 2000 there's no land related hardship. You can see from the survey that there is other land on which the pool could have been built. The plans show the correct measurement. It was a construction error for the encroachment. Staff recommends denial. We did receive one phone call, and the person had no objections. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a couple of questions. We're talking about Nassau Pools being the pool contractor and then Kevin Crane Aluminum Concrete? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Who would have been the contractor that made the construction error? MR. REISCHL: I could not determine that by checking our records. This was one of the building plans where the hole in the ground for the swimming pool did not have to be indicated. As I've told you before that the new building permits being issued they have to show the outline of the pool, but again, this was done before that policy went into effect by the building department. Nassau Pool has not been finaled and the aluminum company has not been finaled. So both are still awaiting a certificate of completion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And in your information, C on page 3, the first comment here is that this would be a financial hardship for the property owner. Why would it be for the property owner and not one of the two contractors or both of them? MR. REISCHL: Yes, you're right. In the real world, he would probably pursue legal action against the two contractors. However, in county government, we always say the ultimate responsibility lies with the property owner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So that's why you have this statement as sort of a standard? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just as a technicality, on F, you say that this is a request for a screened patio. This request is for a screened patio only. Aren't we talking about a pool enclosure, not really a screened patio or am I misunderstanding something? There's a difference between page 3 and page I where they're talking about a pool. Page 11 December 7, 2000 MR. REISCHL: It's surrounding a swimming pool, you're right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And it's not really a patio. We're talking about a pool that's really not encroaching, it's the screened enclosure that is? MR. REISCHL: I'll let Mr. Allen address whether it's really encroaching. As I said, we don't have anything that indicates physical encroachment of the pool. The deck can go right up to the property line. If it was unscreened, you can have a deck going to your property line as long as you have your required landscaping on a single-family house. So a deck isn't encroaching. That's a lot of the problem with the building department and that's why now they are showing -- they're requiring that the hole in the ground be shown on the survey and not just the limits of the deck because a deck does not encroach. It can go all the way to the property line. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Because you were so kind to provide administrative variances page, which shows four of them for Nassau Pools for 1999 and 2000. So I was wondering if that was an implication that it was Nassau Pool's construction error versus the aluminum concrete contractor? MR. REISCHL: Again, this was from records. They were the ones that applied for the variance. They may have been like a contractor and then they subcontracted to an aluminum person, too. It was hard to determine from my search. They were the ones that applied for the variance. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. That's all the questions I have for you and for staff for now. And just for the public's reference, I've been a state certified underground utility contractor in Florida for years. I have a great construction background, however, last two years I have sold those companies and I am a publisher. So I am dealing in the world of words and publishing at this point, and I have no further relationships with any of those particular subcontractors that may be discussed on this petition or anyone else today. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. Page 12 December 7, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On page 4 of his enclosures to his petition, the petitioner seems to indicate he thinks he needs two variances; one for the side yard and one for the rear. Is he mistaken? MR. REISCHL: Yes. The rear accessory setback is 10 feet and he meets that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we will hear from the petitioner. MR. REISCHL: Neil Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: My name is a Neil Dorrill. I should tell you that I am not an agent for Mr. Allen. I am just his friend, and for no other reason than I have been to a thousand county commission meetings, I know a little bit about variances. But I am in no way being compensated to be here today. I'm just Mr. Allen's friend. He is here. Mr. Allen is the builder, and to answer one of your previous questions, Mr. Allen is in the concrete finishing and masonry business. He poured the actual pool deck. The pool itself nowhere is close to encroaching within the setback, and your senior planner, Mr. Reischl, has already indicated that to you. There is some confusion, and I will tell you in my own mind there is some that the actual pool deck could have gone all the way to the lot line or another 22 feet to the south in this particular case. It is the pool cage that is considered part of the principal structure that is the element of the pool and the deck and the cage that warrants the variance request. There were two land related or sight related issues that I do think that you at least should be made aware of. The first one was at the time the site plan was submitted to the county, the original site plan showed their intent to pour a pool deck that would have gone 25 feet. That site plan was approved by the county staff at the time the building permit application was made. And so while the builder in this particular case, and Mr. Allen as a subcontractor had reason to believe that the side yard setback in this case had been approved. There was also a submittal to the neighborhood's architectural review board. In this case the Pine Ridge Civic Page 13 December 7, 2000 Association, and that site plan was also approved. And so at the time of construction, the side yard setback was -- at the time of building permit, the side yard setback had not been made an issue. In addition, this house was a tear-down. And there was -- as part of the original structure -- there was a grandfathered but nonconforming detached garage. I believe a three-car garage of probably 2,000 feet. A very nice detached garage. And the architectural review board on the part of the civic association had made a request that that structure be torn down and removed even though the original plans did not call for that. Mr. Allen made voluntarily, although he was not obligated to, made a decision to tear down the detached garage which was north of the home on this site plan. And the house was situated in such a way as to accommodate the removal of the grandfathered but nonconforming detached garage and to still allow for the driveway entrance and driveway to come around on the north side of the home. So there were several site issues. Mr. Allen voluntarily removed a structure that -- I will tell you was probably worth $100,000, although he was not obligated to at least for purposes of constructing his new home. They poured the slab -- I will tell you, in addition, the person that had called your project planner who is the next-door neighbor, who is the affected neighbor on the south side, they have actually written a letter and we will enter it into your record today saying that they are, in fact -- that they have no objection. They are in support of the variance request. I've also spoken to the president of the civic association yesterday, he was confused initially that they had not reviewed the plans that were submitted in the site plan. In fact, they are, and I have also a letter that I would like to provide to you today. And the president of the civic association indicated that they would not object, and, in fact, when this goes to the county commission, if he could confirm that it had been submitted and approved with the site plan at 25 feet, that they would write a letter in support of the variance request, as well. So there were some mitigating factors. I will tell you from my perspective there was a land related hardship that was caused by Mr. Allen's voluntary agreement to remove this Page14 December 7, 2000 detached garage which resulted in the site plan that was submitted and the encroachment that exists, not with the pool or with the pool deck, but with what is a two-story pool cage that would cause him a considerable financial hardship at this time to try and remove that and re-engineer that element and still have it be attached to the house in the way that it was engineered. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Mr. Allen is here who can provide a chronology of events for his builder who actually built the home. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is the pool cage up now? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: What is the margin on the side that we're talking about? What's the margin between the pool cage and the side of the pool? MR. DORRILL: I'll need either Mr. Allen or the builder to indicate what the difference in that is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Come forward. your name for the record, please. MR. ALLEN: My name is Chris Allen. Would you just state I have been in business here in town for about 18 years in the concrete business. And this is my first time here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And we are so glad you came today. MR. ALLEN: And it's on my house which I can't believe. But I want to say it's about 10 feet, maybe nine.MR. ABERNATHY: So you couldn't move it in without -- MR. ALLEN: If I move it in it -- MR. ABERNATHY: You would have to tiptoe around the edge of the pool. MR. ALLEN: I'd have to tiptoe around the edge of the pool. MR. ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? Anyone else from the public wish to address this petition? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Maybe I do have a question. Mr. Allen, are you saying that you're the one that's going to have to suffer the financial hardship versus because you were part of the contractor or because you're -- Page 15 December 7, 2000 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I will be the one suffering the financial hardship on this. I did the deck myself. Nassau -- the pool is where it is supposed to be. And I was the one that made the mistake on this. The other thing is that my original site plans which were submitted with my house plan, which are stamped by the county, allows for a 25-foot setback, not a 30-foot setback. And those plans are approved by the county because I went over those with -- I took them down and showed to Fred. On that corner which is where I have the problem. So I really, according to my original plans, I have a two and a half-foot problem instead of seven and a half-foot problem. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And since you are the contractor and the owner, that's how you end up suffering. MR. ALLEN: I'm the subcontractor. I had a builder do the house, but Nassau was not involved with the deck because when I -- when I did the house, we found out my house was sitting on a cypress slough and we had to drive pilings. So this house has really been a blessing. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And this is the first time you have ever had to appear? MR. ALLEN: Yes. But I just didn't want it to be tagged on to Nassau's track record because this was my problem, my mistake. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: On this original plan, it did clearly show there was going to be a pool cage there? MR. ALLEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. To these administrative variances, perhaps you could educate me to tell me how much leeway the administrative action takes. Can you go up to a foot, two foot, three feet? Where -- MR. NINO: Six inches. So three-tenths of a foot is about six inches. So these variances -- so in effect, our code is expanded by six inches one way or the other. MR. REISCHL: The genesis for this these couple inch variances come into the board of zoning appeals and they allowed for a six-inch administrative approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's in the code? MR. REISCHL: Yeah, that's in the code. Page 16 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to reiterate, Fred, you have no comment, no letters from the public? MR. REISCHL: I have had one phone call from the neighbor that's most affected -- MR. DORRILL: Who has now submitted a letter, Mr. Chairman, in addition, we would intend, based on the confirmation of the president of the homeowners, to have a letter at this time as part of this, and we'll make that a part of the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you would, give that to Commissioner Young on the end so we can see it. Any other questions? Just a comment from the chairman. I've straddled this issue many times. I think we need to hold contractors to a higher standard. But in this situation, I would hope that it was an honest mistake and his one and only trip, I hope. No more discussion? No one from the public? I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we forward petition V2000-21 to the board of zoning appeals with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion was made by Commissioner Budd, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, once again, everything says that I should probably vote against this, but I believe that it was an honest mistake. And you're talking about 2.5 feet versus 7.5 depending on what you had on your site plan. There's enough confusion here that I'm going to quit being a hard-nose today and support this. I believe Commissioner Abernathy is CHAIRMAN WRAGE: rubbing off on you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: saying "aye." Opposed? All in favor of this motion signify by Motion carries. MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next on the agenda, Petition V-2000-23, Vineyards Development Corp. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A lot of Christmas spirit around here, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I am not sure that's what it is. Page 17 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The Fred Reischl show. MR. REISCHL: This is a request for an after-the-fact variance for a pool screen enclosure. The enclosure encroaches 1.35 feet into a five-foot rear yard accessory setback along a small portion of the yard. This is in the Vineyards, the northern portion of the Vineyards near Vanderbilt Beach Road, Fountainhead subdivision. And this is a zero lot line house, and you can see the surveyor has indicated the setback line and the encroachment which you saw in your survey expand a little bit. Right along here I tried to scale -- that part of the survey says "not to scale" so I had to scale it off the smaller drawing. It appears to be approximately four feet along the rear property line. It's the length of the corner that encroaches. It encroaches back 1.35, but on the approximately 50-foot wide lot it only appears to affect about four feet in the center of the lot, therefore, not drastically affecting any views from adjacent property owners. Plus the encroachment is adjacent to a storm water management lake. I did get a letter of no objection from the homeowner's association but no other comments from any citizens. Because there is no land related hardship, staff is constrained from recommending approval, and I will leave that decision to you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions to staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have one of the same questions on page 3 where it talks about the financial hardship for the property owner. Just want to make sure that's on the record that you are saying that because it's the ultimate responsibility of property owner, in this case it really looks like maybe Nassau Pools made a mistake. From what I can tell, but I'm not sure if it's only 1.35 feet. I would like to hear the petitioner tell me if the property owner really is going to be responsible. It's talking about Vineyards Development so the home must not have been sold. MR. REISCHI.: Vineyards Development -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- is the actual owner? Page 18 December 7, 2000 MR. REISCHL: It was the owner at the time, I believe Mr. Masters can address that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. I would like that part clarified. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question for the county attorney. The principal for the Vineyards Development is a family member. Does that require me to abstain? MS. STUDENT: I have advised Mr. Saadeh to abstain because he has a family member that's a principal of Vineyards Development and it could enter onto the benefit of Vineyards Development. His relative is employed by them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, thereby, I abstain from voting on this one too. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just a question for Mr. Reischl. Just so I get on board here, if this had been six inches, they would have been all right. But since it's a foot and -- 1.35 feet, that puts it over the administrative limit and that's why it has to come to us? MR. REISCHL: That's correct. And I don't want you to think that administrative variances are automatic, we do look at it. If the person in question has a record of, you know, going the extra 6-inch, then the director may deny the after the fact request and go forth for a full blown variance. It's not necessarily automatic. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: In other words, if staff does not do it on an automatic -- or not automatic, that doesn't do their administrative variance, they can still come forward obviously? MR. REISCHL: Correct. And then the $200 administrative fee is applied to the $425. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll hear from the petitioner. MR. MASTERS: Good morning. My name is Tom Masters, I'm with Vineyards Development. I just wanted to say that there is a homeowner in the house now that has taken possession of the home. The hardship would fall on the shoulders of Nassau Pools who originally made the mistake on the pool -- on the rear enclosure and the pool deck that exceeds out. I would like to point out that we have no objection from the Vineyards Community Association as well as Fountainhead Page 19 December 7, 2000 Homeowners Association on obtaining this variance. Also the Vineyards as the builder at the time would not have accepted going after the variance if there was any negative impact on adjacent homeowners' views or any of those other issues. As you can see, the part of the pool that protrudes is almost dead center in the middle of the property. That's 25 feet from either side of the property line. It probably obscures the view less than actually putting a tree or something behind the screen enclosure. So there is minimal impact, and that's the reason we're pursuing this. In our view, it had to be a better solution to have the pool deck remain as it is than to cutoff an odd angle and have to re-engineer and put up a new screen enclosure that would look a little unusual. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The two homeowners next door, there are people living there or does Vineyards still own those homes? MR. MASTERS: There's a homeowner I believe on the left side of the property. The other lot is vacant where it could potentially be under construction, I'm not sure. Neither of which have any objection at all to the variance. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a question. Maybe the attorney could answer it. Aren't we supposed to know who the owner of the property is versus an agent? This would appear to me now that Vineyards Development is here as agent for the owner versus being the real owner of this property. MS. STUDENT: I think you need to know that too. It's my understanding that Vineyards, when this started, was the owner; is that correct? MR. MASTERS: Yes. We were the owner and then the subsequent purchaser of the property bought the property knowing that the variance process was already underway. We have already submitted with a variance application, and so, you're probably correct in that we are acting on behalf of the homeowner now who is fully aware of the process. MS. STUDENT: It's fine to disclose that so there's no further problem with the voting conflict. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. How long has the process been going on? MR. MASTERS: About three months. MR. REISCHL: Approximately three months. End of August. Page 20 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I guess, Margie, if this was my brother so to speak that bought the house, we would not have a problem with this board? Not knowing who actually owns the property today. MS. STUDENT: I think you need to know that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Who owns the property? MS. STUDENT: Who owns it today as well. I think there's still a potential issue with Mr. Saadeh because I don't know what's in the contract. I might have a contingency in there that if this wasn't -- so I mean, I think there's still issues with Mr. Saadeh as well as the current owner. And I think that needs to be placed in the record. Commissioner can place in the record the name of the current owner. MR. MASTERS: I don't have that information with me right now. It might be best to postpone a decision on this until I can complete the record for you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I think we're very uncomfortable -- MS. STUDENT: They can continue it to the end of the meeting and you could perhaps make a phone call.The only reason for that is because to avoid any problem that any commissioner may have with the voting conflict. And if they don't know who the owner is, they could be voting on something where it is someone they do business with or a family member is employed by in some way. It's not likely, but they still need to have that information. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, why don't we just move this to the end of the agenda, take it up and get on the telephone? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So move. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Rautio that we readdress this issue after the last item. Moving C to down behind H. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying "aye." Opposed? Motion carried. The next one we will address is Petition V-2000-24, LaPlatte. All those wishing to give testimony on this petition please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers sworn.} MR. REISCHL: This is a request for an after the fact Page 21 December 7, 2000 variance for an accessory structure in Golden Gate Estates. The location as you can see is north of Pine Ridge Road and east of Logan Boulevard on Tamarind Ridge. The required side yard in the estates district is 30 feet. And you can see the structure in pink is 4.4 feet from the property line. I will try to summarize a little bit what I said in my staff report. The shed was in existence when this parcel existed as a five-acre estates tract. The parcel was split in the mid-80s into two legal parcels. That did not create a subdivision, therefore, there was no county review. A parcel can be split and not trigger subdivision regulations, therefore, no county review. The structure on this parcel then became a nonconforming structure. It didn't have that 30-foot side yard setback. The house on the adjacent lot to the west -- to the west -- was built in 1996 and the owner was aware that the structure was there in the present location. The current petitioner, Mr. and Mrs. LaPlatte, bought the house in 1999 and became aware of the violation. I received one phone call yesterday from the neighbor across the street to the south, directly across the street to the south, and he had no objection. Since the structure was in this location since 1978 and it was caused by a previous owner besides the current owner, staff believes the length of time it was in this location in this case is an ameliorating factor, and we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a question. You are saying that the property was purchased by the people in 19997 MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. They may have to answer this whether or not they had a real estate broker involved, wouldn't they have known that there was a problem with the survey at that time that they purchased the property? MR. REISCHL: A survey is not required for a purchase, but most people do get a survey. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because you would think -- as Mr. Abernathy just mentioned, title insurance. That there -- I'm not sure the technicalities of this early of a purchase for something that's been sitting there since 1978, I think we have a slight Page 22 December 7, 2000 problem. I guess they can answer that for me. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Historically, surveys are not asked unless -- the lenders will ask for it but title search won't necessarily cover a survey, I don't believe. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The previous owner is the same owner that built the house from the inception in 1978. This is the first time it changes hands from the time it was built? MR. REISCHL: I'm sorry. I didn't do that research, I don't know. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Urn-hum. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, if this structure is being redone, that's the reason it came in. What if that structure had been damaged by a storm. Under our code, couldn't it be replaced? Hurricane, storm damage? MR. REISCHL: The code says that you can replace residential structures to their same density, however, they must meet current codes for setbacks and heights and things like that. So it could have been rebuilt, but 30 feet over. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I think the question is, in it's present location? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, that's my question. MR. REISCHI.: No. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The answer is no. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Not in its current location. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Isn't there also a percentage of damage? MR. REISCHL: Yes, you are right. If it was less than 50 percent, then it can be repaired. Less than 50 percent would be considered repair, greater would be replacement. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That just brings up another thought here. You made the statement that, couldn't code enforcement determine that the repairs required a building permit? Apparently they bought the property in 1999 and decided to repair the structure. So they went ahead and did something without building permits? Is that what that is telling us? MR. REISCHL: I believe-- Page 23 December 7, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And a complaint was filed so code enforcement came out? MR. REISCHL: And said get a building permit. Right. I believe Mr. LaPlatte was doing the repairs himself. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I guess I need that question answered too. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further question of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. LAPLATTE: Good morning. My name is Michael LaPlatte, I live at 5075 Tamarind Ridge Drive. I purchased my house in December of 1999. And at the time we purchased it, we did have a survey done. We went through a mortgage company and a survey was done, but there was never any question raised as to, you know, if there -- there was never a problem with it at the time. And we weren't brought aware of this, you know, that the property was too close to the line. Nothing was ever raised to US, So what happened was we started doing some remodeling to our house. We put a garage door on the front of the house, and that's when we found out -- actually code enforcement came out. Somebody turned us in, I guess, to code enforcement, and they came out. And they told us we needed to get a permit for the garage door that we put on the front. It was just a carport at the time when we bought it, on the front. And so I went down to get a permit for it and I brought a survey with me. And that's when they told me they wouldn't issue a permit because the building was too close to the property line. And at that time they advised me that I had to do something about getting the building permitted because I guess when the building was built in 1978 or 1979, the building was never permitted. So I believe it was 1987 that they split the lot, they subdivided it and my property became 2.73 acres, and the property next to me was 2.27 acres. And they sold that lot in 1987 I believe. But then I tried to get the permit for it and I couldn't get a permit. So that's why I am here today. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did you use a real estate broker Page 24 December 7, 2000 for your purchase of the property? MR. LAPLATTE: No, it was for sale by owner. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Number one. So then you had a survey and you used -- got a mortgage. And absolutely nobody in that process mentioned when they are looking at the survey that there's an encroachment? MR. LAPLATTE: No. That was never brought up to us and when we found out there was a problem after the code enforcement issue and the issue with permitting, we called the title company that we closed with and they said that they don't insure on side setbacks apparently. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I guess I'm just concerned that a reasonable person might have noticed that something might be wrong here in the purchase of the property. But being "for sale by owner," apparently you didn't have the expert advice of a real estate agent or broker. Is this your first home you've purchased? MR. LAPLATTE: No, it's my second home. It was my first home in that area in Golden Gate Estates. It was pretty much -- it's a wooded area, lots of trees. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there a fence running down that property line? MR. LAPLATTE: No, there's no fence. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it wouldn't be obvious that you were that close? MR. LAPLATTE: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I ask, as a reasonable person, what you do? I mean, how would you not know that there might be some problems with this? There's no fence now. Mr. Abernathy pointed that out. MR. LAPLATTE: Well, the neighbor directly next to me has a little metal shed that's probably, I don't know maybe 10, 15 feet alongside of it. And at the time there was a lot of vegetation around the house, a lot of shrubs. It was overgrown. The woman we bought it from was a widow and she really didn't maintain the property that much. So you couldn't even actually see the house from the road. The house sets back about 300 feet from the road. And there was just no indication that there was any problem with it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So you really would have a Page 25 December 7, 2000 financial hardship as property owner because you have no licensed person to go back on to -- MR. LAPLATTE: No. Like I said, we tried to find out if there was any recourse with the title company, the insurance, the title insurance or anything like that. And they said there was nothing we could do about that, and the building does contribute quite a bit of value to the property because the size is 24 by 45 and we don't have a garage attached to the house so this is really the only garage or structure besides the house. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions from the commissioners? One final question, Fred, there was no complaint? MR. REISCHL: The only phone call I got was from the property owner across the street, which is vacant property, and he had no objection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. LAPLATTE: My next -- the neighbor directly next to the property, whose property abuts, is directly next to mine, Deborah Magnum. I brought her with me to speak on my behalf. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would she like to speak? If you do, step up and state your name for the record. MS. MAGNUM: My name is Deborah Magnum and I live at 5077 Tamarind Ridge Drive. And I don't have any objection to the structure. He's a nice neighbor. He keeps his property up. I don't have any objection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Any further -- anyone else wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a motion that we forward petition V2000-24 to the BZA with the recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I call for the vote. All in favor of this motion signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I say "aye" with no enthusiasm. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That was an "aye?" COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's an "aye" but no Page 26 December 7, 2000 enthusiasm. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All those against? Motion carried unanimously. Okay. Now we go to V-2000-25, Joseph Sabatino. All those wishing to give testimony on this rise, raise your right hand to be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, a number of people have signed up for E and a number have signed up for F. They're both basically the same. I wonder if we could hear them both together and then have separate votes. Everybody signed up for E or F can now swear in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Does the petitioner be able to address both of these at the same time, I'm assuming? Then let us hear Petition V-2000-25 and Petition V-2000-26 simultaneously, and we'll take a vote separately on each. All those wishing to give testimony please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Fred? MR. REISCHI.: Mr. Sabatino wanted me to put on the record that there will be separate votes, so they're -- you're not considering both together, that we're discussing them together, but they will be voted on separately. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Simply because there's common ownership. MR. REISCHL: This is a request for side and rear yard variances in the Naples Park. One on 111th Avenue and one on 95th Avenue, that location. And it's similar to -- sorry to switch screens on you so often -- it's similar to a variance that was approved in May of this year, and I put that location in yellow up here. Of course, underneath the flag on there. But this was six lots fronting on 111th and 110th. The current petition on 11 lth is down on the next block. The petitioner proposes to slide a single-family house to one side creating a zero setback on that side and allowing zero setback for accessory structures. Let me get you a reference here. This is the road up here. Yellow is obviously the principal structure, the accessory structures include a cabana, pool, and a chickee style building. There's also shown in here landscaping and water fountains Page 27 December 7, 2000 which don't have to meet setbacks. The variance request maintains a minimum seven and a half foot -- seven and a half foot side yard for the exterior lot lines as a minimum. As you can see over here the blue property line, the house does not start until seven and a half feet over for the exterior lot. And on the other side, it's actually even more than that because of the design of the house. So the exterior to the project side lot lines maintain a minimum of seven and a half-foot setback. The rear, as I said, the chickee style structure is the only structure that is going to utilize the rear yard, zero setback. And again, Mr. Sabatino's requesting a zero setback, technically, he's going to be five feet back because of the five-foot utility easement in the rear. So the wall across the backyard will not start until five feet back which means the chickee is setback at five feet. One of the issues that was brought up for this was the community character study. That study is examining Naples Park as one of the study areas, but the plan has not yet been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for review. As further analysis on community character, RMF 6 zoning, which is this district in Naples Park, permits single-family, duplex, and multi-family structures. Naples Park is predominantly single-family and this petition will maintain each of these lots as a single-family structure. They are not being combined into duplex or multi-family. I received 10 phone calls in objection. One e-mail in objection and four letters in objection and two calls -- two callers that had no objection. I also met with Commissioner Carter and a group of citizens and we had a friendly but spirited discussion on various issues. I mentioned to that group that a lot of the objection was to a wall and just to clarify for you also, Mr. Sabatino is asking for a six-foot wall. Any property owner in Naples Park can put a six-foot wall or fence on their property, so that's not part of the variance. It's the side lot line and the rear lot line variance. And because this is still maintaining a single-family character in Naples Park with a different style of housing, staff recommends approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I have some Page 28 December 7, 2000 questions. Last time around we were talking a seven-foot wall. Is that not right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. However, what was approved was six. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY. A line in your report that says "the lots will maintain the combined 15-foot separation between this project and adjacent homes." That relies in at least one case on seven and a half feet from the neighboring property owner, doesn't it? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought the gravamen of what we arrived at the last time and the treatment that Mr. Sabatino got from Commissioner Norris the first time around was that the outboard house, in this case, the one on the far right, that plan should be flipped in order to put those two houses with a zero lot line? MR. REISCHL: That was an option. Instead -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought that was a requirement, wasn't it? MR. REISCHL: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Because that -- then he gets what he wants, and the neighbors don't have to bear the brunt of it. If he flips the one on the right, just flips that over and put those two houses back to back. But I thought that was where we ended up last time, was it not? MR. REISCHL: Not to my recollection. Basically -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I hope that's where we end up today. MR. REISCHL: Basically, that lot that you were just talking about is not requesting a side yard variance. That is the only lot that is not part of the side yard variance. They are requesting a rear yard. But they are seven and a half feet over and that lot does not require a variance on that east side. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a question to follow Commissioner Abernathy. If you flip that over, in effect, he makes a duplex out of it. MR. REISCHL: In looks, yes, not technically because they would be still on two separate lots. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But I mean that would be -- no air, no Page 29 December 7, 2000 light between the two buildings. MR. REISCHL: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: question of staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a Mr. Reischl, I have reviewed your bullet items on the recommendations that you've come up with approval. I have also reviewed the applicant's submission requesting this variance. I just have a logistic question first, and then I'll talk about content. I notice their application is numbered t through the criteria number, I through 8, yet when you give the report, it's A through G. I wonder in future if you could cross-reference those so that it's a little easier to go back and forth because they are exactly the same items. Would I be correct in saying that the applicant, in putting forth his request and answering the questions, is answering them in a way that would cause the planning department to view his request favorably? MR. REISCHL: He is answering them with a nonplanning background, and I was looking at them in relation to the code and good planning practice. So we were coming from different aspects and answering the questions differently but came to the same conclusion. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have some problem with your coming to a different answer for each of these questions than he has put forth. And then coming out with a recommendation to approve. When he says "yes," you say "no." He says "no," you say "yes." In virtually all of these items, and we could go through them. I'm puzzled as to how the planning staff can come up with a recommendation to approve when you are coming out with positions that are diametrically opposed to what he's asking for. MR. REISCHL: Again, we are looking at it from two different positions. I have more of a background in dealing with planning issues, Mr. Sabatino is an architect and is answering them as -- basically as a layman. And it's true we did both use those different answers to coming out to the same conclusion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Question. Could you elaborate a little bit on your reliance on the statement that "maintain Page :30 December 7, 2000 single-family housing unit in Naples Park, but with a slightly different style" than the surrounding ones. Why is that so significant here? MR. REISCHL: It's a way of utilizing the yard. That's why that variance is before you. Mr. Sabatino could build these four; in one case, five; in another case -- single-family houses on each lot with the house seven and a half feet from each property line and he would have to reconfigure the accessory structures to probably make them smaller to fit within that new site design. It would -- he would still have or could still have the wall around the rear yard causing the courtyard effect. It would make the property on the side less usable -- less user, less homeowner friendly, I guess. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And how does that relate to our community character study. Are you in advance of having that come out, saying, "Gee, it's nice to have a different style," in this neighborhood? MR. REISCHL: I spoke to Amy Taylor, who is the coordinator with community character study, and she felt it would be premature for her to make any kind of acceptance or rejection of the plan. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But you as a planner, you are focusing in this recommendation that it's a slightly different style, and I just want to feel really comfortable with the fact that this is a slightly different style we should go through this. Because I didn't -- I was not in favor of this the last time it came here. And these different types of things that we're doing, it's a little unusual and we've got a character study going on. And I really think there's a number of people in the neighborhood that are concerned that their neighborhood is being changed in such a way that we are piecemeal, making changes. And as it's obvious, I'm not a great fan of variances. MR. REISCHL: Yes. The style of this house could be built on the lot with just a different yard or courtyard configuration. But this style house, there is absolutely no problem building this house with a wall around the rear yard. He could do this with building permits. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: However, Mr. Reischl, there is no land use, land-related hardship involved here? Page 31 December 7, 2000 MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON. As you've just said. So there's no requirement for the variances. He could build the homes in the very traditional fashion that would match what's happening in that neighborhood right now instead of introducing a brand new housing style which has not been blessed by any community review or design. All things that are in progress. Wouldn't that alter your recommendation? MR. REISCHL: If the encroachment was external to the project, yes, it would. But because he is internalizing all the encroachments, it does not impact an external neighbor -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, it does. We argue that it does because you are introducing a mini PUD, if you will, where you are allowing him to do special things within a series of lots and isolating the people that will come into that portion of the community from the traditional community and the housing pattern that's there. I'm very troubled with doing this without access to the broader review that's currently taking place in Naples Park. I am just puzzled that the planning process has come out with an answer that anticipates an answer to a study that you've already indicated we don't have yet and they're not willing to give. MR. REISCHL: I didn't want to imply that I was anticipating the community character and maybe Ms. Student could back me up on this, but nothing's been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners even for review yet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Therefore, the traditional housing patterns should be the ones that we would support. MS. STUDENT: I will interject that you're probably talking about a de facto moratorium and certainly a study could support, as a justifiable reason, to do a moratorium. But there has to be a process, it just can't be de facto in the sense, "Well, we won't approve this." But I do want to point out that there are several criteria, I believe eight, for the grant of a variance, and the board can accord each one of those whatever weight that it wishes. And, you know, one could counter balance another to justify whatever decision you may make. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Margie, along that same line then, I guess you're getting to my point that the recommendation for Page 32 December 7, 2000 approval is based upon a slightly different style versus other times we have seen the language saying that there's no land use related hardship, therefore, we recommend denial. I'm not completely convinced that the way this is stated here that I can support it or I feel like I'm really paying attention to criteria because Mr. Richardson has a very valid point. If they weren't supporting the approach in these variances, the statement would have to be that there is no land use hardship and we have to recommend denial. MS. STUDENT: And that's a finding that you all must make. I can advise you that you need to be guided by this criteria and you need to listen to the evidence presented by staff and others. And in your mind, when you make the decision whether or not the criteria supported can be the basis for whatever your decision might be. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. I have one question. The last project that Mr. Sabatino brought to us, was that basically now -- this project here -- is that in conformity with what was approved by the Board of County Commissioners? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would point out, however, that we have a different Board of County Commissioners now and they may not be so disposed to rubber-stamping this one. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I don't believe it was rubber-stamped. I think we put a lot of time and effort into this one. There was more than one meeting, if I remember correctly. And we did not rubber-stamp anything. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was speaking of the commission. The Collier County commission, not this board. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Fine. As long as we have that distinction. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Your perspiration is all over this one. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I just got one final -- clarify a point that without a variance, they can still build -- he can still build a six-foot wall around all four of those lots. Correct? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In a very traditional fashion Page 33 December 7, 2000 which is in Naples Park right now. MR. REISCHL: Let me just clarify that. Not around the lot, six-feet would have to be from the front setback, back which is what he's proposing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, can we hear from the petitioner? MR. SABATINO: My name is Joseph Sabatino, I'm an architect. I am also a resident, future resident, of Naples Park. I've planned my residence at 110th Avenue on one of the residences that we planned on the initial six-lot group that the planning commissioner approved. The reason that I was attracted to the six lots was that it was one of the remaining large pieces of ground in Naples Park that needed -- that could have gone to multi-family, it could have been any number of things. I wanted to maintain a single-family residence myself to live there and plan five others on the six-lot piece of ground. It was an existing subdivision, of course. I have only the framework of a 50-foot wide lot to work with. I know that it's a very narrow lot. It is difficult to side load a garage on a lot like that. It is also difficult to have an exterior outdoor space as an extension of your house that -- your house is a private place. Living on the fifth -- not all of you live on a 50-foot wide lot, I'm sure. I'm sure none -- well, I shouldn't -- there are many of the audience that do because they live in Naples Park, obviously. But living on a 50-foot wide lot traditionally these use two seven and a half-foot side yards. Neither of which are private and usually end up being buffers from the next house. The rear yards, the required 25 feet -- or 20 feet, excuse me -- don't really afford a whole lot of outside amenity, private outside amenity space. Therefore, I came up with a architectural solution that I felt was a good solution to create an extension of the house and an outdoor amenity that the house has been designed and oriented to. That's why the request in the shift of the building envelope to the property line internally, not on ones that would affect the neighbor, have been requested in order to create an area for outdoor space that was usable, walled in and private. These are single-family homes. They are not multi-family. Page 34 December 7, 2000 There are -- there are two other properties that I was attracted to in the neighborhood to do something similarly. That's this four lots and the other application for the five lots. I look at the Dover/Kohl community character survey, and I look at a specific reference where they have a photograph of an existing Naples Park house with no garage, seems sort of like a Palm cottage look with a front porch with glass, very attractive, very old, very characteristic of old Florida. It seemingly doesn't have a garage, if it does it might be in the rear on a double-wide lot, I'm not sure. I also look next door -- and I got a 5.8 in the community character study. I also look right next to it as a comparing photograph, a typical Dominic Lagrasta house. And I use -- there's no problem with Dominic Lagrasta. He builds a very fine house. It's within the framework of the neighborhood. It's new looking, but that is the example that Dover/Kohl used. It does have a front load garage. People require garages for various reasons to keep their cars and other things off the street. Their private possessions are in the garage, whatever. On a 50-foot wide lot you don't have many alternatives. You can't side load it, it's got to be facing you. There's no other way around it. That got a 1.8 in the community character survey, and I can understand why. I enjoy the old Florida look, eyes to the street, that type of thing. But it's so difficult unless you have some vehicle to implement that kind of thing, and that's what they're working on. That's what they're coming up with. How do we achieve that on an overall basis? There aren't many vacant pieces of ground as these to address that. In a meeting with one of the planners that's meeting with Dover/Kohl, I thought that one -- the obvious way would be to allow multi-family. They suggest townhouses around a park, and somebody's got to live next to those townhouses. Where they get the townhouses, I'm not sure. They may have to get government funds to buy up properties to create the parks and whatnot. It's a wonderful plan, I do endorse it. However, somebody's going to be living next to the townhouses. You've got people in the community who are absolutely -- I'm trying to find the word -- they really only want single-family homes in this neighborhood of Naples Park. There Page 35 December 7, 2000 aren't many vacant lots available to do much else. You've got a bunch of single-family homes -- or I'm proposing some single-family homes on these properties. One of the ways for Dover/Kohl to achieve their end goals would be to maintain the multi-family zoning. That's sort of a dichotomy. I'm not sure how the community gets through that because many, many people object to the multi-family. That may be the only way to achieve the study. However, these are planning issues and I'm only addressing what I have to work with right now. If I had the Dover/Kohl study in hand, it was in effect, I would with these large pieces of ground, the only remaining ones, I would be respective of that. I would probably have in the four lot example that you see before you, or five lot, a bonus density to work towards to do a solution that's compatible with the study, eyes to the street. Be able to stack -- or do something else with garages. I'm not sure what the architectural solution is, but that study is not in effect and I do not have the benefit of using it. And all this is a response of what I can do, right now, the best way I possibly could do it. And it's respective of people's interest in having an outdoor space that's private, and therefore, the walls which are permitted by zoning. Their interest to have an outdoor space which is private which is simply -- we have the luxury here in Florida to be able to have -- to open your house to the climate all year round. And that's important on a very tiny lot to utilize as much as possible the ground that's afforded to you. I have architectural plans if anybody's interested in viewing what will be built. All the houses have 10-foot ceilings, trays, they're very luxurious. They are not in character with the current Naples Park because that's a 40-year-old subdivision and most of the homes are 40 years old. Not taking anything from it, but most of the new stuff that's going in -- houses, the lots, are of contemporary design meeting current building codes and -- when I say contemporary design, I mean what we're all used to, the stucco and the tile roofs. They are not old Florida look. In response to Dwight Richardson's comment about a brand new housing style, that should not be something that is known as a housing type in the zoning ordinance. A brand new housing style is a character, is a sense of aesthetics. These are Page 36 December 7, 2000 single-family homes. If there's any questions, I would be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But of course. First of all I do want to say, Mr. Sabatino, thank you very much for only giving us a six-foot wall so we didn't have to take the time to argue about the seven-foot wall. So thank you for seeing the practicality of that approach. You were talking about the style of housing that's going to fit into the neighborhood that's got a wall around it which is different -- the outside use of the property. However, but, it still seems like you're creating a -- you've got a courtyard home here that would normally be in a PUD. And you're saying you're doing the best you can with what you've got. But you can't do that, the way I understand it, without all these variances. MR. SABATINO: Can I do it without the variances? All I'm suggesting is that on a 50-foot wide lot that -- and on the four lots that we're looking at, that that has been diminished due to the widening of -- or future widening and right of way taking of 11 lth Avenue. These homes can be put in the middle of the lot, yes, no question about it. Is it a -- is there another alternative that would be better, yes. That's all I'm suggesting. And I have responded to that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But it is sort of like a mini PUD because you're asking for a lot of variances to get this particular style which is a courtyard style. Which normally we don't approve, the way I understand it. MR. SABATINO: I hear you, and I think we have been through all that discussion where a shift in the building envelope -- a shift in the building envelope -- for the internal requested variances shouldn't be too major an issue. Especially with the last home maintaining the required traditional in the center of the lot. And as a purist, I would have loved to have seen that last one be a full courtyard because that's the whole purpose of this style of house. But to -- it's a modified courtyard in that it will be oriented to the side yard because the next door neighbor's wall is -- building wall -- is the other side of their courtyard. No windows, by the way, in that wall. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, with all due respect, I Page 37 December 7, 2000 understand what you're trying to do. But I still have to focus on criteria and land use hardship is one of those, and you can still build traditional homes. And you're coming in with something I consider a mini PUD, so I was just curious as to what you were -- MR. SABATINO: Yes. There's no hardship. There are a number of reasons why variances might be granted and I feel that the other reasons why are -- may be of interest. You know what I'm saying. I would prefer not to build in the middle of the lot because I believe this is a better solution for private outdoor space on a 50-foot wide lot. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One quick last question then. Do you feel that you are changing the character of the neighborhood? MR. SABATINO: Not at all because I would like to show you some photographs of what the character of the neighborhood is -- is becoming. Would you like to see those? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Probably, yes, we would. I'm very familiar with what Naples Park does and doesn't look like. But I'd like to see your photos. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just understand, once you give the photos to us, we keep them forever. MR. SABATINO: Yesterday -- yesterday I took advantage of WaI-Mart's one-hour processing and sort of anticipated this question. All I was attempting to do is to show the various homes that are either in the process of being constructed or have been recently finished. Newer homes that are in Naples Park. Now some, yes, are on Vanderbilt Drive, I understand that, but they are on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. Others are in the middle of the park. And there are others that are on the perimeter. And I consider the perimeter 111th and Vanderbilt Drive. But anyway the point of the photographs is that -- I think what you're seeing in the photographs is current character, current building standards, current aesthetics. I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that on a 50-foot wide lot that there are too many other solutions because you can't side load a garage. This photograph here -- that photograph there is very much like the community character survey photograph. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are all of these on 50-foot lots? MR. SABATINO: No. I think the Vanderbilt Drive ones are Page 38 December 7, 2000 probably on -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They're built on two lots. MR. SABATINO: That one that was built by Soave on Vanderbilt Drive is very much the look -- similar to the look of the elevation. MR. NINO: Isn't the real point -- Ron Nino, for the record. Really, what relationship is there between a variance and the style of house you can build? There is no prohibition of any -- from building any particular style of house in any residential zoning district. You can build -- there is no style limitation. And I suggest to you that there is no relationship between a variance and a style of house. The variances are independent of any character or style issue. The variance is simply, "Will you allow this applicant to build more house," as is often the case in granting a variance. Or positioning the house in such a way as to maximize the natural resources or characteristic of that lot. I have -- I don't see any relationship between character -- housing style and we don't address character and style because the ordinance doesn't address character and style. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But then that brings me back to my first statement about why is my recommendation -- excuse me -- the staff recommendation that I need to vote on based on style? MR. NINO: They're not based on style. They're based on natural and physical features and conditions, not style. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's not what this says to me. MR. REISCHL: Right. To clarify since I'm the one that wrote it. It's maintaining a single-family housing type. That's what I was trying to say. The style is different, correct. And the variance is all interior to the project. That's what I was trying to relay. I'm sorry if I wasn't successful. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. NINO: Don't you find it somewhat ironic that each of these houses can be joined together under the code because it is zoned multiple family? Would you prefer that than what we tend to hear is the feeling of the majority of the folks in Naples Park? That they want single-family houses. This is single-family housing. In a different juxtaposition to the external property, but nevertheless, it is single-family. And I Page 39 December 7, 2000 hear everybody saying -- and that is preferable to multiple family. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the applicant. You currently have a project like this as we've heard underway. Can you tell me how far along that is and if we would be able to see the results of that any time soon? MR. SABATINO: The roof is going up on my personal house probably by the end of the week. I'm sorry, this is the end of the week. Probably by the end of next week. And there are two units under construction so you can appreciate the courtyard -- what a courtyard does. You can actually walk in between the two houses. The walls are up and you could actually see what we mean by the courtyard. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would it be unreasonable for us to request that we not consider these until we have a chance to see what this experiment is going to look like that you already have approved? MR. SABATINO: I would just direct your attention to the visualizer. And I'm just showing that we've got a photograph here of an existing house in Naples Park that seems to be another experiment. In my mind -- my experiment certainly is not as diverse and challenging as this. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't know how that one got in. MR. SABATINO: But I do want to say this about that house, that that house is a particular person's interpretation of style. Some people may find it very offensive. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. That's correct. MR. SABATINO: I don't think it's our right -- our right -- to find it offensive. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any -- I would like to get into the public hearing, but is there any further questions of staff or petitioner. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'll reserve questions. MR. NINO: Vera Fitz-Gerald, Pugh Henderson, Davileo Tharber (phonetic). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you'd line up on the right wall, when you come to the podium, please give your name and spell it for the court reporter. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I am Vera Fitz-Gerald. I'm the president Page 40 December 7, 2000 of the property owners of Naples Park. You spell my name with a hyphen and a capital G. You know, there's over 3,200 homes in Naples Park now, and it's funny none of us feel put upon because of the 50-foot lots. I find this whole thing quite amazing. There's one thing those photographs all had in common. There were no walls. Now, these lots that he's coming down for variances, they're all separate lots. I don't even think he owns them yet. And I find it interesting that he can come and ask for one variance for nine lots. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Actually there's two here. We just happen to be hearing both of them at the same time. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Two variances for nine lots. Another thing is there's no hardship here, and that's one of the criteria that -- that's the criterion that I've heard constantly every time somebody asks for a variance. And there's certainly no hardship here. Certainly none of us in Naples Park consider living on a 50-foot lot a hardship. Last year we presented a petition to rezone Naples Park from RMF -- well, from six to five. We wanted single-family zoning to protect Naples Park from just this type of redevelopment, hodgepodge redevelopment. The planning department asked that our petition be put on hold because Dover/Kohl was doing a community character study as we have talked about. And Naples Park would be included as a special neighborhood to be examined in depth. Many of us went to their meetings to say how we would want our neighborhood to look in the future. Naples Park has a certain ambiance. Those of us who live here understand that ambiance. And that's what we're trying to preserve. Just like you would like preserve your neighborhood. And you don't want some dramatic change shoved into the middle of it. Naples Park is not about fences and walls. In our neighborhood people walk and bike around the streets and avenues, we wave at each other. This is Naples Park, it's not a walled enclave. At 2:30, there's about 400 children, maybe 500, pour out of Naples Park Elementary school down 7th Avenue -- or 7th Street. I don't know of any other neighborhood where you would see Page 41 December 7, 2000 that type of sight, running off in all directions. It's a neighborhood and it's under siege. Mr. Sabatino, and his wife did also, stood here -- stood at the Board of County Commissioners and said, we just want to have a home. Just one home where we can put our koi pond, where we can have our little side courtyard and everything like this. And because these lots he owns on 11 lth and 110th, they went through and backed on each other. They didn't back on other homes. And so we objected to the zero lot line, but Commissioner Carter brokered, if you want to call it, a compromise. Since they didn't back on other homes except within his own little enclave, and because he swore to God all he wanted was a nice home, we relented. Had we had any idea that he was going to come back here with all kinds of other little walled enclaves, trust me, we would have marshalled our forces en masse. But we compromised because he just wanted a nice home. Now what else do I want to say. I made some notes as I was listening. This type of development that he has in mind, it really flies in the face of modern thinking. These old walled ideas of setting homes way back from the street, behind walls where you cannot see what's going on on the street. Dover/Kohl and interesting -- there's a very interesting article in this Sunday's Miami Herald, wanting a solution to this. They want to see homes closer to the street, open to the street with porches where you can sit and look on the street and see what's happening. Not hiding behind a wall. Which is Mr. Sabatino's thinking. Dover/Kohl's very progressive thinking is for neighborly buildings. Retro-homes closer to the street, I just said that. We know that Naples Park is ripe for redevelopment. We know it's going to happen. It's got location, location, location. And we know that people are eyeing it, "1 can make a quick buck here." Well, we agreed that we would put our request to change the zoning to RMF1, and we would wait until after the Dover/Kohl study. We would like to have a plan for Naples Park, the future of Naples Park. We want to say this is what we want to look like 20 years down the road. We don't want to look like a hodgepodge where there's a little wall thing here and a little wall thing here Page 42 December 7, 2000 and some ugly townhouses here. We would like to plan this. And that's what Dover/Kohl are doing. And so what we would ask you to do is put this on hold. After the Dover/Kohl study, and after the Board of County Commissioners has considered Dover/Kohl's study for the future of Naples Park. We're waiting, we the property owners of Naples Park, are waiting. We've put our petition on hold, we would like to see this one go on hold. There's no need for this. It's redevelopment by stealth. There's no need for these zero lot line variances. I have a very lovely home in Naples Park. I don't feel any sort of hardship, as I said, on my 50-foot lot nor all of the others. And, yes, we would like to basically have a single-family development. We have duplexes in Naples Park. Almost all of those duplexes constitute every and any problem that we have ever had in Naples Park. They're a problem. The single-family homes are not. We would ask that you please deny this petition for which there is no reason and wait for the Dover/Kohl study. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. NINO: Henderson. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I would ask that if you simply agree with the previous speaker, so state. You don't have to be redundant. MR. HENDERSON: Well, I agree with the previous speaker. I don't have too much objections to the wall, but it backs up to my property and I am concerned of how -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. I neglected my duty. We need your name and spell it for the court reporter, please. MR. HENDERSON: My name is Pugh Henderson, and I live at 590 95th Avenue. My property backs up to the property they are concerned of building with. And I agree with the lady that just spoke here 100 percent. But I was also concerned with how high these buildings are going to be. Are they going to utilize that, they say two stories and then they put a garage underneath, they become three stories. And I might as well move over into a condominium. That's just the objection to it. That will be it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Page 43 December 7, 2000 MR. NINO: Sourbeer. MS. SOURBEER: My name is Marie Sourbeer, I'm a resident of Naples Park. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Would you spell that for the court reporter? MS. SOURBEER: S-o-u-r-b-e-e-r. I'm here on my own behalf, but I have a letter here that I would like you to put in your record. I'm a full-time resident and property owner in Naples Park and request this letter be entered into the record of planning commissioner hearing of the petitions of variances requested by Joseph Sabatino for properties at 95th Avenue and also on 111th. You know, I remember when he came to Naples Park area association. At that time he told us that he wanted to really put in those houses on 11 lth -- between 11 lth and 110th, because he wanted a place that he could live in. He's an architect. He's not a developer. He's not into land and all that kind of good stuff. Evidently, he forgets what he told us because now he's trying to buy up everything he can get his hands on and build those new -- that new look for Naples Park. He's utilizing every bit of land that he can possibly use there with his cabana and a pool and a garage -- which house there on those four that he just showed you would you want to live in? Would you want the one in the middle? Either one of those two? The one house has a variance on the one side of seven and a half feet. These two guys here, what have they got -- a wall. It really wouldn't fit in with what's up there right now. I've been there 30-some years. When I went there, there wasn't nothing up there. It was out there in the woods. Anyway, what about the drainage requirements for something like that? You know, when I moved there you people -- the county, not you people because you weren't around here then. But they told us that you could only build so close to the road, you have to have seven and a half feet on each side of your lot, of your building. You have an easement in the back that had to be maintained and left open for utilities. Nobody has considered that at all yet. All the utilities of Naples Park are on poles behind the homes. He's going to build a wall on those existing houses on 111th with walls and giving you that 10-foot easement, but I don't know how they're going to get to it. He didn't mention that.. Page 44 December 7, 2000 Plans for redevelopment as you know in the future are planning for sidewalks throughout the park and the petitioner, the Dover/Kohl study which is supposed to come before the county in January sometime. They are talking about some landscaping. A lot like that, there wouldn't be a darn room left to put a tree or a bush or anything. You got it all in cabana, pools and of course, we have a water shortage thing here. So all those extra pools, that would be a big determent there too. I would urge you to delay the outright request for the reduction in the required setbacks in the rear lot lines of all nine properties. The presence of a cabana and pool at the rear of a lot, obviously, impacts the property owners abutting the rear of the property. I wouldn't want to live behind that. There's no undue hardship for Mr. Sabatino. He would have legal entitlement to build a house there if he owned the land, but I don't think he's -- I think it's an option. I don't think he owns the lot yet. He could probably -- and probably try to buy every other one that's in the park that's available. People have a right to build and live in a gated community of uniform appearance and so forth and so on. But why -- there's a lot of those in Naples right now. Walled, gated communities with pools and all those other amenities. And if that's the kind of living he wants, why don't he move there? I ask that you do not grant these variances. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you, ma'am. And if you wish to put that letter in the record, if you'd hand it to Commissioner Young so we can see it. MS. SOURBEER: I brought a couple of copies but I didn't know you had so many on your board. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We only need one. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to point out that we are not dealing with walls. Walls are not a part of this variance request. And anybody in Naples Park has the legal right to build a wall under the current regulations. Faccone. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Give your name and spell it for the court record please. MR. FACCONE: My name is George Faccone, F-a-c-c-.o-n-e. I live at 579 95th Avenue North in Naples, and both propert,es that Page 45 December 7, 2000 we're asking for the variance on are mine presently, and I have an agreement with Joe Sabatino to do these homes. Obviously, I'm in favor of this project. I did want to make a couple of notations to the Commissioners. In Vera's talk she's complaining about fences all over and walls. We do have fences in Naples Park now. Walls are not a problem. The walls are going to be on three sides only. The rear and the two sides. The front side as you're driving down the road is not going to change the character at all. We're asking only for two variances, seven and a half-foot on the side -- one side of the home to move it over and a variance for a little chickee in the rear which will be behind the wall. As Mr. Henderson mentioned, he lives -- this is going to impact him because he lives in the rear. Mr. Henderson is my neighbor. He presently has a six-foot wall and he can't see anything through that wall. It's a solid fence. So when, if we get this variance and we build, and we put a wall up, our wall will be five feet away from his fence because of the easement and it's not going to affect him in any way. I don't see how it affects anyone. I know there's a lot of objection because people don't understand, can't look at a set of plans and understand what it's going to look like. Driving down the street in Naples Park, you're not going to notice any difference other than a brand new home. And as you see, other brand new homes, they're all different styles. This may be a different style. But I don't see how there could be any objection and as far as the variances we're asking for -- it's only for the chickee which is going to be two and a half feet over the line, but it will be inside the wall so no one will see it. And we're only asking for the house to be moved seven and a half feet to the line. Everything else remains the same. Commissioner Rautio mentioned we are coming to you with all these variances, it's not a whole bunch of variances, there's only two, as I understand it. MR. NINO: AI Newman, Sophia Prete. MR. NEWMAN: Morning, Commissioners. My name is AI Newman, N-e-w-m-a-n. I'm the president of Naples Park area association and I'm speaking for myself and a lot of our members. Page 46 December 7, 2000 We're asking for two variances for nine lots. I don't think so. Should be nine variances or 18 variances. That's beside the point. Naples Park is an old community. We do have new homes going in and they're going in on 50-foot lots with seven and a half-foot side yard setbacks. We went through this side yard setback easement or variance many times. We went from a seven and a half-foot to a five-foot because developers moved in and want to put duplexes in and they couldn't get a decent size duplex with a seven and a half side yard setback. So they got their five-foot setback. Found out that with the five-foot setback, you couldn't get a utility truck in between the buildings. So the commissioners again -- or code -- whatever, went back to the seven and a half-foot setback. Every time somebody comes up with a new idea, they want to play with the side yard setback or the backyard setback. Why not have them just buy a double lot and then put up the house of their choice. That's all I got to say. Thank you. MS. PRETE: My name is Sophie Prete, P-r-e-t-e. I'm a neighbor of George Faccone. He lives across the street from me. I don't think this type of buildings belongs on our block. I say buildings because they're going to be more than two-story according to this and the garage and then two stories. We're going to have this. One house designed whichever way you like it, upside down, I don't care, it's one house. He's building a row of houses. What is it going to look like in our neighborhood? That's what I'm afraid of. Okay. And the other thing, again, the drainage. With these houses, this row of houses, where are the swales? Why is he allowed no swales? There's no swales. And we cannot get rid of the existing swales we have now. We can't put piping or anything like that. What happens to greenery? We have no more greenery. It's all buildings on these lots. Naples Park has trees, we have lawns. My husband, that's what keeps him alive worrying about his darn lawn. What happened? And I have petitions the way people feel like I do, if I could enter them into the record. I would like them for the people. Page 47 December 7, 2000 And I guess that's about it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Can we just take a brief pause here while we change court reporters? (Small break was held}. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sir, were you sworn in? MR. MILLOG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You were not sworn in? MR. MILLOG: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm up here. You were sworn in? MR. MILLOG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Right here, up on the podium. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Right up here. I'm up here. You were sworn in, right? MR. MILLOG: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you'd just give your name and spell it please for the court reporter. MR. MILLOG: My name is Jacques, J-A-C-Q-U-E-S, Millog, last name Millog, M-I-L-L-O-G, and I live on 580 95th Avenue North. I'm living across the street from the supposed development. From what I understand, I object to the style of the building. To me, it would look like it's a large, large building, a big cement block, and as good as it could look, it still would be like almost the Berlin Wall. To me, that's what it looks like, and it breaks the harmony of Naples Park, and it would bring more -- it would bring more traffic, and I'm not so sure the drainage would be really so good either. This time now, it's not always good, and bringing more concrete block, the water would not have a chance to drip to the ground. There would be more water puddles and more complication and so forth, and overall, I don't think it's a very good project, and I'm against it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Sally Barker. MS. BARKER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Sally Barker, B-A-R-K-E-R, and I'm probably the only speaker this morning who is not a resident of Naples Park, but I'm here because I am chairman of the Property Owners' Associations of North Collier County, of which both Naples Park Associations are long and valued members, and I am Page 48 December 7, 2000 also a member of the select committee on community character and design, which is overseeing the study being undertaken by Dover-Kohl, and that's the reason the folks in Naples Park asked me to be here this morning, in the event there were any questions about the study that is currently underway, and we understand that you cannot make your decisions this morning based on the study that is not yet finished. That's just logic, but I would like to explain a bit about why Naples Park was chosen to be a component of the study that's underway. When Dover-Kohl came -- was selected to do the study, they looked around for an area in Collier County that embodied or represented what they referred to as the mature neighborhood, the older type of neighborhood that has some problems which over time can be corrected and addressed and the resulting concepts then applied to other older neighborhoods in the county. Naples Park was chosen because it embodies virtually everything you would want in a traditional neighborhood. Its residents cut across a very broad economic spectrum from the very poorest to the poor migrant up to people who can measure their net worth in seven figures and everything else in between. As has been mentioned before, it has a commercial area. It has a neighborhood school. It has the old original bungalows, cheek by jowl with these big huge new houses that you've seen displayed. It is the sheer diversity, this wonderful, wonderful diversity and the unexpected checks -- checks the position, which makes Naples Park a true neighborhood in the traditional sense. What you as the planning commission have to decide this morning is whether zero lot line villas are consistent with this concept of a traditional neighborhood, and I was at the meeting that Mr. Reischl referenced with Commissioner Carter where Mr. Reischl indicated the subject under discussion was the wall issue. Well, yes, walls were discussed, but actually, to my memory, the primary thrust of the discussion was the zero lot line concept and why this probably was not a good idea for Naples Park. There's nothing inherently wron9 with this type of housing project. They are very popular in the newer gated communities, and they are very attractive, and, you know, when they're in an Page 49 December 7, 2000 overall planned environment, I can see why people would like to live in these sort of courtyard villas, but the houses themselves are really not the issue, that is if they are all built within the recognized setbacks as outlined in the land development code. The issue is stringing them together in a zero lot line configuration, as has been mentioned before, this sort of mini PUD concept, and whether this type of housing product is consistent with the concept of a neighborhood as envisioned by the residents, and as Vera mentioned before, as Naples Park goes into the future, yes, it will be redeveloped. The question now is how is it going to be redeveloped and will this zero lot line, mini PUD concept somehow change the direction of Naples Park redevelopment and is that a desirable thing. That's not for me to say. That's for the residents of the neighborhood to say. If this individual developer does not have to abide by the setback requirements as outlined in the land development code, then theoretically, no one should have to abide by them in Naples Park. So, if you buy a 50 foot wide lot, why can't you build a 50 foot wide house? I mean, that's the way the logic flows here. Anyway, that's mostly what I have to say. If you have any questions about the Dover-Kohl study, I will be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you tell us what your best understanding is of the availability of this report to the community? MS. BAKER: The portion that involves Naples Park, the urban design portion will be presented to the select committee on January 19th. They are aiming for presentation to the full County Commission towards the end of February, I believe. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to caution the commissioners, if Marjorie doesn't, what we're considering today is what's before us, not events that will happen in the future, and remember the issues that we're really talk -- there's been a lot of good dialogue here today, but remember, we have to zero in on just the specific issues that are before us today. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Zero being zero. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Play on words. Page 50 December 7, 2000 Any -- any further comments from the public? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One more. MR. NINO: Carol Sabatino. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry, were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. SABATINO: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. SABATINO: Not yet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. The court reporter will be glad to do that. (The speaker was sworn). MS. SABATINO: My name is Carol Sabatino. Just for the record, I'm the wife of the petitioner. There were a couple of misconceptions that I'd like to just clarify if I may. Joseph has not gone ahead with settlement on the lots, but he does have an interest, a financial interest in the four lots and five lots. The legal owner of the lots is here today, Mr. George Faccone. Joseph was acting as his representative, just to clear that up. In answer to Mrs. Fitzgerald's objections to not wanting our particular single family homes, but she does, in fact, want some single family homes, not multi-family homes, it's our conclusion that some multi-family homes could possibly be built on these lots. Putting the two houses together and creating duplexes would accomplish that goal. Mr. Sabatino and myself do not feel that that's in the best interest of the neighborhood. We were attempting to develop single family. homes that would benefit the neighborhood. It is, in fact, our neighborhood now because we have a vested interest. We will be living there. That is our permanent home, and we plan to dwell there year- round. Both work -- I work in the area. In terms of the four lots on Immokalee Road, it's a busy street, and truly, it would be difficult to just go out and play on Immokalee Road. No reasonable person would wear a bathing suit walking up and down there, especially at rush hour; very busy street. There's a cemetery across from those lots, that's it. There are no houses. There are new houses, however, behind the four lots. Mr. Faccone, I think, has already spoken for his own lots, and the fence is behind the one where he currently dwells. It's my understanding that Mrs. Fitzgerald's objections are to Page 51 December 7, 2000 our particular lots, our particular design, not any other single family design. Some of the people have raised the issue about three-story homes. That is completely untrue. The -- there will be no more three-story homes -- they're simply not. They are two-story homes in the sense that they are actually one story homes with one small area upstairs for an additional bedroom, because there simply is not room downstairs to put the additional bedroom. There would be an additional bedroom and a bath upstairs. So, just to clarify that. Garage is where everybody else's garage is supposed to be. They are expanded single-story homes. In the lots that we're currently building, on our own personal dwelling on 110th Avenue, some of the neighbors came to see us because they were concerned that we were putting up three-story duplexes is what they had been told. We sat with them in their homes, people who live across the street, people who live next door, and they both agreed that they liked the design. They were very happy with what we were doing, and they actually have said they're quite happy to have us there, and we're looking forward to living there and becoming neighbors. We do know that the lots will be developed eventually, and we feel it's a very sensitive solution to that development. We will enjoy all the things that Mrs. Fitzgerald has stated. We'll enjoy riding our bikes to the beach. We'll enjoy Wiggins Pass State Park. We actually -- I drive there two or three times a day, see all the children coming home from school. I enjoy seeing that too. We've raised four children ourselves, and we're very much in favor of a family neighborhood. The walls are not necessarily around the entire property, and I wanted to make that very, very clear. The walls are set back from the front of the house; from the front of the house, just a normal house. You get to the side of the house, then the wall begins, and that's where we are proposing to put the walls. This -- if you'll be kind enough to look at the photo -- thank you, Fred -- this is an existing home in Naples Park. I believe it's on Sixth Avenue -- Sixth Street, which is just around the corner from where our current home is being constructed, and you will see their attempt to incorporate some privacy into the home. So, I don't believe it's just -- this is an original idea. Many of the homes in Naples Park have quite high -- six foot fences Page 52 December 7, 2000 minimally, and some actually, they're quite a bit taller than that, but it's not my place to go into that right now. At the end of our street -- Fred, if you'd be kind enough with the -- the other two houses. This particular house is at the end of 110th Avenue. It's on the same -- at the same location where we are building; this one also. So, they'd be just around the corner from the four lots; not the five, but the four, and this is what's being allowed now. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you know if that's on one lot? MS. SABATINO: Two different houses -- it's two different houses, I want to make that clear. As to the width of the lots, I really couldn't say, but they do -- they are quite large homes and of a Mediterranean style as ours will be. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? MS. SABATINO: Both at the end of the street, they're just four blocks away. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any further speakers, Ron? MR. NINO: I believe Mr. Faccone wants to -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'll give you one minute, sir. MR. FACCONE: For the record, I'm George Faccone again. I forgot to mention when I was up the first time, and I appreciate the opportunity, it's my understanding that some people here don't like what we're proposing, and maybe because of a variety of reasons. I remember a couple of years ago when the County Commission was voting on the drainage in Naples Park. These chambers were full. The hallways were full. Outside people were standing because it affected a lot of people. This, nobody seems to be affected by it at all except a very few, and I don't see any reason why the planning board should not vote for an acceptance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anybody else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. Comments before I ask for a motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question for staff. Page 53 December 7, 2000 Would you clarify for me the total number of variances we're asking for here? Someone said it was only two each place, and I really want to understand, because you say several variances, and I want to know the number. MR. REISCHL: Yes, it is more than two. One variance on most of the lots would be the seven and a half foot side yard, basically sliding the house to the one side, and the other variances would be for the accessory structures within the wall on that remaining -- the newly created larger side yard and the rear. It might be better to show you on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, the total number, Fred? I'm looking at total number. MR. REISCHL: Depending on which lot, three. Some have only -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: three -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Three each. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- on some lots, so we add those all up and come out with t2, t 9, t 8? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Twenty-seven. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Twenty-seven they're saying. How many variances are we talking about? I just want that on the record. MR. REISCHL: Oh, the total number with -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Total number of variances. MR. REISCHL: -- number of lots? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: No, variances. MR. REISCHL: I have trouble with my kids' math homework, SO -- Three total? On nine lots we have COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Why don't you take them one house at a time and that way you can understand it? If you're saying two or three per lot -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, and -- he's counting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Please, no comment from the public. We've closed the public hearing, and because the court reporter can only put down one person at a time, okay. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Twenty-five. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Twenty-five variances total? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: On how many lots? MR. REISCHL: Well -- and somebody brought this up, the Page 54 December 7, 2000 reason that we combined this into two variances instead of having individual variances on individual lots, besides going through nine different public hearings, this allows us to require a site development plan on this so that they are not built in a haphazard manner but they are -- they will have a consistent theme within these four lots and within the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: There will be two separate site plans. MR. REISCHL: Right, there will be -- the 111th -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: They may do one and maybe not do the other. I mean, that would be his option. MR. REISCHL: Correct, but this would prevent one person, Mr. Sabatino or Mr. Faccone from selling one lot, having that person develop this and then selling it to somebody else who decided not to use the variance to build a more traditional house. This way, if the variances are approved, they would have to have a site development plan, as they did with the first petition in May, and, therefore, you have to develop this pattern of lots. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But it still maintains that there are going to be four lots in one group and five lots in another group. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, we are talking about individual lots with the -- it sounds like the presumption is that we've combined all these, if you're given only, quote, two variances or maybe three, and I just wanted that understood because I'm sure that will come up again when this goes before the Board of County Commissioners. MR. REISCHL: They will remain single family lots. However, they will be tied together with a site development plan which shows a consistent plan of development among those five and four lots. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer a motion. Contrary -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let's clarify that we're going to get a motion on Petition V-2000-25. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The subject property is located at 111th Avenue, described as Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47, Block 80, Page 55 December 7, 2000 Naples Park. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That first issue, contrary to your earlier advice, I'd like to offer a motion to postpone consideration of this request for variance in view of the fact that we have material coming out on Naples Park in the Dover-Kohl report that's going to be imminently available as indicated by Sally by February, it will be in the hands of the board, and I see that there would be no hardship on this developer for him to wait, since he's already working on one experiment in the area, and I would like to formally ask that as a motion and ask for a second. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You bet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if the petitioner is willing to withdraw or postpone, then I would be in favor of that, but as far as I can tell, the petition is ripe for decision up or down today, and that's what we ought to do unless he wants to postpone it or ask for a continuance. MR. SABATINO: I was not notified of a moratorium. I cannot withdraw it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: My comment -- MR. SABATINO: I'm sorry, my name is Joseph Sabatino, the petitioner. I was not notified of any moratorium. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, there isn't a moratorium, and I'm not asking you to withdraw it. I'm asking you to ask for a continuance if you want to honor this to the best -- MR. SABATINO: My financial interests are at risk. It must be acted upon. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I understand that. Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: My comment -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a -- I'm chairman, I get to speak next, okay. My comment is, is there are probably very few PUDs at one place or another that does not come before us that at some stage through the County there is some study or plan amendment, and I would encourage the commissioners that we probably need to consider this. Page 56 December 7, 2000 Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I agree. I can't support the motion as it stands because the property could be under contract. There would be financial hardships involved, and I can't support the motion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Chairman, I can't support the motion either because I in no way want to have any implication that we're having a de facto moratorium here. It would make a lot more sense to either vote up or vote down on this, and I can't support even the slightest concept of a moratorium or de facto moratorium. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Call the question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sensing a split, I would ask that we vote by call of commissioners' names. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Goodness. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: She seconded the -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. Obviously, I'm for this one, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. You're voting aye? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is no. Commissioner Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe that is eight to two -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six to two. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- right? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Six to two. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Six to two. Page 57 December 7, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Your math is as good as Fred's. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just made a dimple with my vote. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mine is a hanging chad. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: As chairman, I will not ask for a recount. Motion defeated. I will entertain another motion. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll offer a second motion. On V-2000-25, I would recommend that this be forwarded to the Collier County Board as -- with the recommendation for it not to be approved. There's no land related hardship. There is other information that is certainly going to bear on this particular issue. This is an effort to pelicanize Naples Park in a way that has not been approved by any study. The view of us taking a look at variances in a vacuum without any consideration of the housing product that's going to occur I reject, and I would ask my fellow commissioners to support me on this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a clarification, that's the Board of Zoning Appeals. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A motion made by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to say a couple of things. I have great difficulty approving this because of the no land use related hardship and the idea that it's a traditional family neighborhood that could be built there. We're somewhat changing the character of the neighborhood by variances in my opinion. The second item is, as far as creating a process by which you approve villa type style housing or courtyard type style housing, that this is, in my opinion, like a mini PUD, and I would rather see a PUD process produce this type of product versus actually doing it by 25 variances. That's it. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I can go next? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman. Page 58 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah, we're having discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I voted against the companion projects when they came before us some months ago. The seven foot fence was only one portion of my disdain for the project. We may not be talking about style in the sense of whether it's Mediterranean or old Florida or whatever, but the petitioner is here because the entire package, the house, whatever its facade, and its ancillary structures and the fence all become the package that he's coming forth with, and that is a different style, and because -- because of that, he needs smaller rear and side yard setbacks. We've got ample evidence that -- at least a hundred of the people who live in the neighborhood are opposed to this, and I think that we owe some deference to the people who are going to have to live with these structures. So, for all of those reasons, I cannot support the petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Fred, can this be a PUD even if they wanted to, or does not qualify for a PUD? MR. REISCHL: I believe it doesn't qualify under the size requirements. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comment? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'm not done. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I've been wrong twice today. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I think we've seen this over and over, this type of development throughout the community, whether it's in a PUD or other places. I see no difference in this. It's a courtyard design home. Just because it looks different than the rest of the neighborhood, it does not make it wrong. I, for one, can support the notion. I think it's a good project. I think they're beautiful looking homes, and if this qualified for a PUD, he would have come in under a PUD and then some of the board members wouldn't have had the objection. We've seen it all over Naples. I -- I can't support the motion. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: May I respond? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You're right. There are Pelican Bays, and there are Pelican Marshes, and there are Page 59 December 7, 2000 pelican droppings all over the place in terms of this kind of housing style, and I think a valid point was made, if people want to live there, there's certainly that housing product available. I take issue with your comment that we, therefore, should pick up that housing product and dump it in the middle of a traditional single family neighborhood. It doesn't work when you're disrupting housing patterns that are already there. It does not invalidate your point that they're all over the place, and I agree with that, but it's not a good reason to put it into a traditional neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Richardson, we've looked at this in the past, and we struggled with it, and we ended up approving it, and we couldn't penalize, couldn't see in our hearts penalizing the petitioner just because it looks different. Times change. Homes look different. It's -- it's -- it's the year 2000, so -- and we've looked at it before and approved it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: My final comment, there is no land related hardship. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And it doesn't have to be a land related hardship for a variance to be approved, and the planning staff can support me on that. It does not have -- we keep looking at that as there's no hardship. That's one of the criteria. It's not the entire criteria. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We have a difference in waiting on those criteria. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comments? If not, I'll get the last word by -- trust me, I heard the public today. I did hear a word called diversity within the neighborhood, and I'm not sure this is diversity, and I'm looking at the compatible issue, I guess. I've been through Naples Park many times. There is a wide range of homes, and to simply put my bias, I live in a house not unlike this. I happen to like that style of house, but that's not the reason that I'm not going to vote to support this motion. I think it's a good project. A variance for a chickee hut that the neighbors are not going to see -- I'm quite familiar with the setback issue, and that's the only one that gives me a little grief, but I think this house and this product is probably better than what could be built there, and I encourage the Naples Park folk to go forward. Maybe they need an overlay for your community. They need to go forward if Page 60 December 7, 2000 you're going to define your community, but based on what I've seen. today, I'm not going to support the motion, and with that, I would call once again, because I sense a split vote, a roll call by the commissioners. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. VICE CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage votes no. Commissioner Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson. I -- if I added that one right, I believe it was four to four. With that, we will go to the next petition, which is V-2000-26. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I would offer a motion for -- that V-2000-26, and I'll say it correctly this time, we refer to the zoning board our consideration of a variance with a recommendation for denial, and I would ask that the record be modified or be shown to reflect the reasons that I offered in the previous motion to be placed -- MS. STUDENT: I need to just clarify something for the record. When it's a tie, that means the motion fails. So, I don't know if it's no recommendation or-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We've had those before, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I know. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And we've let them -- sleeping dogs lie. That's going forward -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I think they've gone just stated as is, yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second Mr. Richardson's motion of denial with this petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Page 61 December 7, 2000 Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion on this motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to say the basic things that I said last time apply to this one also. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think that goes without question, I think, for everybody. Once again, calling the roll call by commissioner. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage, no. Commissioner Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was hoping one of the commissioners might have realized it best. Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let the record show we have a four-four tie. I thank you all for coming, and with that, we will move on to Petition V-2000-30. The owner is the District School Board of Collier County, and with that, anyone willing to give -- wishing to give testimony on this petition, please rise, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Continue with the Fred Reischl show. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a height variance for the school board -- proposed school board administration building. The required maximum height in the RSF-3 district is 35 feet, and the board is asking for a five -- for five stories with a maximum of 80 feet. The location, basically the easiest way to describe it is the Barron Collier High School campus in the northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Ridge and Airport. This is the -- there's a Page 62 December 7, 2000 Pine Ridge entrance to the property and then two from Airport Road, Cougar Drive and what is basically used by the bus maintenance facility access, bus storage access. To the north you have FountainView Apartments that are developed. To the west is the Tall Pines single family community. There's also Summerwind and Cypress Glen. To the east, not on this map, is the existing Livingston Road, which is due for expansion, so it is basically sandwiched between three major roads. The petitioner states that the taller five-story building with a smaller footprint would result in a savings of 1.5 million dollars. The proposed building is buffered from surrounding property, but an 80 foot building may be visible from various surrounding properties. Mr. Duane agreed to provide a line of sight exhibit during his presentation. The actual location of the structure is here in pink, and, again, you can see here Tall Pines and FountainView to the north would be the two most affected communities by an 80 foot building here. This is the bus maintenance or bus storage facility. This is Barron Collier High School, and this is not existing at the time, this is a proposed elementary school. You can see the wetland running through here. This wetland buffer to the east will provide some buffer to future development here adjacent to Livingston Road, and you have the bus maintenance facility and the high school between Tall Pines and the proposed building, again, depending on line of sight for a building that tall. FountainView has the, I guess, most affected view because this is a lake right here, so there is no treed area to impede line of sight that way. The savings for the petitioner of 1.5 million dollars is a financial hardship, not land related. However, please keep in mind that this is the school board, and it is an ultimate burden on the taxpayers of Collier County. So, it's not a traditional fiscal impact on the petitioner in that way. What this board and the Board of Zoning Appeals has to weigh is the impact of this proposed structure on the local residents and their view versus the fiscal impact, the savings of 1.5 million dollars to Collier County taxpayers. Staff recommends that even though it's buffered, it is a Page 63 December 7, 2000 financial hardship. They did have alternate plans of a three-story building, which the school board voted to go forward with this 'variance for the smaller footprint for the greater tax savings, and staff, despite the taxpayer savings, staff is constrained from recommending approval. I did receive two letters in objection and six phone calls, and I believe everybody identified themselves as residents of Tall Pines. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did you get any specifics on where they calculate the 1.5 million? Is it just the difference of the footprint of the building or could you just elaborate from your review of it, because I'm sure we'll hear from them, about this alleged savings? MR. REISCHI.: From my non-building background, I was told that it results from the savings in the foundation materials. That's as far as I understood it. I think you should rely more on their expertise. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did you question this or ask for specific -- MR. REISCHL: I asked -- yes, I asked for the savings, and that's what I was -- they gave me a more detailed answer, which I don't want to repeat because of my lack of expertise in that field. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So, we'll wait for the presentation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN WRAGE'. Certainly. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What is the unplatted area to the west? You mentioned future Livingston Road. Is that an area that's going to be developed for housing or -- MR. REISCHL: Right now, it's zoned agricultural. It is within the urban mixed use area, so it, in all probability, it will be redeveloped into housing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, one of our concerns should not only be the existing housing patterns but the housing patterns that are most likely to go into this area. MR. REISCHL'. In the future, correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Could this applicant have Page 64 December 7, 2000 come in under a PUD? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And if it was a PUD, then he could get the height restrictions without coming to us? MR. REISCHL: It would be considered in the same way through the planning commission and the Board of Zoning -- or Board of County Commissioners in that case, you're right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, it would be dealing with the same precedent setting heights at -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just something was said there that I think I missed. The school board normally doesn't have to come to us. The only reason they're here is the height issue; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Even though -- we're talking money here. Historically, this board has been told to ignore the dollar issue other than the fact that we all have a vested interest here, and it is our money. MR. REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So, I guess I find it interesting, we are talking about money; when on private enterprise, we are supposed to rise above that and look at zoning issues. MR. REISCHL: And that's why -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's just a comment that I think is interesting here. MR. REISCHL: That's why staff recommends denial. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just glad to understand. Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Why does two -- am I correct, two extra stories require an additional 45 feet? MR. REISCHL: I asked that question myself. It is -- each story is going to be close to 14 feet, so it's -- there, again, structurally you can ask Mr. Duane, but there is -- I questioned the number of feet as opposed to the number of stories, and I was told that it may not get to 80 feet, but it will be in the range from 72 to 78, somewhere Page 65 December 7, 2000 around there. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Wouldn't it be feasible to adjust the height of the ceilings and come up with a lower structure? MR. REISCHL: That's feasible. Apparently not able to -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And cost less perhaps. MR. REISCHL: Apparently not in concert with their current design. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I notice your staff recommendation is couched in terms of staff is constrained from recommending approval. That normally means that you don't have any problem with it except that it's against the code -- MR. REISCHL: Well-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- doesn't it? MR. REISCHL: -- it was two -- it was two conflicting issues because one of the criteria, F, says or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. One point five million dollars is a savings, is a benefit to the public welfare. So, it's -- there were conflicting issues there. We went with the land related hardship recommendation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which is the only one that was really before you, because the dollar issue is not, as was pointed out by the chairman, is not an issue -- MR. REISCHL: Normally-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- in our decisions. MR. REISCHL: -- normally that's true, except, again, you are dealing with taxpayer dollars here, not corporate dollars. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I'm misunderstanding your point, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, and I think the point is that this board needs to look at the variance, and the, what I'm going to call a political issue, is going to come in at the Board of Zoning Appeals, and I just didn't want to get us wrapped up in saving the taxpayers money, which I would love to do, but our issue here is going to be the height variance. MR. REISCHI.: The land development code, correct. Page 66 December 7, 2000 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's the way I understand it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? If not, can we hear from the petitioner?. MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Jim Simms. I'm the associate superintendent for operations for the School Board of Collier County. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I have some very preliminary comments to make, and then I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Gary Krueger who is from our architectural firm of Schenkel Shultz, who will answer many of the questions that you pose to staff. First, I would like to briefly address the matter of whether there is a feasible alternate site for our new administrative center. In terms of the property that the school board already owns, there is none. There is no other site that's large enough that meets the general criteria which the board established, that is a site that is centrally located and easily accessible by the public. Nevertheless, we did examine many other sites throughout the county that were advertised for sale and many that were not advertised. We found no site more suitable than the existing site at Barron Collier. In most cases, the costs were the determining factor, either the cost to acquire the property or the cost to develop the property or both. We simply could not justify those costs in view of the fact that we already have a site that's virtually ideal for what we have in mind. We have developed two specific site plans, which Mr. Krueger will outline for you, one of which requires the waiver, as we've indicated. Approval of that waiver will avoid two major adverse impacts that will otherwise occur, the first being the cost factor as has been mentioned, and the second, a limitation on our flexibility to meet future expansion needs at that site. Mr. Krueger will address those, and unless you have questions of me at this time, I'll turn it over to him. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have one question, if I may. Page 67 December 7, 2000 MR. SIMMS: Sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You indicate that there are -- there's no other land available to put this space that you require, and I accept that. However, the staff analysis indicates that you could put that same space at 35 feet on this same property. MR. SIMMS: I -- I meant that in terms of specific sites, other than the Barron Collier site, there's no other site that's feasible from our point of view. You are entirely correct in that we could move it around here at the Barron Collier site. So, if that's what you're getting to, sir, the answer to that is yes. There are a number of alternatives with respect to how we lay out the configuration of the administrative center at the Barron Collier site, but in terms of sites outside this area, there are none that are feasible in our study. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So, you can accomplish what you need to do on this site without any further consideration by us if you keep it at 35 feet? MR. SIMMS: If we keep it at 35 feet, we can do that, but, again, the implications are the costs and the limitation on future development plans. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Did you speak to the future development plans, because that hasn't been an issue that the planner said -- addressed? MR. SIMMS: Yes, sir. As was indicated by staff, we have two other facilities there in addition to Barron Collier High School. We have a transportation facility which houses many of our school buses and the maintenance facility for those school buses, and we have a maintenance department that operates out of that site as well. We are going to have a need in the future to expand our maintenance capability, both at the maintenance department, that is the department which takes care of all of our buildings and grounds and so forth, and our school bus transportation facility. At some point in the future we're going to have to expand those operations. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Those, however, perhaps would not require a single building to take care of. They could be scattered out as it is currently on there. Page 68 December 7, 2000 MR. SIMMS: They could be, and as a matter of fact, our approach to the maintenance and transportation, very honestly, is not to expand here any more than what's absolutely essential to handle our immediate concerns, our immediate needs in this area. Our preference is to have satellite facilities, much as what we have now at Rattlesnake Hammock, a satellite transportation facility for some of our buses. We intend to continue to pursue that in the future, but we don't want to foreclose any option that we might have at this site, because as you're aware, of course, who knows what we're going to need in the future. We do the best we can in predicting what our future needs will be, but who knows. We don't want to foreclose here unless that's absolutely essential. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just a general question -- MR. SIMMS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- since you're talking about general items. The four items that you're talking about in the staff report said increase security in this limiting the public less area. MR. SIMMS: That's right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Could you just elaborate on that one and then a little bit about staff efficiency and internal circulation, because those words sound good together, but from my practical standpoint, I'm not sure what you're really getting at. (Commissioner Young leaves the meeting}. MR. SIMMS: Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. I don't know if you've been to our current administrative center, but if you have, you know we're in -- we have a small building which houses many of us. We have a number of outlined portables and then we have a number of staff that are located over in the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology. We have staff located at the transportation maintenance facility, which we would otherwise want to have in our administrative center. It's very difficult and very inefficient to operate that way because many of the staff operations require coordination with other staff, as you would expect, and so there's a loss of efficiency there as a result of -- the fact that we are now distributed quite widely across our existing campus. We want to Page 69 December 7, 2000 avoid that to the extent we can when we build the new administrative center. In terms of security, again, it's a matter of access and limiting that access to the extent we can. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, with the internal circulation, you're going to take all of those diverse areas and plop them into one building that's five stories -- MR. SIMMS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- rather than three stories. MR. SIMMS: That would be ideal from our point of view. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And if you only had three stories, does that mean you still have a variety of locations where the staff must interact with each other? MR. SIMMS: Yes, we would have some staff in one building and some staff in another building that would have to coordinate with each other. Obviously, if we have two separate buildings -- maybe I misunderstood your question. If we have two separate buildings, we're going to try to incorporate and place into one building as many of staff as possible that normally would coordinate with each other so as to limit the need to coordinate with those in another building. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Of course, so then this is face-to-face contact versus computer E-mails -- MR. SIMMS: Sure. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- telephones and even technology like that? MR. SIMMS: Sure, and we rely very heavily on that, obviously. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And is there a security issue right now? MR. SIMMS: No, we don't think so. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You don't think so. Okay, thank you. this MR. SIMMS: Thank you. I'll turn it over to Mr. Krueger at time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. KRUEGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Can I just get you to, again, state your name for the record, please? Page 70 December 7, 2000 MR. KRUEGER: My name is Gary Krueger. I'm with the architectural firm of Schenkel Schultz. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me. Just for the current convenience of the public, would it not make more sense that we put those over here? I don't want to waste time, but the public can't see any of these, and they're part of this proceeding. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: While they are doing that, I assume the court reporter noticed that Commissioner Young was gone? Okay. Thank you. MR. KRUEGER: Again, I'm Gary Krueger with the architectural firm of Schenkel Shultz, K-R-U-E-G-E-R. Thank you for letting me have the opportunity to present this morning. What Mr. Simms has said -- he's pretty much identified many of the items already, and I will elaborate on them. The -- the site, as you know, is on the Barron Collier site. The -- in investigating and analyzing the architectural characteristics of the building and the layout for the client, for the District School Board of Collier County, we analyzed several items, primarily the security, the efficiency, the future development, our growth as well as the budget. In looking at those items, we evaluated several aspects of how the building or buildings could be configured and some with respect to the 35 foot height limitation. The -- the two primary site considerations that we have represented here, one showing a two building scheme, another one showing a single building scheme. The two building scheme represents a two and a three-story building, with the single building scheme representing the five-story building. In analyzing these types of buildings and looking at the function of the district school board and how the school board departments relate to each other, it became a part of the analysis of the efficiency, and what we have found from experience in an office building design is that a footprint of about 30,000 square feet is the most economical and most efficient for a multi-department use of a building. Therefore, we looked at it again with respect to a single story, five-story -- a single building, five-story or a two building, three and a two, each with that approximate footprint. We find that that is the most economical with respect to bay depths, structural bay depths and also with respect to utility runs and such things as data communications Page 71 December 7, 2000 and that type of thing. In so doing -- and first of all, looking at it with respect to the security, the two building concept or, for that matter, a larger two or three-story building allows for greater surface and wall area at the ground floor, ground floor level, which creates an increased security concern. Also, with respect to the utility issues, the utilities are able to be run to one building as opposed to a central -- for instance, central mechanical plant and a shared utility run that would serve both buildings. The efficiency with respect to the inter-departmental relationships, the district has approximately 25 different departments that we're working with and that generally all work in conjunction with each other, and the logistics of the communication and the interaction between the departments with respect to a two building or a larger footprint of a single building as opposed to a single lower building as opposed to a single five-story building would become more cumbersome and would not be as beneficial to the efficient operation of the district. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me, sir. MR. KRUEGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Over here. MR. KRUEGER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought you were talking about personnel security. You're talking about property security; is that right? MR. KRUEGER: In both, in both respects. It's personnel, but also records, student records and that type of thing. The access to the building with respect to a larger building footprint or a two building scenario would create extra entrances, extra egresses and also a greater wall surface area at the ground level that would potentially create a security hazard or concern. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How far apart would the two buildings be in that configuration? MR. KRUEGER: In this configuration, they are approximately 50 feet apart. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's too far to put a skyway, sky bridge between the two? Page 72 December 7, 2000 MR. KRUEGER: It would be -- it would be expensive to connect them with a sky bridge. We would, in that scenario, consider possibly some sort of a ground connection walkway type thing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pardon me, I'm sorry. MR. KRUEGER: And once again, with respect to the efficiency of the building, considering the fact that this is a -- not only a staff related or staff use building but also a public use building, the identification of a primary entrance and the familiarity with the building from the public standpoint with respect to school board meetings and things is much more efficient in a single tower or a single building scenario. With respect to the budget, we had worked with the construction manager on the project, Kraft Construction from Naples, with respect to analyzing the conceptual designs that we had done for the building. The additional costs are not only relative to the foundation systems -- there would be some additional costs in that respect, but there is additional cost as I had indicated within a two building scenario or a larger single footprint building, additional mechanical rooms, additional mechanical equipment, additional egress and entrance points to the building, circulation vertically in terms of stair towers, elevators, and, again, the increase of cost with respect to data runs and utility runs, because of the -- the -- the -- the -- I'm sorry -- the restrictions of the distances that data cabling and communication wiring can go or mechanical duct runs without being excessively large. So, there are additional expenses involved. That was all taken into account in looking at the overage. In addition, there is additional land that is involved, site work that would be involved. We've estimated that either a larger building footprint or a two building scenario would take approximately another two to three acres of the designated area on the site, which would increase the site costs as well as would involve additional circulation on the site that would be cumbersome for the staff or the public. In addition, looking at a three-story scenario for either the two building scheme or a single footprint three-story is restrictive in terms of the 35 foot height. It can be done, but there are additional expenses involved in shorter bay depths. Page 73 December 7, 2000 Because of the ceiling heights, the restriction of the ceiling heights, we would have to have lower structural systems or structural members that would reduce the bay depths of the structural members, and, therefore, add additional cost to the building. The -- the building was sited on the -- on this particular parcel in such a way to minimize the impact of the community, utilizing the buffering that would be in place with the preserve area on the east and with the lake that would be -- that is being developed to the north as well as the relationship to the proposed elementary school and the proximity to a proposed road that would go to Livingston so that the access to the site could be from Livingston or from Pine Ridge Road. We have indicated on the site plan that the distance from the edge -- from the west of the building -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You can use the microphone right over there and point that out to us. MR. KRUEGER: Thank you. All right. The building being proposed here in either the single or the two building scheme would be proposed for this location. The distance from the west property line to the -- to the west property line of the Barron Collier site is approximately 1,750 feet. We have 660 feet to the east property line and then another 1,360 feet to the proposed Livingston Road. The distance to the property line to the north is 580 feet. The parking is located around the building in both of the schemes and has -- has the opportunity of creating -- the way that we have distributed around the building, to create landscape medians, and the intent is to provide landscaping in terms of trees and shrubbery within those median areas to further enhance the buffering. The other thing I'd like to show is we have -- we have developed at this point two conceptual exterior elevations that would be relative to the five-story scheme. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Before you leave that, what are those buildings to the west in the transportation and maintenance -- MR. KRUEGER: These? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What size buildings are those, height-wise? Page 74 December 7, 2000 MR. KRUEGER: They are single story buildings that are approximately, I believe approximately about 20 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, you're saying that the proposed five-story building would be 750 feet from the west property line -- MR. KRUEGER: It would be -- I'm sorry, excuse me, 1,750 feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I said seventeen fifty is what I meant to say. MR. KRUEGER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, that's -- from Tall Pines, it's 1,750 feet? MR. KRUEGER: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. KRUEGER: We have, as I say, developed two conceptual exterior elevations that we are -- we are working with the school district on as far as -- as far as evaluating and analysis. They have not been approved yet by the school district but just conceptually, we've just used them as an indication of what the building might look like, and I brought those along this morning as well; this being a traditional type scheme, and this being a little more of a contemporary version, and, again, they're just conceptual at this point. They've not been approved, but we've just presented them as an idea of what could be developed there. At this time, I'll answer any additional questions that anybody has. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, I don't believe so. Ron, just as a way of information -- and I realize staff has recommended denial -- two things, directly across the road behind the shopping center, do you remember what the height was the building came in? As I recall, we recommended approval, and the County Commissioners turned it down. Was that a three or four-story building? MR. NINO: A shopping center? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Behind the shopping center there were some -- MR. NINO: What shopping center? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Right next to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bed, Bath and Beyond? Page 75 December 7, 2000 an ii is, COMMISSIONER PEDONE: On the south side. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, no, on the south side. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Carillon. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carillon; behind there, they came in for COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The Sports Authority -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- expansion of their PUD. MR. NINO: I don't recall what the Carillon height provision CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yeah, right behind -- next to Worthington (sic). COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No, Kensington. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It abutted the vegetable farm right there in the back. MR. NINO: I don't recall what it was. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It can't be more than 35 feet just from looking at it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because they were in here to change their PUD for that, and my next issue is, a property directly to the east is agricultural, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What I can see is someone coming and asking for a building the same height as this one. MR. NINO: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Once the precedent is there, it's there. MR. NINO: I don't see that there's any reason to believe that undeveloped property to the north would be allowed buildings higher than what the current zoning framework permits. I wouldn't expect that even under a PUD, remember the land is zoned residential, that we would consider anything more than a three or four-story building, but that line is -- in all respect, that line is a considerable distance away from the school board's project, and I can't believe that the horizon that's going to be created by this building or a building that's 80 feet tall that's 800 to 900 feet away can be deemed to be offensive. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Nino, if the property is, however, to the east, not to the north, is somewhat closer, and that's undeveloped as well. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman~ if I could -- Page 76 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation, but there's some thoughts that -- MR. SIMMS: I'd like to speak to the property to the east. We can speculate, of course, of what might happen, but I can tell you that the school board has an eminent domain action to acquire a strip of that property for an access road to connect to Livingston. I can also tell you that the Community School and the School Board of Collier County have, over the past couple of years in the case of the school board, not quite that long, I'm sure, in the case of the Community School, negotiated with the owner of that property to acquire that property. I don't think that the school board is going to continue to pursue that except for eminent domain purposes for a road. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But you understand my line of questioning is the fact that I can sit here and say, yeah, because it's a school board, they can build it, and someone comes in next door and says, well, wait a minute, I just want to build the same thing they've got next door. MR. SIMMS: The Community School is still negotiating with the owner of that property to acquire the property immediately to our east, and that's the only point I wanted to make for your information. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. SIMMS: Thank you. MR. KRUEGER: I also just wanted to point out, I understand that there is a Baptist church to the north that is approximately 80 feet as well. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Eighty feet what; 80 feet high? MR. KRUEGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's already been approved? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: It's in the middle of being built. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That was brought in under a PUD? MR. NINO: Where is that? MR. REISCHL: Yes, the First Baptist Church is a PUD. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Page 77 December 7, 2000 MR. NINO: You have -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further presentation by the petitioners? If not, anyone from the public who wishes to address this issue? MR. NINO: Nicole Marginian, Linda Baviello, Diana Bertram. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I'm sorry, I didn't keep track, I'm going to have to ask if you were sworn in. MS. MARGINIAN: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, and if you would state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please. MS. MARGINIAN: Yes. Good morning, or good afternoon. My name is Nicole Marginian. It's M-A-R-G-I-N-I-A-N, and I'm with the firm of Quarles & Brady, and we represent the Tall Pines Property Owners' Association. The property owners in Tall Pines urge the board today to recommend a denial of this variance for several reasons. There are legal reasons and economic reasons for this. First, under the land development code, there's no land related hardship here. The school board can build this building within the height limitations of the residential zoning. They do not need to go five floors and 80 feet. The property owners in Tall Pines have had several opinions of property appraisers and realtors that the property values in their neighborhood will go down. Now, I realize that they're arguing that there's a tax savings here of 1.5 million dollars, but the property owners in Tall Pines should not have to bear the burden of this tax savings. If the property in Tall Pines goes down, let's say $10,000 per home, there are 117 homes in Tall Pines, which would equal to roughly over one million dollars. That's equal to the tax savings, and the Tall Pines property owners are bearing that savings for the entire county. I'd also like to pose some questions to the board that they should consider when approving this, some of the reasons that the board -- the school board is citing for building this five-story house -- five-story building is that there will be security reasons for this. This is an administrative building. Most of the schools in the county are one story or two story high, and all the children in our county are in these buildings, and there's not a security problem there. I'm wondering what the security problem would Page 78 December 7, 2000 be in a three-story building for the administration. Another question would be efficiency. They are saying that it's more efficient to have a five-story building for the staff of the school in order to meet with each other. We're in -- we're in the year 2000. People communicate by phones and E-mail, and if you do need to speak to someone, you walk down the hall and you go talk to him. In a five-story building, you shoot up the elevator, up the stairs, I don't really see much efficiency there or much time savings. That's one thing -- that's another thing that you should consider, and that's all I have right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ma'am. MS. MARGINIAN: Yes? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We have a question for you. MS. MARGINIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The property appraisers that gave you some advice that it could be a potential of property reduction, do you have anything in writing that tells us roughly $10,000 would be impacted for each home reducing the property value? MS. MARGINIAN: No, I do not have that with me today. It's an estimate. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So, that was the figure that was used, roughly $10,000 would be affecting these property values, about a $10,000 reduction? MS. MARGINIAN: No, that was just a hypothetical scenario. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: MS. MARGINIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: MS. MARGINIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER PEDONE: MS. MARGINIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: A hypothetical. I wanted to get that clear. Thank you. I have a question also for her. There's a distance of approximately 1,753 feet from the end of the property to the new building. In between there, you have an existing transportation and maintenance facility, I believe you have a football field with lighting and then you have parking and you have the high school. Page 79 December 7, 2000 Hasn't that already caused a problem with the value of the property? MS. MARGINIAN: No, and those structures have been there for years, and the property owners in Tall Pines purchased their homes knowing that those structures were there. They also knew that everything around them was zoned residential, and they did not have -- when they bought their property, did not have any thought that a five-story building would go up around them. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: But eighteen -- we'll just round it off at 1,800 feet, it's quite a distance. MS. MARGINIAN: Some would say yes; some would say no. I also -- if I could, I have a letter of objection that has been written on the property owners' behalf, if I could submit it for the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Give it to Commissioner Abernathy. We'll enter it into the record. Next speaker, Ron. MR. NINO: Diane Bertram. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. BERTRAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. State your name for the court reporter. MS. BERTRAM: My name is Diana Bertram, B-E-R-T-R-A-M. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm going to ask that you speak up. I'm not hearing you. MS. BERTRAM: I'm sorry. I'm not a good speaker. I hate this. I like the fact that you have access coming from Pine Ridge and Livingston Road. I think that's good. That will help traffic impact on Tall Pines. That's where I reside. The buildings are beautiful. I like the concept. I personally don't have any problem with the construction of a building, but the view of a five-story building out our backyard, I feel quite confident will reduce the value of our property. You can go horizontal versus vertical and accomplish the same task. The -- will we see that building from Tall Pines, and the comments that we've received, if you can see that building as you drive into Tall Pines or if you can see that building from your backyard, it will reduce your property values. That's my concern. When they mentioned growth, that, obviously, raised a Page 80 December 7, 2000 caution flag for yet another concern, but that will be for another day. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. NINO: Linda Baviello. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, ma'am? MS. BAVIELLO: Yes, I believe I am. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Give your name and spell it for the court reporter. MS. BAVIELLO: Linda Baviello, B-A-V-I-E-L-L-O. I've been a resident of Naples for 35 years, and I've lived in Tall Pines for seven years, and I am a realtor. My greatest concern is for that -- that entire area, and I wrote something down concerning living there. We love the band music from the school that we hear. We really do. We accept the football field and the lights at night. We really do. We like it, but we've got a problem with the five-story building. I have a problem -- I'm still getting over Toys-R-Us and Sports Authority. I'm thinking about the movie theater and everything that's going to happen over there, because that whole area is just going to be a nightmare. I say take the simple approach and just do it horizontally. I could go on, but I know I have five minutes, so that's my feelings. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. NINO: Ostolaza, Robert Traul. MR. OSTOLAZA: Good morning. My name is Edward Ostolaza, O-S-T-O-L-A-Z-A. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, sir? MR. OSTOLAZA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. OSTOLAZA: I'm currently the president of the Tall Pines Property Owners' Association. A couple of things were brought up during this that -- I mean, I probably should have taken notes because there's a lot of things that came up. The biggest thing is Tall Pines has been, I believe it was incorporated in 1979. There was quite a few -- there was not too many houses in there, and the area, as you know, I'm sure you're Page 81 December 7, 2000 all aware of, has grown quite a bit. There's not much we can do about a lot of the things that are happening. Right now, we're looking forward to six-laning Airport Road in front of our development. There's not much we can do about that. However, as it was stated, the area is residential. The building heights are fine where they're at. We have the high school right behind us. You can't see the high school, but you know it's there. You can see those lights at night. During the day, if you look for them, you can see them. They only stand out at night. It's not a big deal, and it was there when we moved in. We're all aware of that. My biggest problem I've had with this whole thing was, was the 80 foot restriction -- you don't have the pictures up anymore, but I work construction, and I was just wondering why you needed 80 foot for a five-story building, and the only concern I have was, and maybe I can ask the question, if this variance is allowed, this variance is for the entire property or just for this building? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll ask that question. MR. OSTOLAZA: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We will ask that question for you, okay. MR. OSTOLAZA: Okay, because like I say, you've got 1,700, 1,800 feet, quite a distance away, we might see it, we may not, but the idea of allowing 85 -- or 80 feet on that property kind of scares me, because they were talking about future expansion, and I'm also thinking the same thing, what if they decide, well, now we need a 50 foot building, and they're going to put it on the other side of the road right up against us. At that point there really won't be much we can do about it, and also, the other developments, like you were saying before, this church you were talking about that's already up at 80 feet, well, apparently, it's already starting now because they're using that as a reference, so who's to stop it. I don't believe they need to go 80 feet. I think they can stay at two or three stories, keep everything they've got under 35 feet, and the only other thing I can think of is everyone here seems to be concerned about our property values, and, of course, I am too. I've lived in that development for ten years. I've seen my property values increase quite a bit. I don't want to see them go down, but one of the other things that wasn't Page 82 December 7, 2000 mentioned here is that this is Barron Collier High School. I know it's the school board's property and all that, but it is a campus, and I wonder what the students of Barron Collier would think of a big five-story structure kind of turning the whole area into, I don't know, a big office complex of some sort. I don't know if it would look very good. Excuse my voice. I do have something I'd just like to read and maybe give a copy so it's on record. We have 117 homes in Tall Pines where the average value meets or exceeds 200,000. Investments made by these residents in their homes are significant. Therefore, we strongly urge the commissioners to deny the request for this variance on the basis of the following issues and facts. When after speaking to property appraisers, two realtors, we were made to understand that the property values would go -- decrease in value if the building is built in our backyard. Collier County Planning Services Development has recommended denial of this request, we are in agreement with them wholeheartedly. It's a residentially zoned property. The school board is requesting a variance for what's obviously more than doubling the allowable height. There's ample land to expand horizontally instead of vertically. The variance could set a precedent, at the very least, an appearance, and it could very well encourage the approach of other variances down the road which would allow for other buildings in a similar height. There is a purpose for height limitations in the building code. They should not be set aside to accommodate development and thereby sacrificing the few in that surrounding area where there is another viable option, ample land. 'A tall building will impinge highly on the privacy of the residents of Tall Pines. There is a negative visual impact of a building so tall that towers above a neighborhood. In closing, we again strongly urge the commission to deny the request for this variance that goes far beyond the existing code which was set forth in order to retain and maintain privacy and aesthetic living conditions. This variance doubles the allowable height, and we believe that by the school board -- school district building a five-story versus a three-story, it would ultimately penalize the owners of Tall Pines because of decreased property values. Thank you. Page 83 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. TRAUL: My name is Robert Traul, T-R-A-U-L, and I live on Cypress Hollow Way in Tall Pines. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, sir? MR. TRAUL: Yes, sir, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. TRAUL: My wife and I have lived in Collier County on the north side for about 15 years now, and we've lived in five different residential areas up and down Airport Road from Pine Woods to Victoria Park, and we've always liked driving by Tall Pines because of the visual effect of that neighborhood, and we feel that putting a large building in behind a five-story building will change that effect, and so I guess that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Bridget Miller. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You have to come to the microphone, ma'am. MS. MILLER: I'm Bridget Miller. I live at 6140 Cypress Hollow Way. I have been a resident in Naples since 1988, and -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Excuse me. MS. MILLER: I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Were you sworn in, ma'am? I'm sorry, I have to ask that. MS. MILLER: Oh, yes, I was. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MS. MILLER: Yes. And I grew up in Miami Beach and have seen, obviously, a great deal of improvements and changes over the times. My one reason is that where we live in our residence, if we sit on the porch, even though there are trees, at the distance of 1,800 feet or 1,700, whatever the distance is, you will see that tall building. I happen to have a large pool in front of it. I feel that is quite an involvement in our privacy, and I know other homeowners have that. It's the height to which I object for privacy reasons and aesthetic reasons. I have one other question for the school board. Obviously they are trying to coordinate and concentrate all of their staff into one area. That will generate a considerable amount of Page 84 December 7, 2000 savings for the school board, it would seem to me. So, I think for the fact that a -- if they do have to build two stories, that they did have savings in terms of coordinating the staff at one location. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Any more speakers, Ron? MR. NINO: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: A couple questions; the first one, and I know this was addressed, but ask the petitioner to address just briefly why we need 80 feet for five stories. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Did you close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Did you close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No, not yet. MR. KRUEGER: The actual -- for the five-story, the actual projected floor to floor is 14 filled at this point. So, the actual overall height will be approximately 70 feet. There is going to be a small elevator penthouse on the top that would probably take up the rest. We're -- we're defining the exact height, but we don't anticipate we'd go any higher than 80 feet. That's why we used the maximum, but it would be -- the building itself would be 70 feet plus or minus a foot. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. And, Fred, one question here, the variance is strictly for one building, right? MR. REISCHL: Right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The gentleman didn't think that they could keep building -- MR. REISCHL: That would be strictly for the administration portion. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If they wanted to build another building like this, they would have to come back. MR. REISCHL: Come back for another public hearing. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. Sam. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Fred, if this variance was for 70 foot, because apparently the building is 70 feet and then the elevator shaft, doesn't the land development code allow for an elevator shaft to protrude over -- Page 85 December 7, 2000 MR. REISCHL: Accessory structure. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- the designated height limit? MR. REISCHI.: Utility and accessory structures, right, it would go to the -- midway between the peak and eaves of a peaked roof or the flat roof. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So technically they could ask for a 70 foot variance -- not the 70 foot variance, but the difference for 70 feet instead of 80 feet and still put their building as proposed with their elevator shaft, no problem? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's the ten feet right there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There would still be a variance, however. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Absolutely, it would still be a variance. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are there any other 80 foot buildings in the, what, RSF-3 zoning area? I mean, are we talking about something that's just going to leap out at everybody when they see it? MR. REISCHL: Not necessarily an RSF-3 because, again, schools are permitted in residential districts, unlike other office or commercial uses. So, that's the difference here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, this really is pretty unusual: A) we're asking for twice the amount allowed in the zoning district, that's why they're here. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And we have evidence or testimony that says it could be maybe 70 feet high because of the accessory structures. So, they are here for some very real reasons, and I can understand the concern of the neighbors. MR. REISCHL: Right. When I --when Mr. Krueger and I talked earlier on, they didn't have the proposed elevations finished yet, so he wanted to go forward with the 80 feet, and now, I believe -- although they're still not approved by the school board, but I think Mr. Krueger has narrowed the elevations down. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And did we ever say -- I know Page 86 December 7, 2000 we're not going to talk about the cost at all, but did we ever say how much one building would cost versus the two buildings. MR. REISCHL: I don't recall. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Just the million and a half, I mean, that's all we're talking about? Could I ask the petitioner? MR. KRUEGER: I'm not sure I understand that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You have a budget for a five-story building, but you must have a budget for two buildings, three, are we talking -- what are the two different budgets? MR. KRUEGER: Well, the budget that -- the construction budget that's established is 14 million for the building. What we are trying to do is to work within that budget, and what -- what -- there is potential impact, obviously, on the overall size of the building with the lining of the budget if we have to incur additional cost for construction. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? The only comment I've got is I'm sure when it goes before the Board of County Commissioners, they will want something more in detail along those lines. With that, any further comments from the public before I close the public meeting? If not, I close the public meeting. Discussions, motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not under any illusion, but when this gets to the county commission, it's going to be decided largely as a political issue. In our case today, I think we're supposed to measure it against the applicable codes, and even there, I have great difficulty -- frankly I think the diminution is property values is either speculative or a canard. They might spike downward while the building is being built until everybody can see what it looks like, and shortly thereafter, they'll resume their inevitable progress upwards, as everything else in Collier County does. Viewing a multi-story building is -- that's a purely subjective question. Frankly, I live in Park Shore in the low-rise area, and every day if I want to, I can walk out and look at the high-rises over on the beach, but normally I walk out, and my gaze is toward my car, toward the street, toward the houses around. When I go visit somebody, we don't sit and dwell on the fact that Page 87 December 7, 2000 there's some high-rises. Maybe there's some people that do that, but most of us have gotten used to it. You look at it. It's there. It's passive. The thing that troubles me, and in this case, you're talking the length of two football fields between this structure and the easternmost people in Tall Pines, let alone ones further south and further west. So, that's a pretty substantial distance. The thing that bothers me about the project is, that it doesn't square with all of the criteria in the analysis, and I have no comfort zone for what other bigger buildings may come in in that area that's now the transportation and maintenance area. I can see the day when all of the school buses and their maintenance go out to County Barn Road or some other place, and then there will be a need perceived at that time to build another big building. So, the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria in the analysis in several respects and the fact that I think it's a foot in the door or a Trojan horse compel me to oppose it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I certainly agree with what Mr. Abernathy has said. I'm concerned that the school board is apparently not willing to abide by the rules that everyone else has to abide by. My concern in North Naples is that this begins to put the dominoes in place for precedence. I'm concerned to hear that the church is already 80 feet high. I think that should not have occurred, but that's in the past. We have buildings going up in the northern part of Naples that are clearly out of step with what would be more desirable in terms of that area, eight-story buildings that are perfectly legal under current zoning, but I don't see that when we have an issue brought before us where we have a chance to vote to say that we don't wish to have these higher buildings in our part of the county, that we should go for it, so I'm very much against it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We'll take a stop in lobbying, could we have a motion which we can discuss? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would be happy to offer a motion that -- if I can proffer it in a proper form, that Petition V-2000-30 from the district board be denied, as a recommendation of denial going to the Board of Zoning, what is Page 88 December 7, 2000 it, Appeals. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Now, any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to comment. I too have some real concerns here about the meeting of the criteria. Reviewing what we've got in written form and listening to what's being said, I don't see any special conditions whatsoever peculiar to the location or the size or characteristics of the land for this variance. There's no preexisting condition relative to the property, which is one of them. There's adequate land there to build the same square foot -- same square footage on the property. Once again, I don't see any undue or unnecessary hardship because, again, there's adequate land, and one of the items here is that we'll be granting a very special privilege to have a building that's two times the height that's allowed in the RSF-3 zoning district, and granted, this is the school board, but I'm having great difficulty feeling that I can go forward here and support a variance because it does not meet the criteria for which I'm required to vote on. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comment? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You have a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No more discussion? Just a comment. I can certainly go both ways on this. I'm going to support the motion. Simply, I'm going to follow staff's recommendation. I could probably support maybe a lesser height variance, but certainly not, even if it is the elevator shaft, the 80 feet. With that, possibly sensing a change in vote, I'll ask that the commissioners vote individually. Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage, yes. Commissioner Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Budd. Page 89 December 7, 2000 COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE'- Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I didn't have to do that, but the motion is carried unanimously. With that -- MR. REISCHL: The court reporter has asked me for a break, a short break. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll have a short break, and then we will come back to one that we've postponed, V-2000-23. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that we are back from adjournment and we're back to picking up where we left off on V-2000-23, and as I recall, the issue was who the present owner is. MR. MASTERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to come back with the missing information. The current owner of the property -- THE COURT REPORTER: Would you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. MASTERS: Tom Masters, Director of Engineering with Vineyards Development. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just let it show that he was sworn in previously. MR. MASTERS: Yes. The current owner of the property is William Easton and Margarita Bailey. They purchased the -- closed on the property on August 23rd. That was shortly after filing the petition for variance. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So, this was filed prior to that date. MR. MASTERS: Prior to us submitting for the variance, yes. We -- the Vineyards Development Corporation built the home as a spec home and Basically the pool and the screen enclosure were already constructed at that time. The construction error was not caught until the final survey, unfortunately, which came to light right after the closing of the home at which time the only thing -- another question that you all had asked was whether or not -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Before you go any further, am I Page 90 December 7, 2000 correct that Commissioner Saadeh had excused himself from this? Is that correct? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. MASTERS: And another question, I believe, was whether or not there was some kind of commitment in the contract and the only commitment in there was that we would give them a third title to the property by resolving this issue one way or another, which brought us before the board. Because the homeowner was already in it, it obviously is going to create a hardship for the homeowner, for the existing homeowner in the house. He's going to have, theoretically, construction behind there to resolve that issue if it needs to be removed without the variance. And, also, Vineyards Development stands behind resolving it one way or the other even though the error was Nassau Pool Construction who invariably had -- it basically built the pool enclosure two feet further back than it was supposed to have been done, which basically created the protrusion of only about a four-foot area, which extends a foot and half back beyond the setback line. And it is over 20 feet to either side of the property, again just reiterating that there's no impact to any side properties or views or anything like that so, any further questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just, Fred, just to reiterate, there were no letters of objection to this? MR. REISCHL: No -- no letters, calls or-- MR. THOMAS: No, we do have a letter of objection in Fred's hands that the homeowners association -- MR. REISCHL: Letter of support, no objection. MR. THOMAS: Right. Sorry. MR. NINO: May I remind the board that on pool enclosure cases where they're adjacent to a golf course and in the PUD communities, and in particular in The Vineyards, there have been a number of variances of this type granted, for all it's worth. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you, Mr. Nino, because I don't really feel comfortable with this one although it's very small and we have approved before, I think, even in Tall Pines when there was something like a preserve and that behind it. Page 91 December 7, 2000 And you're saying that there's -- it's just water management back there? MR. THOMAS: Yeah, there's an existing lake behind it and on the back side of that lake is Vineyards Boulevard, you know, landscape buffered so it's not visual from any part of the back part of the lake or anything like that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One other comment is that if these people bought on the 23rd of August, and this is stamped in on the 25th of August, so I just want to caution the staff that it would be really nice if you made sure that we knew who the owner was right up front and that should this happen to you all again from The Vineyards, make sure that we have the details in front of us so we can actually look at who owns this property. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Hopefully this will not happen in The Vineyards again. MR. THOMAS: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I don't think we're going to not have any here again. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Is there anybody from the public that wishes to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Motion, please. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we forward Petition Number V-2000-23 to the DCA with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Same sign opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Let it show that it was seven to one. MR. REISCHL: Five to one. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Six to one. MR. REISCHL: Commissioner Saadeh recused himself. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Six to one. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Five to one. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Commissioner Saadeh recused himself. Page 92 December 7, 2000 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we're going to move forward to a legislative hearing, no swearing in, of CP-2000-01. With that, Debrah? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I have a disclosure. I'm a member of the Board of Directors of the Botanical Garden. I have participated in the discussion of this with presenter today and conceivably the Botanical Garden could reap a small benefit from -- from this. So, whether -- none of that would inure to me personally, but to avoid even the appearance of evil, I will abstain from participating or voting. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a second. Marjorie, you seem to have a doubt on your face. Does that sound right? MS. STUDENT: No. That's why I advised Commissioner Abernathy. I'm just counting up how many people we have left because on comp plan amendment, we have a special act requirement that amounts to basically five people have to agree with the amendment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, this is not the first -- is this the first time this has come before us? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. MS. STUDENT: It came before as a transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs for their review and now this -- we are at the final adoption stage. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would ask what my status is because I did not participate in the earlier. MS. STUDENT: It doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Since I've reviewed this material, I could vote? MS. STUDENT: Absolutely. A lot of times we have some time stretched out between, you know, whether there might be a change in commissioners so that is not a problem. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just wanted to find out. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Debrah. MS. PRESTON: Good afternoon. For the record, Debrah Preston with your comprehensive planning section. The item before you today is a review of the comprehensive Page 93 December 7, 2000 plan amendment, CP-2000-01, and to make a recommendation to the board of county commissioners for final adoption to amend the future land use element and the future land use map to create the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. This amendment was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs in May of 2000. DCA has reviewed and provided the county with an objections, recommendation and comments or ORC report. Staff has made revisions to the transmitted language and the map based on the comments and recommendations received by DCA. However, since the staff report was prepared, and you had received it, staff has made further changes based on discussions with DCA, Botanical Garden, the county's legal staff and the public. Those changes are reflected in the language that I handed out at your break and they're highlighted in yellow. The intent of this amendment is to provide incentives to the redevelopment program currently underway in the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle area. Those incentives, according to this amendment, include increased density and mixed use projects and increased commercial opportunities along the Bayshore corridor. Just to give you sort of an overview of the area, I have put on the visualizer the amended boundaries for the area. And the area is defined by Davis Boulevard to the north, Airport Road to the east. U.S. 41 east divides the Gateway Triangle area from the Bayshore area and then Bayshore Drive, which is the primary access point to the Bayshore community. South of east of U.S. 41 east is designated on the future land use map as the coastal high hazard area which are lands predicted for coastal high hazard, most of which are Category I hurricane evacuation zoned properties. The Department of Community Affairs objected to the transmitted language because of increase in density within the coastal high hazard area. They are recommending that we look at ways that we did reallocate density within that area and not -- and show no net increase in dwelling units and to maintain hurricane evacuation clearance times. The second concern was raised by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and that was the inclusion on the Page 94 December 7, 2000 Sabal Bay DRI within the proposed amendments that were transmitted due to its status as a DRI and its portion that is located in the City of Naples. They recommended that we amend our boundaries and delete the Sabal Bay DRI. In response to these comments that were received, staff made the following changes. Staff again is recommending a change to the overall boundaries, which would remove the Sabal Bay DRI, and staff is also deleting the Windstar development since after review we realize that this amendment really has no bearing on that Windstar development since it's primarily built out. The language changes proposed to reallocate 388 dwelling units currently permitted on the Botanical Garden properties that are highlighted on the visualizer in the green on the south of Thomasson Road. This allocation would allow that within the Bayshore mixed use zoning overlay district, which is scheduled for adoption by the board on December the 13th, and that boundary area is highlighted in the hatched mark up here on the map. There would be -- could be a transfer of those 388 units from the Botanical Garden up to this area in mixed use development projects. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm sorry. How many units? MS. PRESTON: 388. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MS. PRESTON: The language does recommend that in the amendment that the Botanical Gardens would be limited to nonresidential uses except for dormitory or caretakers' housing associated with the Botanical Gardens, and that within one year that those properties would be rezoned to a PUD. And the Botanical Gardens are currently preparing that PUD document. The reallocation of the standards, including the amendments, again would be in a mixed use development and the maximum density allowed would be up to 12 units per acre. The third proposed change would allow for a maximum density of 12 units per acre for properties with access to U.S. 41 provided that it isn't a mixed use project site and it meets the standards outlined in this amendment, which is Number 9 in the handout that I gave you today, except for areas that are in the mini triangle catalyst project. And that project site is highlighted Page 95 December 7, 2000 in orange on the map on the visualizer. And the reason that those standards would not apply to that mini triangle catalyst project is because it was identified in the redevelopment plan as one of our four catalyst projects and that standards would be created in the future by the board. And then the fourth addition to the amendment that we acknowledge that there is one potential property located on U.S. 41 that has access to U.S. 41 and it is within the coastal high hazard area, and that property is approximately 13 acres. Staff is recommending that that property be allowed the increased density provision of up to 12 units per acre provided that it isn't a mixed use development site that meets the criterias outlined in Number 9. However, those units, which account to 156 units, would not be allocated towards the 388 that would be allowed south of U.S. 41 and the Bayshore mixed use zoning overlay district. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And one of the objections that was from DCA was the increase in density in the high hazard area. MS. PRESTON: Right. We have spoken to DCA regarding the 156 units. Staff's feeling was that, one, this property has direct access to U.S. 41. When it is developed it will also have access to Sandpiper, which has access to Davis Boulevard, and we have looked at the evacuation clearance times and there is only a slight change in the evacuation times by approximately six minutes in November and there was no change in evacuation times with the addition 156 units in July. And we have those numbers provided to us by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. PRESTON: Staff has received a verbal statement from DCA that provided that these changes are incorporated, that they would not object to this proposed amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: question? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a The Exhibit A that was provided to us in our advance material, has that been materially Page 96 December 7, 2000 changed now by what you put in? This is the -- the actual redevelopment overlay area. MS. PRESTON: The boundary has not changed. The only thing changed has been the identification of the Botanical Gardens property -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MS. PRESTON: -- I believe, on that exhibit. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's on Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Any-- anybody from the public, Ron? MR. NINO: Anthony Pires. MR. PIRES: A work out today. For the record, Anthony Pires, Woodward, Pires, Lombardo. And I'm here representing Thalheimers, Thelma Thalheimer and also Bob Taylor. Their properties are located within, I guess, the area that's been identified as the mini triangle catalyst area, which is that apex bounded on the southwest or south by U.S. 41 and the north, I guess, by Davis. And for the record, I have the property records with regards to them. I'll provided it to, you know, Ron to make it part of the record. And also with regards to Mr. Taylor's properties, just an entry in the record of material indicating the objection to the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and that the adoption procedures have denied him due process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. I'd further object because the adoption of the proposed amendment would result in taking a property -- a private property interest protected by the Constitution of the United States and Florida and further object to the proposed amendment that violates -- or preempted by general state law contained in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and make those a part of the record. I'll just put them here for now and then introduce them as part of the record. And Thalheimers also objected on the same grounds. I guess the concern is I -- first of all, the concept of redevelopment, as we all know, is a good concept and I don't think any property owner adversely reacts to the idea of, you Page 97 December 7, 2000 know, involving the private property owners in that process and things that could be favorably inclined towards the redevelopment of the area. However, my concern is that with regards to this particular process there has been various iterations of the comprehensive plan in the last few days. Debrah has been very kind and worked real hard and promptly provided me with copies when I requested the initial version of the language to be adopted was dated November 20th. Another iteration of that was provided on November 29th, and I thank her for that, because I had the opportunity to make some comments. And then last night she was kind enough to fax me the most recent iteration which is the one that you all have today. But from the standpoint of the public, which no one else apparently is here with regards to this, because they may think that this is all good for them and that there isn't anything that is adverse or bad for them, and I think it's because the concern is that there -- you know, the economic aspect of that particular area, people may think it can't be anything but good. But I think in reality what you have, you have a chilling effect that could occur by virtue of the unknown with regards to this. Although the intent is outlined and Paragraph D states that the intent of the overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available, as to that areas, which there isn't an immediate LDR or LDC that will be imposed for an overlay, it does provide that properties can -- under Paragraph 8, the properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as the zoning overlay is adopted, which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. That's at Paragraph 8. So, what you have is you have a chilling effect because of the unknown. Lenders, private investors, private money that would otherwise go into an area to try to redevelop it may be lacking, may be scared off because of the question as to what can occur in the future. Adding to that concern as to what can occur in the future, I have a copy of an item that was provided to Bob Taylor by an entity called FP Real Estate Investments, LC. Apparently they are the only responders to the county's RFP with regards to this area and they have envisioned a private -- a project called Bella Page 98 December 7, 2000 Villaggio which is the property -- includes the property owned by Mr. Taylor, so he was pleased to see that the November 22nd, 2000, that Mr. Daniel Pioli of FP Real Estate Investments, Inc. submitted to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency a complete proposal in response to the RFP advertised for the mini triangle. And Mr. Pioli is very excited about the project and he assured the entire community is also. And he goes on to talk about this -- this mixed use project will bring to the Davis Boulevard/U.S. 41 intersection all the ingredients that will inspire continued redevelopment in this CRA. And he goes on to say what basically is encouraging about what will happen to Mr. Taylor's property and Mr. Taylor was less than enthusiastic about receiving such an enthusiastic correspondence. And I'll make this part of the record also. So, I think what we have here is another concern that is expressed is my understanding that it is intended to be a collaborative effort with regards to adopting this overlay and this concept, and yet in conversing with Mr. Taylor this morning, the parties who performed the redevelopment study, initially the planners back in October of '99, upon which this is all premised and based, they never interviewed him and he owns a substantial portion of property in that mini triangle area, which is the apex, the gateway to the entrance to this particular area. And I find that troublesome because, as you all understand, the general concept is you anticipate collaborative efforts with the property owners with the business owners in the areas. So, that creates concern as to what will happen in the future. You know, isn't it the anticipation that the county is going to condemn property and then sell the property to some other private investors? You may hear somebody else indicate that but that is a long range plan that is not contained in this document. That's been some discussions that have been communicated to some property owners in this area. Once again, we don't see how there can be substantive input into this process when we have substantially revisions to this document as we go along in the last two -- two-year process. And again, as I indicated, the overall concern is a chilling effect on the value of my clients' property, the Thalheimers and Page 99 December 7, 2000 Bob Taylor, is this future land use element is telegraphing that existing property rights will be taken, removed, diluted or eliminated. This is combined with a recent resolution by the board in September of this year that said no development contrary to this redevelopment plan can occur until the regulations are in place. The word moratorium does not pop up, either a small m or a large m, but I would submit to you that that's troublesome to those property owners. That was adopted, I believe, in September of this year. It's a separate resolution with regards to this area, separate and aside from this comprehensive plan change. As a result, we would -- it's -- well, it's difficult to fully assess and present today all possible comments since we've -- you know, we have other issues that planners or economists and financial individuals need to evaluate and advise. We object to any aspect of the plan that has an adverse effect on private property rights. We don't believe there's been an analysis of what effect it would have under Bert J. Harris under the Florida and Federal Constitution. And, you know, also troublesome is that there's a lack of any vesting language. What I assume in the past in other plans, particularly like in the Marco Island master plan was vesting language so that those property owners that have uses, permits, development orders are assured that they can continue on with their expectations and their development orders as issued in the past. Thank you for being kind enough and patient enough to hear me at the end of a day when it probably has gone longer than you wanted and you may think that the lack of people in the audience is thundering as to the endorsement of this product, but there are, I submit to you, property owners that are deeply concerned including my clients. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Does Mr. Taylor have a development order on this property? MR. PIRES: He has existing uses and the uses that are currently in place are not uses that are contemplated under the Page 100 December 7, 2000 plan. In other words, I guess this Bella Villaggio is going to have a mixed use of the property. It's not something that he's been asked to participate in. He's not been asked to provide his input in. It's been -- something that -- it appears and the perspective is that it's being cast upon him as opposed to allowing the private market to indicate what will happen or private investment. It appears that there's more at -- at issue here and more involved. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do I understand your position to be that he wishes to keep the existing uses that are there and that's it? MR. PIRES: He wishes to not have any regulatory scheme that would have an adverse effect on his property, and based upon what we know to this date, and we're having some other further discussions, we'll have a, you know, presentation before the county commission, it appears that this plan and the indication that there might be further limitations on uses, densities and intensities as allowed today, coupled with what he's been -- he's received, the congratulatory notice, indicates that his property rights will be adversely affected as well as the value of his property by this governmental action. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Further questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You said that it's a little troublesome that there's nothing in here that's talking about vesting. Do you have a suggestion of what you would say in where it would go? MS. STUDENT: May I address that? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, yeah. Okay. MS. STUDENT: First of all, there's always the availability of common law vesting, that anybody can go into court and if they can allege and prove that they had a good faith, detrimental reliance prior to the change that would allow them to continue with the development scheme that they had prior to the change, then they can -- if they can prove that, a court may find that they are vested, so vesting is always there. Yes, when we did the zoning reevaluation when we did the whole comp plan, there was -- we had outside counsel and assistance on developing a process that some of you may know as the zoning reevaluation ordinance. This is much smaller in scale and scope than the entire county. So we have never even discussed it but I wanted to let you Page 101 December 7, 2000 know that common law vesting is available. That would mean that the county would have to, you know, go through some lawsuits in court as opposed to develop -- developing a process like the zoning reevaluation ordinance. I also would submit that there's another opportunity here, that when the overlay itself has established from the mini triangle by way of land development regulations to come in at that time and discuss or raise any objection. And the other thing that I find very troubling is that someone would come in here and try to use the Bert Harris Act as a means to prevent a local government from redeveloping an area. I just don't believe that Bert Harris goes that far. You have an inordinate burden on reasonable investment back expectation. First of all, it appears that the uses that Mr. Pires' client has is legal nonconforming presently and everybody knows about this project. It has been in the paper. There have been public meetings. The paper has written extensively about it. So would I argue that I would fail to see what reasonable investment expectations someone might have considering the scrutiny that's been given this community. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Pires, I would -- and that was one of my questions, that surely the owner had notice of what was going on. You know, wouldn't--wouldn't it be in his best interest to become involved in the process? You're saying he was not contacted. But this is a public forum that took place. Am I not correct? MR. PIRES: My understanding is that no individual notification has ever gone out to the individual property owners. He has never been interviewed by the planners. As to the Thalheimers and Bob Taylor, which is a substantial portion of that property, you go from U-Haul to Thalheimers, you know, where Ted's Sheds is now, and I guess a new voodoo place there, there's a large parcel -- choice of property there where you have planners not contacting individuals, you'd probably have a much greater stake or as great a stake as other property owners in the area. And from the standpoint, Marjorie will probably advise you, that legal notice has been given, but I think that's substantially different from contacting individuals and letting them know, listen, what are your thoughts, what are your ideas. And an Page 102 December 7, 2000 individual who agrees possibly with the cost of redevelopment but not with the heavy hand of government as it appears here, I know contrary to what Marjorie has indicated, but when you determine that property is blighted as apparently is the determination made by the redevelopment area, that in itself can have a chilling effect on value. And if the government is going to come in at a later point in time in furtherance of this redevelopment scheme and utilize its condemnation authority wherein you're trying to establish values in property that has been substantially adversely affected, the values are then lower so you have a double whammy. That's our concern. MS. STUDENT: Well -- and to address those issues, first of all, this is not the first time this matter has been before the planning mission or the board. It went as a transmittal item to the Department of Community Affairs last spring. There's an opportunity between transmittal and adoption for the public to object and I find it very interesting that Mr. Pires' client did not show up in May of this year, nor make any objections over the course of the summer or anything else. Yes, legal notice was required under the statutes, so I don't believe that we have any problem there. There's no responsibility. This is a legislative matter. It's not quasi judicial. It's a legislative matter and I don't think it's a legal issue about whether somebody was handed a personal invitation to, you know, meet with staff about something. I believe that's incumbent upon the property owner when they know that the matter is at hand. And also as far as the CRA, the community redevelopment area, I believe they -- I didn't handle those, but those matters were also advertised and brought to, I believe, at least the board of county commissioners. Miss Preston could give you more information on that. So there's been ample opportunity out there to learn about what's been happening. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Pires, having been a member of the staff in the past, I don't think staff has ever gotten on the phone and started calling petitioners, people in the area or so forth. They got notified like everybody else. Page 103 December 7, 2000 If your client wanted to, they could have picked up the phone themselves and called the planning department as opposed to the other way around. I don't see that point. MR. PIRES: I think the point I'm making is I understand that from a legal perspective there may be an argument. The legal notice requirements have been achieved because you have a large area so you don't have to give individual notification. And I think that we have legal versus what you are actually doing for the individual in trying to involve them in the process, I think it then becomes incumbent upon the government that has greater resources with regards to that. It also -- the perception out in the community may be such that there might be these little workshops and gatherings going on and I find it difficult to believe that if I have a property owner that doesn't make the first transmittal hearing, that they should never show up before this board and never object to any adoption hearings. I mean, that seems to be the suggestion but COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's not true. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. MR. PIRES: -- but I mean -- MS. STUDENT: That's not what I suggested at all. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: We're suggesting that your client get up before the planning department. You keep saying that they never contacted your client, but they never do. It works both ways. MR. PIRES: Right, but the individuals who are happy -- they have to be planning on taking action that could have an adverse effect, I think it would be incumbent upon them to engage in that process if they want a true collaborative process. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, let me just pursue that point and ask the staff whether or not they have made any contact with property owners in the -- in the creation of this plan. Have you initiated any contact of property owners in the creation of this plan? MS. PRESTON: What we did in the beginning, which the redevelopment plan started probably in October of '98 perhaps, is we had sent out notices to all the property owners within the mini triangle and along Bayshore about the redevelopment Page 104 December 7, 2000 efforts that were underway. And we invited them to the workshops that were being held when we hired Landers, Adkins, Planners. And as far as Landers, Adkins, Planners who had prepared the initial redevelopment plan and came up with this catalyst project, they were trying to contact several of the property owners that were in that mini triangle when they did that, their proposal. What their efforts were directly with Mr. Taylor, I'm not sure. I'd have to check with them and see, but I know they did try to contact some of those property owners. We probably did not send a personal letter to Mr. Taylor. I will tell you that Mr. Taylor had called my office probably a week or two weeks ago. He left me a voice message. I returned his call and he did not call me back. So -- and I do believe that we have had this process going on for a long period of time and it has been in the paper. This particular mini triangle was in the front page of the -- not the front page but maybe the front page of the local section of the Naples Daily News as well. But one thing I'd like to point out is I think that maybe we're mixing the mini triangle catalyst project along with this comp plan amendment, and the only difference in this comp plan amendment for this mini triangle is we're saying that in the mini triangle you can have increased density if you want, which I believe would actually add value to your property, provided that you follow some standards which we don't know what those standards are because the mini triangle catalyst project will be discussed at a later time when we go to the board of county commissioners with the Bella Villaggio project to see if the county wants to select that developer and proceed with that catalyst project. So, that's been identified here as just a different area to look at. And I think that the overall intent of the amendment here today provides some other incentives and I think Mr. Taylor's objection here may be better dealt with when we deal with the mini triangle catalyst project that will go to the board of county commissioners in January or in February. MR. PIRES: And just for the record I don't want to be accused in January or February when the mini catalyst project comes in and says where were you in December when they were adopting Page 105 December 7, 2000 the comp plan? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a bookkeeping error on my part. I believe the original letters from Bob Taylor Chevrolet was passed and everybody saw those. I got these this morning prior to the meeting. I certainly didn't mean to withhold anything from anybody but I have the originals which I will give in the record and just point out that my name is spelled W-r-a-g-e, not W-r-a-c-e. I've been called worse, I guess. Any further questions? MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, this is not quasi judicial. It's legislative, so we don't have the ex parte communication requirement that attaches to this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: It's fine if you want to disclose it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I just wanted people to know that I got the original and obviously copies were passed out. MR. NINO: L. N. Ingram -- Ingram. MR. INGRAM: My name is Larry Ingram. I own a 3.3 acre parcel that abuts the Gulfgate Shopping Center to the south. The street address is 27 Bayshore Drive. It's a 188-foot parcel on Bayshore Drive and 735 feet on Weeks Avenue. To those of you who used the credit union years ago, that's where the county employees' and school board employees' credit union was located. I'd like to address one issue and that's notice. Unless you sit down every day and read the legal advertisements in the Naples Daily News, which I guess I'm one of the few people who tries to do that, you probably wouldn't know about this project. That's just the facts of life. Most people don't sit down and read the legal ads and a lot of people don't read the newspaper, fortunately or unfortunately. That being the case, I'd also like to address the issue of the applicability of the Bert J. Harris Act. I raised this issue at the October 10 county commission meeting, and one of the commissioners on the record made the statement that she had received or the board of county commissioners had received an opinion that that act did not apply. On October 28th, I hand delivered a letter to the chairman of Page 106 December 7, 2000 the board of county commissioners requesting a copy of that opinion. Mr. Carter responded that it would be forthcoming. It's now December 7th. I have not received that opinion. And I wrote to Mr. Carter again and requested a copy of that opinion, that the Bert Harris Act did not apply. I have not received it. MS. STUDENT: Just for the record, I don't -- I did not prepare such an opinion. I don't know if anyone else in the office did, but MR. INGRAM: Well, Miss Mac'Kie's statement from the court reporter's transcript was, actually I had it, meaning the Bert Harris Act question, answered ahead of time because we were very careful to lay the foundation to be sure that the action today is in accordance with the applicable law and we have hired expert legal counsel for that purpose. MS. STUDENT: I would have to consult with Mr. Weigel but I stand on my position about the Bert Harris Act. If you were to construe that where local government's hands were tied and we could never do anything, then we might as well just throw zoning and comprehensive planning out the window. And I stand by that. MS. PRESTON: Just for the record, just to clarify, David Cardwell is the attorney that was hired by the CRA board to prepare the pipeline resolution that was adopted by the board in September now that Mr. Ingram is referencing to for his legal opinion. And we have asked Mr. Cardwell to prepare a written statement. Unfortunately, Mr. Cardwell has also been very involved with the election happenings that are going on in the state and has been actually on TV on CNN for the last four weeks, and so we are waiting to get that response from him. We have requested it and we will be forwarding it to the board and Mr. Ingram as soon as we can. MR. INGRAM: With regard to my property, I would also point out that I went before the board of county commissioners before I ever started the project and had a specific site development plan approved. I notice in the latest amendments that were furnished to Mr. Pires at the eleventh hour yesterday that what I have planned can't be built, yet my property meets all of the parking Page 107 December 7, 2000 requirements, all of the landscaping requirements, meets the flood elevation requirements. It's probably the only property in this redevelopment district that meets all of the current requirements. And it disturbs me that I get a telephone call, not a letter, like Mr. Taylor did, from an out-of-town developer telling me that he has been approached by the county staff about acquiring my property to redevelop, which seems a little bit like putting the cart before the horse. When I went in to obtain the board of county commissioners' approval to build my project, I had to not only put in the infrastructure for my project, but I also had to handle water runoff from an adjoining parcel of land and agree to install an 18-inch French drain 735 feet long, not to handle my runoff but to handle the runoff from the Gulf Gate Shopping Center. I relied on the board of county commissioners' approval of my project and now I'm being told that it's going to be condemned and given to a developer to redevelop, yet I meet all of the current building requirements. MS. STUDENT: I -- I'd just like to interject. I don't think he's gotten anything official from the county. It would be like second or third-hand hearsay type evidence and I don't think it can be relied upon. MR. INGRAM: Well, I tell you, the people called me and said they had been approved by the county. I don't think they would have called me out of the clear blue had they not been. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Do you have -- do you have a written document? MR. INGRAM: No. The man called me on the telephone. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. MR. INGRAM: I note in this proposed plan that there's no reference to vesting, yet I've put all the infrastructure in, put in the parking lot, I've put in the landscaping. And I think that there's a real problem without having some vesting requirement. Lastly, I would like to say that I don't think that the people doing your work really know about real estate development. I've done real estate development in this county for over 30 years. I was one of the builders of some of the largest, earliest high rises on the beach in the City of Naples. I was the attorney for the High Point Country Club and doing all of the work on that. Page 108 December 7, 2000 So, I'm not a stranger to real estate development. But I think that the staff and their planners are under a misconception that you change the commercial to a Third Street shopping area and that will upgrade the residential. It doesn't work that way. People who live in mobile home parks don't shop at Saks Fifth Avenue. People who live in mobile home parks and lower income homes don't eat at St. George and the Dragon or Chardonnay. They eat at Burger King. They eat at McDonald's. The McDonald's at the Gulf Gate Shopping Center is the highest income earning McDonald's of all of the McDonald's that the group that own it have. And the owner is affiliated with the brother of -- of the former chairman and president of McDonald's. The reason that it's the highest income earner is because it's a lower income neighborhood and you're not going to change that by condemning my property or the Gulf Gate Shopping Center and putting in an upscale shopping center. All you have to do is go down the street where there's probably 200,000 square feet of vacant shopping center space where the K-Mart was and where there was formerly a Publix. You have an inordinate amount of vacant large commercial shopping center space less than a mile from this property. And to put in upscale shops is not going to change it. I would suggest that we should not have been in this district at all. Private enterprise will take care of it if the market is there. And, unfortunately, I think you got a bunch of Democrats on your county planning staff because they sure don't know anything about real estate development. And I would request that I be left out because I think that the private economy will take care of itself when the market is there. And the market will get there. With the Chlumsky building being torn down, one of the biggest eyesores in the City of Naples and the county, I think you're going to see some changes in that area and I don't think government needs to be involved to do it. And I again request that AI be left alone, not be in the district and I resent having out-of-towners call me that they have been offered my property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Page t09 December 7, 2000 MR. NINO: Chuck Gunther and David Woodruff -- Woodworth. MR. GUNTHER: I haven't been sworn in. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You don't have to. MS. STUDENT: You don't have to. This is legislative· CHAIRMAN W .RAGE: Just state your name, please· MR. GUNTHER· My name is Chuck Gunther, G-u-n-t-h-e-r. I've been g.oing to most of these worksho s sin . . pce the be inn' ' · . . g ;n of It. Ive th,nk they ve done a real f, ne job ,n what'g , . they re doin . I don t agree w,th the way the~,'r-- 4..;.~ :, , ~__,. ~ ..g of the thin-s ~k..,, ....~_ ; -- -....,,,~ ,L.. , uon z rim,eve in some · 1 '"~L ~ ~Ione on since they started. They started the plan off by saying -- asking people in an area, saying, if you can start over new, what would ou hay ' '. area? T , . . Y e ,n th,s hat s I,ke tell,ng somebody to bulldoze your property and start over. I'm really happy to see two lawyers here that are a little bit fighting here. I'm a homeowner in the trian le. We're i r, h , . g n an area .g t now that s be.ng run by a CRA whic'- "-- ' ....... · !i d,dn't want , . . , ~rlangle , but we re ,nclud,ng the Bayshore area. We have talked about concerns here. Peo I The ' , . p e are concerned. · y re upset. They don t know what's going to happen. All they Know is the county -- it looks like this county is trying to take up things, remove things, take away your incentive to do anythin . If you want to add on to your house, you don't know how I~gng you'll be here because we're all afraid right now in that whole -- this whole area. Most of these houses are substandard. We know that, but we'd like to upgrade them. As the property values go up, we can upg..rade them. We know that and we can work with that, but we can t -- if we think our property will either be condemned or taken b' I' f,~,~, y eminent domain. m not a ..... If I put a dollar in, I may not e ba ' . . _ .g t half a dollar ck. Ive_ worke_d ,n th,s before. I',v.e seen em,nent domain. I've seen con~lemnation work. It doesnt help the people who live in there and work in there. These lawyers are representing big people. If the county can come in and move out people like Thalheimer and Bob Ta Ior who o.wn about a third of that mini triangle, if thev can ,~Y,k~', every nomeowner in that trian-le an,~ n,..~k ....'__'_: -T '."'." Not -* -;~ -' '--' ......°- --.~=,,~--~= ~r~a ,s at riSK, -- -.=,~ ~,- ,~=,ng zne house, they're at risk of life. M, ost of them can't afford to move anywhere because they won t have the money to move. If they're bought out twice the Page 110 December 7, 2000 amount of money that their property is worth right now, they can't buy anywhere in this county and I think people have to know that. I think what's been done is nice. I've worked with -- with the planning commission before. And I've done a lot of work that's still happening from 30, 35 years ago in New York City. I came here. I asked for a copy of a master plan for the area. I was told it's pieces here, pieces there. There is none. I don't think there is any. If there is, I'd like it produced because I haven't seen one. If you have a master plan, you have something to work with. If you have nothing to work towards, you have nothing to work with. And overlay is nice because it gives you something to work to, but you first have to have the people behind you. The workshops we had, I guess, was not workshops. This was a planning group that said finally you went to what we want you to do. That's reverse -- working everything in reverse. Don't ask the community what they want. Give them what we want to give them. It's not the way to work. Like the last gentleman said, the people here can do it by themselves. The community will build itself up as -- as the prices grows, as the property becomes more valuable. You'll see better businesses coming in, you'll see better houses go up. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to turn around and just run, but they'd like to have their homes. They'd like to have their area. I think one thing you are finding out is that what this is doing is giving people pride. People are proud of the Bayshore triangle even when it's called the Gateway Triangle. People are proud of Kelly Road even though it's called Bayshore Road. My street has not had a street sign on it now for about four, five months, Bayside Street, because the county or the state, one or the other, took it down when they were building the road, 41, when they were rebuilding 41. I'm waiting to see them put the street sign back up because the county has it on their maps as Bayside Road. It's Bayside Street. That's where I get my mail every day for the last five or six years. I've been in this county for thirty something years. I live in or Page tll December 7, 2000 on that triangle. I want to stay there. They talk about vested. I have a vested interest in my home. I think everybody in that triangle does, everybody in the Bayshore area does. Give us a chance to do what we can do. The area is going to grow. It has to. This is Collier County. The problem is this county has grown out and now we have to grow within. But don't give it to a developer to let them grow. Let us grow ourselves. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Mr. Gunther, do you -- do you own more than one property? MR. GUNTHER: No. MR. NINO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, as long as you're still there, do you know how many -- MR. GUNTHER: I have a double lot, if you want to call that more than one property. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: How many homes are right in that little triangle? Do you know how many -- MR. GUNTHER: In the triangle? I would say approximately -- Deb would know better. I would say about 175, two fifty, somewhere in there. MS. PRESTON: I guess I want to clarify your question. Are you talking about the mini triangle catalyst project area? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, the mini triangle. MS. PRESTON: There aren't any residential homes in there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. PRESTON: And, also, for the record, while we were preparing the plan and Mr. Gunther was at several meetings, staff did listen to the concerns of the residents that live there and from -- actually, I think from Pine -- from Shadowlawn east to Airport Road, we've identified that in the redevelopment plan as an area to preserve for residential development, not to convert that to commercial in the future and to provide incentives for people to renovate their homes and to provide some infill development for some homeownership opportunities. So, that is in the redevelopment plan and that came out of the public workshops that were held. And that's a separate area than this mini triangle area. MR. GUNTHER: The overlay now is saying add density, which Page 112 December 7, 2000 means either bigger houses or more people. It's also saying more commercial and mixed residential, which is fine, commercial and residential. Originally, she -- Debrah knows this. I said, why not work together and have commercial and residential together? I was told, well, they don't do that here. Well, we do do it here. Fifth Avenue has it right on four corners, Goodlette Road has it. You can have commercial and residential together. It does very well. Well, maybe now we will change our minds a little bit. I think things have to be changed but not -- not quick. I see things have been done quick. The CRA board we've had quite a few members from -- I don't know who's on it right now, but there was quite a few members in that group now that were from Windstar. I don't believe they should be on the board now if they have -- if they've been cut out of this overlay. Or is it still part of the CRA? If it's still part of the CRA, okay. It's just -- it seems like there's a conflict of interest back and forth here. I -- I -- a lot of people in this area are very, very concerned and upset about what's going on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Next speaker. MR. NINO: David Woodworth. MR. WOODWORTH: My name is David Woodworth. I'm a resident of the Bayshore area. I've made my -- you know, my thoughts to the commission and I've attended some of these workshops and the notification is -- is very, very sparse. I mean, when you have to rezone or do something to one property, they put a sign on that property. They don't -- they didn't even put any -- they could have put several signs along Bayshore and around -- up and down Shadowlawn or Davis or something, you know, even -- you know, they spent a couple hundred dollars to notify people that something was happening, but that wasn't done. And a previous speaker talked about the vacant property that's right there. And I was told the other day that the newest commercial property that was developed, that Bayshore corners, is now part of the Botanical Garden. I mean, does that tell you that we need more commercial property along Bayshore? To me it tells me that we need less and the thing to do is -- I'm a real estate agent and I know what Page 113 December 7, 2000 sells. Residential property sells in this county; all kinds, multifamily, single family. And that's what I believe Bayshore should become and what you should do is offer incentives to the commercial areas and that they're very -- they're almost to the point the size of the property on commercial property along Bayshore. It's so small you can't develop it. But with this -- you know, the other thing is this is the map of -- of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle development area and it's not the same as what you have here. Now, I don't know why. But to me, they should be the same. If you're going to do something, you want to do it to the whole area. This one ends up leaving off the bottom of Bayshore. It shouldn't be left off. You know, the other thing is the property owners, why aren't they here? They're working. You know, I've had a pretty good year so I said, well, I'm going to take a day off and I'll sit and -- and do something maybe for the community. I -- I make phone calls. They're interested but they -- you know, they can't take off work and come. I'm sure there's going to be a number of them at the -- at the next meeting on Monday because I'm going to try to scare up a few of them but, you know, people in the Bayshore area don't want more commercialization. You could check the newspaper. You can get on your computer and -- and look to see, you know, letter to the editor. All of the ones I found when I was searching with their little -- they want less commercialization along Bayshore. Nobody wants more. Maybe a couple developers, a couple property owners. I can only name two. And I don't know why they're not here because they're for it. And I know the planning department is for it. And it seems like most of the county commission. They were very polite to me the other day. All right. But the next time it goes before the board, I'm going to be saying to get in. People don't want it. And what do you want? Do you want to build a bunch of buildings that are going to be vacant because you think that this is what you -- what -- what this community wants? The community doesn't want it. You know, you can push it. The county commission can push Page 114 December 7, 2000 it. The planning department can push it, but it's going -- you are going to end up with what Town Center looks like. Go over to Town Center and look at all the vacant building -- the vacant stores. I know what's going to be there in another ten years; a mixed use, more stores and -- and then some condos behind it. That's what the Chlumsky property is going to turn into. There's going to be a few stores, offices right along 41 and behind it there will be some residential units. That's what sells in this county. That's what you need to make -- you need to provide more areas for residential use. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. NINO: Another person has offered -- wishes to speak. MS. CANTONI: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Ashley Cantoni, C-a-n-t-o-n-i. Sorry for my accent. I just want to say that I don't believe that the commercial -- I really believe in the area. I believe in the area because it's near the city -- I mean the downtown area. It has water and I guess if we do just one -- if we develop the area in a -- in a nice way with a commercial, just few commercial, that don't make a lot of sense. I guess we need to have as much commercial on Bayshore as we can. And -- and that's it. I have few property in the area. I have -- we are property on commercial, a piece of land that is in the triangle but doesn't have any problem, I suppose, because we have space enough and we are not on the other side of the street. And we have property on the water, a single family home, and I don't think a commercial on Bayshore can be against the value of the houses on the water. Actually, I don't think that's the case. Maybe the contrary. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: That's it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I believe -- unless there's any further discussion from the board? MS. STUDENT: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's one other thing I would like to say for the record about the ad. It was a quarter page in the newspaper and you really can't miss it. I personally saw it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just so I Page 115 December 7, 2000 understand the process, this is a petition for an overlay that was staff initiated and was directed by the board of county commissioners. And our role is to do what? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: and forward it, right? MS. STUDENT: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, basically, take a straw ballot and -- You have to make a recommendation -- We're making a recommendation -- MS. STUDENT: -- under state law. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- to the board -- MS. STUDENT: It's under the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- to either forward it or not forward it. MS. STUDENT: You need to make a recommendation -- THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. MS. STUDENT: I will never compete with an attorney. Go ahead. MS. STUDENT: I just said it's a matter of state law. You're the local planning agency and you're responsible for the preparation of the comp plan and over -- that oversight, so you must make a -- it's not a straw. You must make a recommendation to the board. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion. Well, we can stay here but lunch is, you know, the next item. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we forward Petition CP-2000-01 to the board of county commissioners for the recognition to adopt and forward it to DCA. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Budd, second by Commissioner Saadeh. Any further discussion? MS. STUDENT: For the record, that needs -- it's not the DCA. It's the board of county commissioners. I just want to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr.' Chairman, the only discussion I would like to go -- I would like to have appended to the discussion is that I am concerned about what I've heard about the process. It does seem to be very shaky. It does not seem that the citizens have been represented properly in this Page 116 December 7, 2000 process. I do recognize, however, there's been an awful lot of work done here and a lot of meetings and a lot of public notice, but it appears that even at the end of that pipeline, if you will, that we have a lot of people that are -- that are directly affected that do not feel that their ri9hts have been represented. So, I -- I will agree with this but I do it with some reluctance and I wish to convey that concern to the board of county commissioners. MS. STUDENT: And I just need to clarify this for the record. The legal requirements for notice were met. There may be some other concerns over and above that, but I've got to put it on the record. MR. NINO: May I respond because I would be remiss if I -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Sure. MR. NINO: If the Bayshore triangle planning process didn't epitomize the best in citizen participation, I don't know what project -- how we could do better than that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just --just --just so it's noted, I think it's right though. We've had the public input this morning. Obviously, there's some dissension, which there is in any project of this magnitude. I would highly encourage all those folks who have been here today to take the time also to address their county commissioners concerning that. With that, we have a motion before us. And all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. And no public comments on any other issue? With that, no old business? New business? We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Page 117 December 7, 2000 GARY WRAGE TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TONI SHEARER, DAWN M. BREEHNE AND ROSE M. WITT, RPR Page 118 FORM 8B COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTF MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR ER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-~-FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY COUNTY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORFTY. OR COMMll-I'EE THE BOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMI'I-DEE ON WHICH I SERVE I$ A UNIT OF; Q CITY KCOUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL $1JEDIVI$1ON: MY POSITION IS; Q ELECTIVE I-I OTHE~ LOCAL AGENCY K AFFOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or e!ected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented v,,ith a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Ftorida S taIutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an efective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay dose a~endon to the instruc:ions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive counIy, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appoinled local officer also is prohibiled from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is re!ained (including the parent organizalion or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special privaIe ~r-,jn or [Dss Of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners cf communily redeve!opment agencies under Sec. 163.3..=6 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special t.='~ dJs.t,ricts, e!ected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are nol prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes cf this law, a "retalive" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, doughier, husband, wife. brother, sister, f,~,he,-m-,~,,,, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and doughier-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or enhty engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of Ihe corporahon are riel listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conIlict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AF'q'ER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the mtn- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voling in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. ' IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A'I-rEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempl to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Conlinued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members o! the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is ~'iled. IF YOU MAKE NO A'FrEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the lorm is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, T'~--'~r~r---'1 <~:-~fo.,¢:~ [-...,~ :[---t. , hereby disclose that on T..7)PZ (__- .- '-~ la) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my refative. inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured ta the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. lb) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: by , which After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting.., except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.311, S. 112.313, or S. 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of S.112.3143." Date Filed Si¢~a(ure NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT;- REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 FORM'8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME~FiRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED COUNTY NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, ALrTH,'ORITY. OR COM,MI'~'EE THE BOARD. COUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMll'i'EE ON WHICH I SE.=,VE IS A UNIT OF: Q CITY ~(/,~COUNTY n OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POUTICAL SUBDIVISION: MY I=OSITION IS: r'l ELECTIVE ~ AF,~OhN'rlVE WHO MUST FiLE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or ejected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, FiD rida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive positicn. For this reason, please pay c!ose attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective er appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her specJal private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (olher than a government agency) by whom he or she is re!ained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is relained); to the special private gain or loss ota relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of communily redeve!opment agencies under Sec. 1~3.35~ or 163.357, P.S., and officers et independent special tax districts e!ected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prchibRed from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's tather, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, Sis:er. f~ther-in.l~'.',', molher-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entily engaged in or carrying on a business enlerprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are riel listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose Ihe nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING A~ WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of Ihe meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is flied, IF YOU MAKE NO A'i-I'EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT EY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must [ncorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; ,.. inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, V"' inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of by is the parent organization or subsidiary ota principal which has retained me. (b} The measure before my agency and the nature of my contlicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which After consultation with the County Attorney, [ abstained fi.om voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting.., except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.31 I, S. 112.313, or S. 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of S.112.3143." Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION January 3,2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-29, Alvin S. Tibbetts Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, December 7, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-29. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-35 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-29/RG/im Enclosure C~ Alvin S. Tibbetts 1869 Outrigger Lane Naples, FL 34104 Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File PHONE (941) 403-2400 FAX (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fl.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 35 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-29 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 5-foot after-the-fact boat dock extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 25-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield, representing Alvin S. Tibbetts, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Nature Pointe, Lot 6, as described in Plat Book 20, Pages 20-22, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 5-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 25-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, at least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. -1- o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-29 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 7 th day of DECEIqBER ,2000. ATTEST: JOHN 1~. DUNNUCK, III Execut~e Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY,~~.A Interim Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: ~larj-~ri~ M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-29/RO/cw i941'774~225 COUNTY 428 PE~2/03 DEC 8'7 'SEI 16~27 ' WHO MUST FtLE FORM 8B ~is form i~ for use ~y any pe~On seining at ~e, .'' ~mm~siofl, ~u~dty, or committee, It appltes equally to membe~ ~f advlso~ ~nd flon.adv~o~ bo~es who are p~ented ¢~nltict ~t ~te~est under Se~n 112.3143, Fio~da Statules INSTRUCTIONS FOR cOMPLIANCE WiTH SECTION 112.3143~ FLORIDA STATUTES 16~.357. F,S. ~nd oi!~¢et$ ~t in~endent spe~i~l t~x districts e~ectad mother.{n.l~w, son.~n-l~w, and dang 'oi~t venturer, cco~er ~1 prope~, of corp~ ~ ELECTED OFFICERS: sitdations all,orBed ~b~e, yo~ ~u~t d~ciose t~e c~n~ict; r mle~st in ~e mea~ on~ I~ eddltion le ~statnlng Imm voCng in the stating to ~e assem~ the ~a~ure el you ' · pRtOR TO THE vOTE BEING TAKEN by publlcty WI~IN IS DAY~ A~ER ~HE VOTE APPOINTED OFFICERS: a~tempt to influence me docml0n, whether ora,ty or =n wntmg end ~hather m~ situat~ns de~cflb~ a~ve. you ot~e~e may p~cipate ~ these makers. HoWeVer, ~u Although you musl ~st~n from v~ting in t~e , ~ · ' ' " ' must ~[sclOSe ~e n~tUre of t~ ~onffict ~efore ~aking ~ TAKEN: · YOU m~t complete end file ~is form (oefote making any aaempt ~ Influence ~e d~3~n) with lhe pemcn respo~ible i9~1794~225 COUN]~ ATTORNEY ~8 P~5/8~ DEC ~ '~ 16:18 APPOINTED OFFICERS (oontinued) · A copy ot the torm must be provided Immedi~te'y to the s~het membet~ of the agency. · The form must be read p,.~blicly st the next meeting after tbs term Is fired' iF YOU MAKE NO Al'TEMPT TO iNFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT EY DISC~JSS[ON AT THE MEETtNG~ -'-- ,~-, ~,erson es=onSit31e for recording the minutes of the You must complete the form and file it within 15 dayo seer the vD mee~incJ, who mU~t ~nco~o read pu'alidy at tne next msa{ir~ a?ter t~e fom~ i~ fired. __ agency, and the form must be__~ , ~ ~ -- "::T::~--- '"F LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST &) A l'naa,a,ure ca, me ar will come befor~ my agency which (che~ one) Inured ~ my ~[s~ p~ate gain er ~a: . i~md to ~e specs gain or Io~e di~ ~er coesultatioo whb the County Attorney., I ~bs~._?_-:_,.~ or m~aic~ 8ovcm~t ~, comm~st~ ar a~--; f~m vo~.., except wn? ~2"~ 3 t4~ I~ ~ ~es, ,l~ mem~ s,att c~po w ....... .~- ~ , DER pEOVIS;ONS OF ~ORIDA ~17, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ONE OR MORE O~ THE FOLLOWING: iMP~CHMENT; REMOVAL U~ ~ue~ ..... ~ ..... ~0 ~ NOTTO EXCEEU 3~v, ~ CIVIL pEN~' . pAGE2 FORM'DB MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME~FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS CITY DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED COUNTY N~,,M E OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. ALrF~ORFFY. OR CO;',INilI'i'E B wH° MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or e!ected board, coundl, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a vodng conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an etecfive or appointive position. For this reason, please pay c!ose attention to Ihe instructions on lhls form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding etective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office f,,IUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer aisc, is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss o! a principal (other than a government agency} by whom he or she is re!ained (including Ihe parent organization or subsidiary of a corporaIe principal by which he or she is re!ained); ID Ihe special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain er less Df a business associate. Commissioners ct community redeve!opment agencies under Bec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers ct independenl special I~-'< districts e!ec:ed on a one-acre, one-vote basis are mci prohibited from voting in Ihat capacity For purposes of this law, a "relative" JncJudes only the otlicer's tother, mother, son, daughter, husband, wile. brother, sis:er, f~ther-inqa',v, mother-in-la;v, sen-in-law, and daugh~er-in-Ja;v. A "business associate" means any person er entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the ofticer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner ct proper'b/, er corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stadng to the assembly the nature of your interest in Ihe measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in Ihe minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRtOR TO THE MEETING A'~ WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must comptete and fiIe this form (before making any a~tempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is flied. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECiSION EXCEPT EY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must discIose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other member's of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST l, ~-~:kb-/~ ~'~t~ ¢:~ ~'-~ , hereby disciose that on ~ I~ ~ ~ '~ / (~) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; __ inured to the speciat gain or loss of my business ~ssociate, ; ~ inured to the special gain or foss of my relative, p~ ~'(',-~'L~ ~-~E ~ ¢~ ~ t~/C~ ¢ ~ ; inured to the special gain or loss of , by whom I am relained; or inured to the special gain or loss of , which is the parent organiza[ion or subsidia~ of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my a~ency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained [rom voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, count)', or municipaI govemmentaI board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an o~cial decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain [rom voting.., except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.31 l, S. 112.313, or S.112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of S.112.31432' ~~ o~ ~(~¢~, __- Date Filed Signature _ NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOS~JRE~ CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT;'] REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A2 CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $~0,000. pAGE 2 CE FORM 81~ - REV. 1/98 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ~s-r ~^ME--~nS~'"^~E--~OOLE N~,M~ ~,'~E O~ BO^CO. C~U~C~. COM~,S~O~. ~O~. ~ COMM~ '7/ WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government cn an appointed or e!ected board, councit, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisoo' bodies who are presented with a voting congiict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Slatutes. Your respensibiiifi~s under the law when laced with vodng on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close a~ention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the lerm. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public oltice MUST ABSTAIN from ve~ing on a measure which inures to his er her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss el a principal (olher than a government agency} by whom he or she is re!ained (including Ihe parent organization or subsldiar7 of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss cf a relative; or to the special private gain or loss el a business associate. Commissioners of community redeve!opment agencies under Sec. 16.3.356 or 163.35'7, P.S., and otficers ct independent special tg',: dist~ric~s, e!ec:ed On a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited Item vcdng in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "re!afive" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, doughier, husband, wife. brolher, s;ster, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughlerdn-law. A "business associate" means any person or en~i[y engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corpora:ion are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in lhe measure on which you are abstaining Irom voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AF-'FER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes ef the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whelher orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A'FFEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING A~ WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and fiie IhJs form (before making any altempt to influence the dec~slon) w[lh the person responsible for recording the APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the o[her members of the agency. The ferm must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You must complete the form and fiIe it within 15 days after the vo~e occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes ef the meeting, who must incorporate the 1erin in the minutes. A copy of ~he form must be previded immediately to the o~her members of the agency, and the form must be read publicJy at the next meeting a~er the [arm is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~AI~ ~'~>r-~t;::~ t~''~'-:pll , hereby disclose thai on (a) A measure came er will come before my agency which (check one) __ inured to my special private gain or loss; ~ inured to the special gain er loss of my business associate. (.~ ~ \ __ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative. __ inured to the special gain or loss o[ whom I am retained; or inured Io the special gain er loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary el a principal which has re~ained me. (b) The measure before my agency end the nature of my conflicting imerest in the measure is as follows: , by , which After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting.., except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.311, S.112.313, or S.112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of S.II2.3143.'~ / Date Filed Signature -q NOTICE; UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ~ CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CF FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 pAGE 2