Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/21/2000 RDecember 21, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 21, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Ken Abernathy Russell Budd Michael Pedone Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young NOT PRESENT: Gary Wrage Russell A. Priddy Sam Saadeh ALSO PRESENT: Susan Murray, Current Planning Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF- AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED l0 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLLCALLBY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Seplember 21, 2000; October 5, 2000; and November 2, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSE/qCF3 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ?. A~V~RTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2000-30, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing Edward M. Markowitz, requesting a 25 foot boat dock extension for a dock protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway for property located at 231 Bayfront Drive further described as Lot 16, Bayfront Gardens. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) PE-2000-04, Robert Lockhart, P.E., of Lockhart Engineering, Inc., representing ERA Realty Group, requesting Parking Exemption approval for Faust Parkway Center for off-site parking located on 26th Place S.W., Lot 29, Block 248, Golden Gate Unit 7, in Section 28, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) 8. OLD BUSINESS: Sequence of Minutes not posted and available in the order of the calendar. 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 12/21/00 CCPC AGENDA/RN/im December 21, 2000 VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are we ready to call this meeting to order? Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the December 21 st, 2000 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. First item of business is roll call. Commissioner Priddy, absent. Commissioner Young, absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Rautio, present. Commissioner Wrage is absent. Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Commissioner Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a quorum. Okay, the -- is there any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: No, Madam Chairman, there is no addenda to the agenda. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next item would be approval of the minutes. We have before us three sets of minutes: September 21st, 2000, October 5th and November 2rid. Do we have any revisions or corrections? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I have a motion to approve all three meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Commissioner Budd, a second by Commissioner Pedone for approval of all three sets of minutes. Any discussions? Call the question. All in favor? Opposed, same sign. (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next item would be Planning Commission absences. Does anyone know if they're going to be absent any time soon? Hearing none, we'll go to the Board of County Commissioners' report. Page 2 December 21, 2000 MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chairman, the Balmoral PUD was continued because of right-of-way dedication considerations. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD was approved. And otherwise, all other petitions that were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission were approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And that would include Fred Reischl's horse stable. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay, I have no commission report -- excuse me, chairman's report; therefore, we'll enter into the advertised public hearings. (Commissioner Young enters boardroom.) VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those wishing to testify, please stand and raise their right hand to be sworn in by the clerk of the court. (All speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let the record reflect that Commissioner Young has arrived. The first petition would be BD-2000-30. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 25-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 45 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 231 Bayfront Drive, in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 75 feet of waterfront. A single-family home is under construction on the property. The project consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock and boat lift. The site of the project is a dead end cove off the main waterway. The proposed dock would occupy greater than 25 percent of the waterway width, as measured from the most restrictive point. However, this deficiency is mitigated by the configuration of the shoreline and also, the fact that according to the petitioner the docks on this cove have been designed for mutual compatibility. The proposed facility meets all other criteria, no objections to the project have been received, and therefore, staff recommends approval. Questions? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATH¥: I just have a comment. We solemnly entome that dock extensions will not serve as Page 3 December 21, 2000 precedence for anything, if we grant them, yet we cite extended docks as a justification for extending this one in sub-paragraph E. So maybe those two things are not inconsistent, but they seem to tend in that direction. I'm not bothered by it, I'm just whimsical about it. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are there vacant lots now? I'm not sure I understood. But how well developed is this land? MR. GOCHENAUR: The visualizer doesn't seem to be up and running this morning, but we have improved lots directly across the cove with a boat dock extension, an approved lot to the north of that, which is just on the edge of the cove, with a boat dock extension, and an improved lot to the southwest, also with a boat dock extension. The only lot on the cove is the lot that would be located approximately to the northeast of the subject property. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay, when I'm looking at the site map, I see the site location, and then I see one, two, three, four, five down at bottom of the loop, and then there's one, two, three -- there's a whole bunch of them. I'm just wondering, does this -- moving in the direction of approving this, does that suggest we're -- because of the shallow water, which you've justified, you know, the extension, that we're going to have this kind of structure on every one of those lots? Is that what's going to happen? I'm not saying it's bad or good, I just want to know what's going to happen. MR. GOCHENAUR: Typically in Lely Barefoot Beach, everyone has the same problem with the shallow shoreline, so there are a lot of boat dock extensions in that area. Neighbors seem to be able to live with this in terms of the impact on the view, and the waterway isn't that heavily traveled that it seems to cause problems for navigation. So I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if other property owners in the area apply for these extensions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So your feeling is that since it's a dead end and it's not really navigable in a sense of any through traffic, that even though our code calls for this to be reviewed and for us to take action on it, that -- I guess it Page 4 December 21, 2000 suggests to me that perhaps our code is not really very pertinent to what's happening here, if we have a lot of these kinds of things coming in all the time. MR. GOCHENAUR: The code addresses the county as a whole, with basic criteria that are met by most of these docks. We feel that the public does want an opportunity to review each petition individually. And although virtually all of these do gain our recommendation because they meet all or most of the criteria, you know, we still feel that we have to go through the review process here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just see this is going to be basically a set of boardwalks all the way around before it's through. And, you know, maybe that's what the neighbors want up there, but it just strikes me as being somewhat inconsistent with our code. MR. GOCHENAUR: It's not inconsistent in that the extensions that are approved by this commission do meet the criteria. The code recognizes that under certain circumstances docks that are longer than the 20 feet normally permitted are actually acceptable. It's not the same thing as a variance; there doesn't have to be a hardship. So if all of these properties do -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Have the same characteristics. MR. GOCHENAUR: -- meet the criteria -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Anybody have any other questions? Mr. Scofield, would you like to make a presentation? MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. I just want to say a few things. And maybe I can -- Mr. Richardson had some questions there. A lot of these -- most all the lots, as Ross told you, in the Southport -- excuse me, Lely Barefoot Beach subdivision require extensions for them to moor their boats and have a lift on them. This is located -- VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: yourself. MR. SCOFIELD: I didn't? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, you didn't identify No. According to Mr. Abernathy. Okay, I'm sorry. Rocky Scofield, Page 5 December 21, 2000 representing the petitioner-- VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: -- Mr. Markowitz, excuse me. The -- this area is designated outstanding Florida waters by the State of Florida DEP. And this is -- these are natural waters. They haven't been dredged. This community's been put in up there. And they discourage dredging. It's basically -- I have never seen anybody -- I've only gotten one dredging permit in this whole area and it was a hardship case. But most of them, they want them extended out. The other thing is Southport -- this is Bayfront Gardens subdivision. Bayfront Gardens is a small subdivision out of Lely Barefoot Beach. Southport is another one. They have their own dock, review committees and architectural review committees. I have a letter here. I had to submit these - we have to submit these docks to the architectural review committee and the dock committees, which are usually the same thing, and they approve it. So they're a little -- they're a tightknit group of people in their small communities. They look at the docks, make sure the neighbors don't object to them and they're compatible with them. And so we do go through that process. And they're the ones that are affected, so -- and these have been approved by them. If there are any other questions -- VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? MR. SCOFIELD: I just wanted to say I appreciate the patience and the cooperation of the audience this morning. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no further comments, then I close the public hearing. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I make a motion that we approve Petition BD-2000-30. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Commissioner Budd and a second by Commissioner Pedone. All in favor? Opposed, same sign. (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is PE-2000-4. All those wishing to present testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. Page 6 December 21, 2000 (All speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a parking exemption, specifically for off-site parking for the existing Faust Parkway Center on Golden Gate Parkway. And if the visualizer is working? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's not. MR. REISCHL: On your maps in your -- there it is. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There we go. MR. REISCHL: To give you a reference point, this is Golden Gate Parkway, Tropicana Boulevard, Coronado, fire station and library, Golden Gate Middle School. This is the site in question, the blue. The existing commercial is here in pink. As you can see, they back up to each other. It's an existing plaza that was built under an old code, and circulation is definitely deficient, and number of spaces are deficient, according to today's code. I took some photos, and I apologize for the color printer being out of service. You can see the parking. There are two driveways and no circulation between those two driveways, which is not legal under today's code. And this was just to give you an idea of the haphazard method, some people parking nose in this way, the other people parking that way. That could easily be solved by striping, but the striping, from what the petitioner has shown, would have a deficient number of spaces, according to today's code. On the lot in question, the residential lot -- this is the lot in question, this is the adjacent multi-family home. As you can see, there is no -- or very few windows and those are well landscaped by existing trees. On the other side it's not as well landscaped, obviously. Again, this is the same lot. This is the back of the Faust Center, and this is the adjacent home. There are two other businesses in that same vicinity that also have off-site parking. Going back to this map. Another commercial business along Golden Gate Parkway is using this green lot as off-site parking for their existing business. That was an unusual circumstance. The building was approved in the Seventies as a two-story Page 7 December 21, 2000 building with the condition that the second floor could not be utilized until there was additional parking. That was a very unusual circumstance. And over here is the First National Bank. And again, the commercial portion along Golden Gate Parkway. And they were approved for what was called an off-site parking petition, in those days, for this lot in the rear. And they had 100 percent of their parking existing on-site, but they still had overflow, the -- with meetings at night in the bank's community room and things like that. And not an off-site parking petition, but over here is the Ashley Service Station PUD. The Ashley Service Station PUD obviously is a gas station, but they did add a McDonald's recently to their PUD, and with that they added some more residential property, which was used just for parking, so it has the same effect as a parking exemption. But it was incorporated into the PUD. The petitioner requests 30 off-site spaces. And this is to allow potential intensification of the uses on the site, presumably to medical and even to an expansion of the square footage. This is a compilation. Golden Gate Parkway here at the bottom. The pink is the existing buildings, the retail spaces and the small convenience store. And these stripes were added by Mr. Lockhart. They are -- the spaces generally exist that way without being striped. The connection to the off-site parking would be through here, across the alley and into what he has as the proposed parking area. Staff recommends on the off-site parking, Mr. Lockhart has a 10-foot buffer adjacent to the residential. We recommend it go with the 15, which is typical for commercial adjacent to residential. Now, keep in mind, this is not commercial adjacent to residential, it's residential adjacent to residential. However, the use that's being asked for is parking. We think it would be consistent to keep a 15-foot buffer on the -- adjacent to the residential sides. After I wrote my staff report which recommended a 10 -- maximum of 10 spaces, I talked to Mr. Lockhart and to Ms. Page 8 December 21, 2000 Murray and Mr. Nino. And looking at the Ashley Service Station PUD, which tended to be establishing the idea that you could intensify a business and then use the parking in the residential area, staff has no objection if the Planning Commission recommends and the board approves more than the 10 spaces. The -- I don't believe that you could physically fit 30 on there with a 15-foot buffer. I think the 30 spaces depends on having the 10-foot buffer. So it would probably be more realistic to think 20 spaces would be able to be engineered onto the adjacent lot. Yesterday at about 4:45 I received a call from Commissioner Henning who had some questions. He was wondering about the -- how much notice and how much of a presentation the civic association had received from the petitioner. And he was also concerned that with residences on both sides and a parking lot in between and the middle school across the street, that this parking lot could potentially turn into a hangout. And he didn't necessarily object, but he just wanted me to raise those questions before you. So with the 15-foot buffers on the residential side and obviously, as Mr. Lockhart has shown, no driveway along 26th Place, staff recommends approval. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question for Ms. Student. Is it appropriate for a commissioner to try to influence the decisions of this board? Certainly in the city that's absolutely specifically prohibited. MS. STUDENT: I don't know that it was trying to influence a decision. I think the Commissioner may have been raising some concerns. But it's something that we'll look into. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Raising a concern is walking damn close to prohibitive territory, I would say. MS. STUDENT: I understand your concern, and it's something that we'll look into. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: And just to clarify, Commissioner Henning didn't say anything pro or con. He -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, he expressed concerns. I mean, we're all grown people, we know what a concern is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Richardson? Page 9 December 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, you mentioned that they were talking about intensification of usage of this property. I'm trying to get in my mind a tie-in between getting additional parking spaces and then facilitating some intensification of usage 'which will not come before us; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we in effect, by granting additional parking spaces, albeit off-site, are promoting then intensification of this use? MR. REISCHL: Possibly, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think that's a concern. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah, would you be -- would you call this coming in through the back door, perhaps? MR. REISCHL: I thought that way until I researched enough to find that Ashley Service Station did basically the same thing using the PUD instead of the parking exemption. It basically was the same thing using a different -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Vehicle. MR. REISCHL: -- type of vehicle, right. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Young? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I too am concerned about encroaching upon a residential area and increasing possible commercial uses. Are we planning to blacktop too much of our Collier County area? Why aren't you holding fast to your original suggestion of 10 parking spaces? MR. REISCHL: I have no objection if you do go beyond the 10. I think the 10 will solve the existing problem. However, as I did the further research and found out that yes, this has been done before in very close proximity to this, I would have no objection if you and the board decided to increase this to what I think would be a maximum of 20. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: If you granted only 10 spaces, or if we grant only 10 spaces, would they then still be able to intensify the usage of the existing property? MR. REISCHL: Possibly by conversion of some offices to medical. But I don't think that they would be able to add any additional square footage. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you clarify for me again what a Type B landscape buffer is for the 15 feet that you are Page 10 December 21, 2000 recommending? MR. REISCHL: Yeah, it's 15 feet with a hedge, fence or wall. Six feet upon planting. And it's trees spaced every 20 feet and a double hedge row. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay, and then the Type D? MR. REISCHL: Oh, I'm sorry, that was Type B. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: B as in boy? MR. REISCHL: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right, and then D is much -- MR. REISCHL: D is the tree every 30 feet with a double hedge row. Typically what's adjacent to right-of-ways. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So you can see a little bit of what's in the area. MR. REISCHL: Correct. The hedge is only three feet. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Three feet, okay. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, the Type B buffer also requires 80 percent opacity within one year, so there's a -- the view concern might be alleviated more with your Type B buffer than your D as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: B as in boy? MS. MURRAY: B as in boy, correct. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Can I make a motion? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, we need to hear from the petitioner. MR. LOCKHART: Thank you. Good morning. Bob Lockhart, with Lockhart Engineering, representing Faust Commercial Center. Richard Faust is the client. The request for additional parking, actually it stems from a number of directions. The first is the recent approvals and current construction of a number of plazas along the parkway, with medical offices being proposed; that plus some research by Mr. Faust into the area that there is a need for some additional medical/professional office space. There's a definite lack in the Golden Gate City, and obviously the trend being such that there's some under construction, he's seeing this as a possible move for the future. So part of his directions are coming from mere economics of using his property to the fullest intent, just as other people are doing. With the property at present, he does have the option to Page 11 December 21, 2000 change the use to a medical/professional office. Parking ratio is higher, if you would, it requires more spaces than the commercial. However, he does have, as you can see from the site plan, a small building in the front that historically has been a gas station, convenience store, and right now it's kind of in transition. We're not sure what to do with it. And it may probably be removed, which in some regards would then allow additional square footage for medical and some greater ability, flexibility for configuring a parking lot to allow more parking spaces. So at the present there's a little bit of ambiguity, not knowing the outcome of the petition for the request for the additional off-site parking. As you can see from the site plan also, the 30 spaces do limit themselves with the 10-foot buffer. This was chosen because in part a fence or a screened fence, whichever would be more acceptable -- and I would tend to think that a wooden fence would be more acceptable to buffer the adjacent neighbors, in addition to the landscaping requirements, of course. This in turn would help one of Commissioner Henning's concerns about loitering, and with the school adjacent. If it was fenced, it would tend to be somewhat of a -- protected on the north, east and west -- I'm sorry, south, east and west. And that only the ingress and egress would really be, you know, considered, and you wouldn't have any visibility into the site with that scenario. Granted, with the 10-foot buffer, 30 spaces can be constructed. If 15 is rigid, and I can certainly understand the desire for some additional space -- 20 spaces would be the reduction that would be requested, or I offer that as an alternative to the 30. There is a little bit of economics that do go into off-site parking. The square footage of the lot and the 10 parking spaces, as opposed to 30 or 20. We do get into an economics of the viability of getting off-site parking. It may be marginal with 20. 30 is certainly to the benefit of the client, petitioner. 10 will put it in a question mark. And again, it's certainly the discretion of the board. Staff's position, as I understand, was 10 -- is 10. May be flexible in some position, knowing that there are adjacent PUD's Page 12 December 21, 2000 for other exemptions that are following the same direction that we are. A PUD goes before the Planning Commission and the board, just as we are. So putting it into a PUD and making it presentable in that fashion is really not changing any of the facts or figures. So I don't feel that that would be a different direction to go in. This is just as definitive for what we're trying to do. The last comment I would want to make on the square footage addition is that the petitioner is simply looking at and wanting to stake, to fish out, because we don't want the misconception of backing into anything. Flat out in the application it was stated that he's considering if the market allows it, if all the factors fall into place, the conversion of the plaza to a medical and possibly adding some second floor square footage. This is only guesswork at this point. There's nothing defined, nothing on paper. And incidentally, just for the record, Mr. Faust is just recovering from heart surgery that he had about three weeks ago. And a lot of things have come up since the beginning of this application, and that too may play a part in what the future leads as far as with this plaza. So again, not to focus on the expansion concept, it strictly is to take an existing, very confused parking lot, a plaza that does have all of the square footage occupied. Every unit is rented out. And what isn't visualized on the site plan is right now there is a lot of parking off the alley that may or may not meet code. And from a standpoint of trying to improve that area and the condition, removing the parking from the alley and maybe even addressing the rear of the building as far as its appearance would be one of the factors that would come out as a benefit by doing this exemption. A last consideration is that in working with staff, as this process will still go through an SDP, we understand that there may be some stretching of some facts, and we would certainly be glad to consider removing one of the three entrances from the project off of Golden Gate Parkway in order to try to improve the circulation on this parking lot and again try to balance out some of the different factors that are being discussed and weighed here. And I will close and throw out for any comments or Page 13 December 21, 2000 questions. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairman. Mr. Lockhart, please give our best regards to your client for his heart attack. And several of us have been there before. I'm wondering if you and your client couldn't solve your own parking problem just by taking that structure out that you're talking about taking out anyway, the little cashier's station or what was -- MR. LOCKHART: I believe at one point actually there were gas station pumps. And it was actually for dispensing. And I believe the underground storage tanks are still there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If that were taken out, couldn't you just take care of your traffic circulation pattern and parking there as it is? MR. LOCKHART: In part. I think one thing that everyone needs to note is that there's nothing exact. Parking requirements, there's some variation in that. Down here it may be seasonal. The mall certainly has more need for parking now than it does in July. And different projects -- I'm sorry, different properties with their uses may require more parking than one might think. One of the uses or one of the renters is for a pool service company. There are a lot of small pickup trucks that are parked here and used, and in turn the people that drive those trucks have parking needs. So you might have a higher number of employee parking in this shopping center than you might typically find. In some ways having more parking is better than not having enough. However, I understand your fear if you're providing so much parking that someone's going to look at wanting more building. But I don't think in this case that is in any sort of sense of direction what the owner is looking for. If there was any additional intensification, it would be to put a second story on the main rectangular building. And in conjunction with that, the smaller building would be removed. So there would be an increase of some 60, 55 percent of the total site square footage of building. But again, this is very preliminary from a thought, and whatever is done it could still be done and in compliance with Page 14 December 21, 2000 the current parking code. So you're not opening a door for anyone to circumvent any code. It is one of the factors or variables that go with any approval on any zoning that if there is some changes allowed, I mean, that's the flexibility in zoning I think in some regards. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, the door would only be open to the extent that we provide additional off-site parking. I mean, that's what you're asking for. MR. LOCKHART: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The parking in the alley, perhaps you could -- staff report says that six is all that's permitted there now. I think you said there were only six parking spaces -- MR. LOCKHART: I believe that was in the staff report. Yes, I believe so. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And you're suggesting there are more spaces than that actually utilized, than the six. MR. LOCKHART: I believe right now, and I've done some canvassing of all of those businesses, there are very few if any that have striping and bumpers, so there tends to be no guidance, so people will park where they can; diagonal, what have you, not parallel to each other. In addition, the current site plan is proposing for no parking which, as you know, parking on the alley, you have to back out into the alley. Not that it has high traffic, but it's not as safe a condition as what we are proposing, where it's all off of the alley and you don't have anyone that, you know, is doing that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So am I to understand that if off-site parking is permitted, that the parking in the alley would be prohibited? MR. LOCKHART: It could be stipulated so. MR. REISCHL: If that's what you would like to stipulate. In Golden Gate City and a few other locations around the county, we do allow what we call employee parking off the alleys because the sites are so small. I know along Santa Barbara the same thing is done. But if you want to stipulate that there's no parking along the alley, that would be no problem. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just trying to get a tie-in of all these parking spaces. Page 15 December 21, 2000 The -- it would seem like the natural human condition would be to want to park as close as you can to where you work and not go to the off-site place. It seems like that's the last place people are going to go to. And to the extent that you facilitate or prohibit, it's going to move the traffic one way or the other. MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think -- let me make it very clear, the initial intent is for employee parking to utilize this. Therefore, all of the spaces in front of the center, which is where the visibility is, is available for patrons. As it is presently, it's very difficult to get a parking spot. You're .competing with the employees. And this would free up all of the shopping center. There is circulation problems in getting back into the site once you drive by it. So having more spaces in the front available would alleviate some of the traffic problems that have occurred by having to go back around, make a U-turn and make a second trip to try to get into the plaza. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me come at it directly then. Would this off-site space be specified for use by employees? MR. LOCKHART: If you so would like to stipulate it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I mean, wouldn't that help to solve your traffic circulation problem with the patrons that you're trying to -- MR. LOCKHART: I believe so. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't know what's really appropriate here, but we've got traffic flowing all around here, it's not striped properly. There's room for improvement -- MR. LOCKHART: Certainly. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- and I'm just trying to figure the best way to improve this whole situation. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have one question. Fred, you said that on the existing map here that he drew the spaces in on what we're looking at? MR. REISCHL: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It looks like there's 20. And the requirement in the staff report said it would require 22 parking spaces? MR. REISCHL: According to the square footage there now. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: According to the square footage. MR. REISCHL: But also, I was looking at the circulation. For Page 16 December 21, 2000 example, the code -- today's code prohibits, if you pull into this parking area, can't find a parking area, you have to pull back out onto the road and into another driveway. So what we would like to see on a site development plan is for elimination of, I would think, four of these spots here to allow a flow through the -- a better circulation through the parking lot, so that would increase the number that you would be deficient. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it's taking like two spots away there, so now we're down -- MR. REISCHL: Probably take four plus the two, so about six. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Six, okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You speculated that if you get the buffers that you want, the 15-foot on one side and the 10 on the other, that he can only -- MR. REISCHL: 15 on both. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 15 on both. That isn't what this says. But anyway, 15 on both, you speculated he could only produce 20 more spaces? MR. REISCHL: Well, he couldn't do 30. And just to clarify, the reason we don't have a site development plan for you to look at, under the old off-site parking, it required that a site development plan be brought it, engineered, showing you dimensions and everything. When the code changed allowing the parking exemption, we eliminated that to better allow you and the board to look at the use. If the use was denied, then the petitioner wouldn't have to go through all the expense of the engineering details on a site development plan. So this is a conceptual plan brought to you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Lockhart, do you have an opinion as to how many spaces you could get on that lot, if it was 15-foot buffers? MR. LOCKHART: Yes, sir. We would eliminate the one east -- I'm sorry, west, the right side, where the single entry and the 10 spaces. Again, it's the simplest way to go from where we were to I think where we need to be. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you'd go -- MR. LOCKHART: May center the parking to again provide balance to buffer out. Page 17 December 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You'd go 29 to 19 or something like that? MR. LOCKHART: That would be acceptable. Again, the petitioner and I discussed the appearance of what we're trying to do, and know that it's a difficult decision. But looking at it both ways, you do have an existing center that however it has arrived to the present point, it's behind the current codes and it needs to be facelift (sic). And this is one way of improving the scenario. I did try to find the original approval plan, and no record existed that neither Fred nor I could dig up. So it's -- there's no baseline to start with what was approved, so there's no way of saying well, this is the present plan that must be adhered to. So we were a little lost, and it was vague in the beginning. This is where -- my depiction of the parking spaces on the commercial site is based on what I visualized out there. I have no idea if that was the approved plan or not. And the proposed plan, as it goes to the SDP will change, as Fred mentioned; some of the circulation elements on the commercial property~ eliminate four parking spaces. And again, there is always the possibility of eliminating the building and changing. Or the building may change its character and remain as commercial. Again, these are some of the variables that I can't pin down any more than I have. 20 parking spaces, though, would be acceptable. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're really having a net gain of 15 if you eliminate four. MR. LOCKHART: Correct, correct. This is part of what I'm trying to explain, that when you say approve 20, we're really not going to have 20 additional, it is 20 off-site. And then when we improve the circulation on-site, they're balancing out, and hopefully acceptable. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What I'm trying to get at is the staff has some conditions, and it seems to me if we impose the buffer condition that they want, then we could eliminate number three, because the number of parking spaces would be governed by the buffer. MR. REISCHL: That's true. Another thing I wanted to point out is that just to remind you that parking lots are allowed in residential zoning districts in Page 18 December 21, 2000 association with multi-family dwellings. So it's not something that's totally out of character. However, it is going to be used for commercial use. MR. LOCKHART: Excuse me, Fred, you mentioned Commissioner Henning had two concerns. I think I addressed the fence. What was the first one? MR. REISCHL: Whether it had been fully brought to the civic association. MR. LOCKHART: Oh, yes, thank you. It was. The petitioner, before his illness, did contact and met, showed the site plan. I apologize, I don't have any written documentation, it's only his word. But he expressed to me that there was no concerns. Everybody that he spoke with was satisfied and had no objections. And I don't believe there are any objections submitted, nothing in writing. MR. REISCHL: I haven't received anything else. MR. LOCKHART: And it was advertised. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairwoman? Fred, can you get your crystal ball and say if they did go through the intensification, as suggested here, would there be enough parking spaces available? Taking the employee parking out, let's say, could that be reconfigured to give you sufficient parking spaces to support the intensification that is possible on this site? MR. REISCHL: To a certain extent. Medical requires one parking space per 200 square feet. If he goes with general office and retail, it would be one per 250. So it depends what the uses would be and how big the additional square footage would be. It would not allow a huge new addition or anything like that. MR. LOCKHART: Just to help maybe with some of the variations, as I've gone through some of the scenarios, at a one to 200 square foot requirement, the worst that could be done, if you want to approach it from that direction, is it would need 73 parking spaces. With the same building square footage in a commercial, it would drop to 49. So the change from commercial to office is significant. And that is where at the same time the significance of having all the parking in the front near the access to the building is important with professional, because it's going to have a higher number of trips, and the off-site parking would be utilized for employees. Page 19 December 21, 2000 Again, it lends itself in that fashion. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Lockhart, you've looked at this, I guess, obviously. How many spaces could you get on -- taking the existing 318 square foot building off and reconfiguring the entrances, as you've suggested, you know, can you give me a ballpark as to what -- MR. LOCKHART: Again, I did not mean to open the door for removal of the building. And that seems to be -- well, I understand, but at the same time is removing his commercial square footage. So removal of one building may be in conjunction with putting an addition somewhere else. That may not reduce the parking requirement, but certainly it may open that little square up for utilization and some way of configuring parking. And just as a side comment from John Q. Public, as you've changed your codes and your process, it may be a little in need of tweaking. Because I think a cursory review by somebody to come up with a workable -- a plan to then bring before you and ask for some of the off-site parking additions, we're a little out of sync here with what we're doing, frankly, because the site development plan process is going to look at traffic circulation, and it's not one of the issues before you. So it may be something to think of in the future as -- next go round of changing the codes, that there be a cursory review of some site plans so that there's some continuity in what's going on, COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is a cart and a horse problem. We're getting some carts before we see some horses. MR. LOCKHART: And I don't want this petition in this But process presently maybe to be dragged down with it. certainly it may highlight the things to be looked at. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? comments? Other Is there anyone from the public that wants to speak? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No registered speakers. Therefore, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chairwoman, I would like to see this approved with the stipulations that are Page 20 December 21, 2000 mentioned by the -- our planners, with the type of buffering indicated. But I would further like to suggest that the parking that then is created on the off-site parking space be clearly marked and indicated for employee parking, and thus freeing up the other spaces for the patrons of the center, as it exists now, or as it's reconfigured in the future for -- with the intensification of use. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question on that for clarification. Number three on the stipulation says 10 parking spaces. You want to stay at 10 parking places? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: No, that should come -- that should be -- I was going by Mr. Abernathy's comment that really the configuration is -- of spaces is preset by the type of buffering that we're talking about. So we're really ending up with something like 19 or 20. But whatever that works out to be, based on the buffering being as specified by the planners. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- for that? It's been moved by Commissioner Richardson and seconded by Commissioner Budd. Do we have any discussion? No further discussion, I call the question. All in favor of the motion? Opposed, same sign. (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. We have an item of old business, reference sequence of minutes not posted and available in order of the calendar. We have some comments on that from staff? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Nino didn't make me aware of that issue. Could you tell me what the issue was, and I'll convey it? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, we were getting minutes out of order for awhile. We did not get minutes and then suddenly we got one out of order and then we got three for this last packet. MS. MURRAY: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we were trying to determine what was happening. MS. MURRAY: All right, I'll check with him and tell him to Page 21 December 21, 2000 get back with you on that. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any new business? Any public comment? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's it for the year then, isn't it? VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Discussion of addenda? I just want to wish everybody a happy Hanukkah, a merry Christmas and a happy new year, and I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: So moved. VICE-CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're out of here. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice-Chair at 9:20 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, VICE-CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 22 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION January 3, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-30, Edward M. Markowitz Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, December 21, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-30. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-36 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincerelw Ross Goe~henaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-30/RG/cw Enclosure c~ Edward M. Markowitz 231 Bayfront Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34134 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. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-36 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-30 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 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-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, of Scofield Marine/Consulting, representing Edward M. Markowitz, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 16, Bayfront Gardens, as described in Plat Book 14, Pages 114-117, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 25-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 45-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 ofmanatees, at least one (1) "Mariatee Area" sign shall be posted during construction. 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. The configuration of the dock shall be field-adjusted to minimize removal of mangroves at the shoreline. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-30 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 21st day of DECEMBER ., 2000. ATTEST: JOHN .~. DUNNUCK, III Executi~,e Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY 'LANNING COMMISSION ORIDA GARl WRAGE, CHI ~IRMA~ ~~~~' Marj~)r~ M. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-30/RG/cw