Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/15/2001 RFebruary 15, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE Naples, Florida, February 15, 2001 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Russell A. Priddy Lori Jean Young Kenneth L. Abernathy Joyceanna J. Rautio Dwight Richardson ABSENT: Russell A. Budd Michael Pedone Sam M. Saadeh ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Planning Services Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2001 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 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 l0 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. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 4, 2001 & January 18, 2001 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-34, Milburn Pierce, representing Larry and Gloria Squarci, requesting a boat dock extension to add a boathouse over an existing dock protruding 19.6 feet into the waterway, for property located at 164 San Salvador Street, further described as Lot 316, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) V-2000-33, Freedom Screening Corporation, representing Curtis Chandler, requesting a 2 foot variance from the required 10 foot rear yard setback for accessory structures to 8 feet for property located at 225 Bayfront Drive, further described as Lot 18, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Continued from 2/1) (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-34, Don Kirby and Susan young Kirby, of Construction Courier Services, representing Handy Food Stores Incorporated, requesting a variance of 30 feet from the required 50 foot front yard setback requirement for a gas station canopy for property located at 2902 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee. (Continued to 3/1) (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) PUD-2000-19, George L. Vamadoe, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Antaramian Capital Partners, LLC, requesting a rezone from "C-4" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Sandpiper Village PUD, for a maximum of 180 multi- family dwelling units and a maximum of 45,000 commercial and general office uses, and recreational amenities, for property located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41), in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.99~: acres. (Continued Indefinitely) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) Eo PUD-92-08(1), Bryan Milk of RWA, Inc., representing William T. Higgs, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD known as White Lake Industrial Park PUD having the effect of changing the name to White Lake Corporate Park PUD, increasing the industrial land use from 67.4 acres to 86.3 acres, and changing the property ownership, for property located northeast of and adjacent to the intersection of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Continued Indefinitely) (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PE-2000-05, Tom Masters, P.E., Director of Engineering, Vineyards Development Corporation, requesting a parking exemption for a shared parking agreement between Vineyards Development and the Lutgert Companies, on Outparcel 6 of the Crossroads Shopping Center in the Vineyards, located on the West side of Vineyards Boulevard. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Go CP-2000-03, GGAMP & FLUE: To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Future Land Use Element to clarify uses within the Settlement Area (Orangetree PUD document). (Coordinator: David Weeks) CP-2000-04, FLUE: To amend the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use map to create a new commercial sub-district for 48.5 acres to be known as the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Sub-district. (N. half intersection between Vanderbilt Beach and Collier Boulevard). (Coordinator: Aaron Blair) CP-2000-05, FLUE: To amend the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to create a new commercial sub-district for 17.5 acres, to be known as Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, to allow retail and office uses at SE quadrant of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. (Coordinator: Amy Taylor) CP-2000-07, GGAMP: To amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Map by renaming the C.R. 951 Commercial Infill District to Golden Gate Commercial Infill Sub-district by including 6.83 acres at the NW comer of Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway. (Coordinator: David Weeks) CP-2000-11, FLUE: To amend the Furore Land Use Element by modifying the definition of "direct principal access" for Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Parks. (Coordinator: Michele Mosea) Scrivener's Errors Ordinance: An adoption Ordinance correcting serivener's errors on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca) Ho Recommendation to accept a settlement proposal in the case of Walden Oaks of Naples Homeowners Association, Inc., et. al. vs. Collier County and Bic's Investment Corporation, Case No. 98-3135-CA pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Marjorie M. Student) 8. OLD BUSINESS. 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 02/15/01 CCPC AGEND/RN/im 3 February 15, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission of Thursday, February 15, the year 2001. We'll start by calling the roll. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young is absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are you sure of that? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A cold. A little cold. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is here. Commissioner Saadeh is still out of the country, I believe. Commissioner Richardson? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Commissioner Budd is excused. Commissioner Pedone, the last I heard about him he's doing well, except he has terrible pains in his legs. And we wish him God speed and hurry back. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that, we have two sets of minutes before us needing approval. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have just one -- almost a scrivener's error, I suppose. But on the transcript for January 16th on page 24 there is an attribution to Mr. Reischl that belongs to Ms. Rautio. The comment is, '1 would like to make a comment. I would like to explain why I'm going to say aye." And Mr. Reischl, who has a lot of influence on the Board, but doesn't necessarily vote. So that should be attributed to Ms. Rautio. That's the only change I see. Otherwise, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you, but there is one other notation. And it is the January 18th. I believe you said 16th? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: January 18th minutes. On page 7 under Commissioner Wrage saying that he's going to appoint me as a committee woman and it should say, "A committee of one," Page 2 February 15, 2001 to attempt to find out what is happening with the Board minutes. I will second the motion for approval with those changes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not sure I said that. Well, it's been moved and seconded we approve the minutes of January 4th, January 18th with those noted corrections. (Commissioner Lori Jean Young entered the Board room.) All in favor signify by saying aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Thank you. MR. NINO: Commissioner, relative to your agenda, I guess we went by that, so to speak, but Item C, D, and E are all continued. Number D should not be continued indefinitely however. It will be at your March the 1st meeting. So C, D, and E are continued to March. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sorry. I skipped over that on the agenda. So Variance 2000-34, Don Kirby, Construction Courier Services continued to March 3rd. PUD-2000-19, Sandpiper Village PUD continued to March 1st. And PUD-92-08(1), White Lake -- MR. NINO: That is continued -- that is continued indefinitely. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. White Lake Industrial Park continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So anybody here wishing to talk on those, so be advised. Moved by Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. Any planned commission absences? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will miss the March 15th meeting. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any others? If not, Ron, BCC report. MR. NINO: Yes. There's some interesting things happened Page 3 February 15, 2001 at the BCC last week. One, the saga of Little Palm Island is -- will be ongoing. Although the Board did have a substantial amount of discussion of that petition at its last meeting, it did end up -- it did end up being continued until the time when these folks decide to submit their subdivision plan and plat. And at that time the discussion of the ST and the gopher tortoises will be revisited. As you know, there are two appeals of your decisions on boat docks. The one that had to do with Liberty was upheld. The appeal of Mr. Pires was upheld on the Liberty one. It was denied on the landimarino one. The Sabitino variance was continued, I assume, until the Dover-Cole study is completed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ron, could you give us just a synopsis of what the BCC -- what problems they had with Little Palm Island? I know the ones that we had. Are they the same? MR. NINO: Well, Little Palm Island I think is -- from the point of the view of the ST application, it has become intertwined with the issue of gopher tortoises. And, quite frankly, you know, that is really not an ST issue. The ST issue, as you know, has to do with the ability to utilize five lots that they would otherwise not be able to use. There's no gopher tortoise habitat within that area, but somehow or other at this point in time, whether we like it or not, the issue of gopher tortoises is the issue that is still hanging up there. And current regulations would have its resolution as an administrative function, but no one wants -- no one is prepared to accept that way of dealing with it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just a comment on the Vanderbilt Bay Board of Zoning Appeals. In watching that discussion about the fact that they seem to think that the Planning Commission had missed two of the criteria, i.e., view, the other one being depth, and by virtue of the fact -- and I couldn't find my records, but the dock was reduced by the Planning Commission or approved 40 feet back to 32 feet would more than tell me that we talked about depth of water. MR. NINO: I think the record adequately shows that there was a discussion of depth. But if you want literally or legally, we Page 4 February 15, 2001 somehow or other did not respond to all of the ten criteria that are listed for boat docks and that won't happen again. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, I put that out for the rest of the Board's information. I was rather violent when I was watching that on TV because I knew we had talked about that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want a point of clarification. You just said that we did not. We, as staff, or we, as a planning commission -- MR. NINO: Well, we, as staff, did not present you with a response in our staff report to the ten criteria. We missed two criteria. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So does that allow the petitioner then to come back with a corrected application addressing all ten criteria? MR. NINO: Most certainly. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So I would assume we will possibly see that boat dock again. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I hope the hearing officer will. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have no further report. With that, we'll move down to advertised public hearings. The first one being Boat Dock 2000-34. All those wishing to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Are we going to give testimony, sir? Okay. Can we try that one more time for the court reporter? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Gochenaur, before you move forward I wanted to make a point on the record. If you would, I'd like to draw your attention to the affidavit, page eight of eight, which is in the packet that we received. It appears not to be properly filled out and the property owner has not given the permission directly to Milburn Pierce to be his agent. I brought this to Marjorie Student's attention and she said to at least put it on the record because this form is not adequately completed. MS. STUDENT: I would just put on the record that there is Page 5 February 15, 2001 an agency relationship between the property owner and the gentleman that's here. I think that that cures the problem. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So we can proceed, but I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the record that the affidavit is not properly executed, in my opinion. MS. STUDENT: There's blanks in it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah. MS. STUDENT: Commissioner Rautio showed it to me. There are blanks in the affidavit. MR. GOCHENAUR: Correct. I appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: This is actually not a boat dock extension, but a boathouse petition. The boat dock exists. The petitioner is requesting approval of a boathouse to be constructed over an existing dock and lift. The property is located at 164 San Salvador Street on Isles of Capri and contains about 60 feet of water frontage. The facility would meet all code criteria for a boathouse. And the roof of the boathouse would match the roof of the principal structure. There are quite a few existing boathouses on this waterway, as the petitioner's photographs show. We have received no objections to this project and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? Does the petitioner wish to address this issue? MR. SQUARCI: Not unless you have some questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve BD-2000-34. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. That brings up Variance 2000-33. All those wishing to give Page 6 February 15, 2001 testimony on this issue, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This request is for a variance for a screen enclosure around an existing pool in Lely Barefoot Beach. As you can see on the visualizer, Barefoot Beach Boulevard. And you can see the configuration of the lot, which, I believe, plays a role in the request for the variance. And this is oriented pretty much the same way that the previous map was. You can see the borders of the lot in blue and the principal structure, the house, in yellow. This is the pool area. As you can see, the fence and the deck for the pool extend a lot closer to the property line than ten feet. And that's because fences under a certain height and decks and patios do not have to meet setbacks. The petitioner built the house with a fence around a pool, which meets building code regulations. And now, however, they desire to put a screen enclosure around the pool. The lip of the pool is at ten feet. So in order for a screen enclosure to be put on around the pool without a variance, the screen enclosure would have to come right up to the lip of the pool. They are asking for an encroachment of two feet, which would allow a walkway maintenance area around the pool. And I received no objections. As you can see from the first map, the way -- the way the lot is oriented towards the neighbors the encroachment would be approximately in that area. And there is no direct effect on any neighbors. The encroachment is -- would be adjacent to the -- that arm of the bay. And, as I said, I received no objections. However, there is no land-related hardships. So staff was constrained from recommending approval. And some photos were supplied by the petitioner -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman. MR. REISCHL: -- of the existing pool. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Fred, the -- you know, it is obvious to me looking at the lots in that subdivision that -- that the lot in Page 7 February t5, 2001 question is -- is very definitely an irregular-shaped lot, which to me kind of says that there might be a land-related hardship in trying to build a home on a lot that's triangular in shape. But staff can't make -- couldn't make that -- MR. REISCHL: Well, there's no -- a lot is for the house. They do, in addition, have a pool that meets setback requirements. There is no hardship in not having a -- at least as far as the code is concerned, there is no hardship in not having a screen enclosure. I know mosquito-wise there is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I mean, in reality they could have built a smaller pool and gotten everything on the lot. MR. REISCHL: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there a neighborhood or homeowner's association out there? MR. REISCHL: I believe so. And I did not receive any objections. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't know whether they were notified specifically? MR. REISCHL: Yes. We notified them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. In the ordinance of adoption at the very bottom it's talking about, "This variance is for the encroachment shown in Exhibit A only," which is what we're discussing. But there is another sentence, "Any other encroachment shall require a separate variance." Does that lead me to believe there is going to be another problem when they go forward? MR. REISCHL: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Why do we have that sentence in there? MR. REISCHL: That's a standard -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Standard? MR. REISCHL: -- stipulation. It's just so that this is only for the screen enclosure here. It doesn't mean that they can build the rest of their house out to eight feet from the rear property line. It's a safeguard. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Safeguard. Thank you. MR. NINO: Our concern -- Ron Nino, for the record. Our concern is -- the variances go with the land and then -- and would apply then to anything that they want to do. So we were limiting it. Page 8 February 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a maybe more general question. I see this no-related -- land-related hardship phrase come up quite often in your reports. However, I seem to recall reading back in some past minutes that there -- I think, Ron, it was attributed to you that the criteria had been expanded some so that you're not limited to just this one. MR. REISCHL: That's correct. However, the emphasis of this Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals has been to put a greater emphasis on the land-related hardship. Therefore, we weigh that more heavily than the other criteria. But you and the Board are free to weigh it as you see fit. We are being more conservative is what I'm trying to say. MR. NINO: Nevertheless, if I may, because I think this is an appropriate time to talk about this issue. You know, it comes up so often and -- and it's usually on these where the view exposure is unencumbered. I mean, there is an expansive waterway. How does the Planning Commission feel about an amendment to the variance section that would avoid this type of application having to come before the Board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'. I think the hearing officer would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, are you talking strictly on water? Because a lot of times we get preserves. MR. NINO.' Water and golf courses and preserves. I mean -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Things that are never going to be developed. There's not going to be anybody back there. MR. NINO: Exactly, exactly. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would certainly favor that. It just seems kind of administrative more than a real planning problem. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I think I would favor it. MR. NINO: Okay. Thank you. Greg, you have an assignment for the next LDC cycle. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the staff? I must have missed it, but I assume that the court reporter noticed that Commissioner Young is present. She snuck in on me. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I'm parked out in the northern 40. Page 9 February 15, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No further questions of staff? Can we hear from the petitioner? MS. WALKER: I'm Debra Walker, Freedom Screening. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, you have to come up front if you want to give testimony. If not, we'll assume you don't want to. MS. WALKER: He pretty much covered it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward Petition V-2000-33 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy and seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Skipping C, D, E, now we go to F. PE-2000-05, Vineyards Development Corp. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. REISCHL.' Mr. Chairman, I don't see the petitioner here. If you want to move this to the -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. MR. REISCHL: -- end of the hearing unfortunately. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: What I would like to do then is entertain a motion that we shift this to the very last item. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Rautio to move Item F to the last item on the agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Page 10 February 15, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. With that, we'll go to Item G, I believe, which is the land development rights. And this is legislative. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Our attorney left, but I assume it's legislative. You don't need to be sworn in. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Stan Litsinger of comprehensive planning staff. Just a few opening comments. What we have here today is your public hearing to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption of the 19 -- excuse me -- 2000 comprehensive plan amendments that were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs on October 24th. We have a total of five petitions and also a scrivener's errors ordinance relative to the comp plan that we'd ask you to forward to the Board of County Commissioners. I will tell you that on January 12th we received the Department of Community Affairs objections, recommendations and comments report. And they had no objections, recommendations or comments of any significance. At this point I would let each individual staffer give you a brief overview of the petitions as previously presented to you in October. Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: These, as we see them today, are they in the same form as they were when the County Commission approved them last fall? MR. LITSINGER-' And transmitted them? And transmitted them? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: through to -- This is a formality that we go MR. LITSINGER: It is a second hearing and an opportunity to reassess any issues that may still be outstanding, if there are any, prior to final adoption. With that, I have David Weeks. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm David Weeks with the comprehensive planning staff. This is a very brief one. This is Petition CP-2000-03. This is Page 11 February 15, 2001 the amendment to the Orangetree PUD area in the comprehensive plan. It's known as the rural settlement area. This is merely a clarification of the uses that are permitted in the PUD or in this settlement area. In staff's opinion this is like drinking a glass of water. It's tasteless. It's clear. There is no effect, in our opinion. Presumably the reason the petitioner has asked for this amendment is to set the stage for an amendment at a later date to the PUD. They are putting back into the comprehensive plan what was there when the settlement area was originally created back in the late '80s. So staff's recommendation was approval. You transmitted it recommended that way. The Board did transmit it. And the Department of Community Affairs had no objections with this amendment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions on -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. The Tallahassee folks made a comment insofar as the consistency with the SRPP is concerned that it's not vested with DRI binding letter. Is that of any significance to us? MR. WEEKS: I don't even understand that. I'm sorry. But there is, in fact, a binding letter from DCA issued in 1986 for the Orangetree PUD for the settlement area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm just here on a football scholarship, so I'm just reading what it says. MR. WEEKS: Let me just say further, in trying to answer that, any changes -- as the binding letter from DCA states, any changes to this PUD will require the petitioner to show those changes to DCA for their review to determine if it is a variation from the binding letter of vested rights that they have issued and to see if it's an acceptable change. As an example, if they want to increase the number of dwelling units or the amount of commercial within the PUD, they would have to provide that information to DCA for their review and acceptance of that change. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could it be what they're saying is that the binding letter that you're talking about is the one that was the outgrowth of the litigation and that it hasn't been subjected to the DRI process? Is that possible? MR. WEEKS: I don't believe so. Because they actually had a Page 12 February 15, 2001 threefold binding letter. One pertained to vested rights, one pertained to a change in a vested status, and I thought the third pertained to the DRI itself that it was a -- it was at the DRI threshold. But because the approval predated the DRI process, that they were allowed to remain in existence. They were not subject to the DRI requirements. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Maybe you ought to take a look at this before it gets to the BCC -- MR. WEEKS: I certainly will. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- in case one of them asks the same question. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question also. There is a nine-page document application for request to amend the Collier County growth management plan. On page -- at least in my notebook, on page five of those nine pages when it talks about the settlement area there is a very dark strike-through of underline in the end of that first paragraph. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I always get a little nervous when I see something that looks like it might have been added later after something was typed and prepared. Could you clarify -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- why that dark strike-through is there? MR. WEEKS: The original petition -- in addition to simply clarifying uses, the petitioner was asking for one new use not part of the original settlement language, not part of the original PUD. And that was for the travel trailer RV park. At the Planning Commission last fall, the petitioner withdrew that part of their application. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It was withdrawn? MR. WEEKS: Withdrawn. They're no longer asking for RV park use. What you see there then is the language striking through that reference to RV park. If you'll look at the exhibits to the ordinance, you will see we have not included the RV park use. That's why. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly and put that on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? Page 13 February 15, 2001 Anybody else wish to address this issue? No? Thank you. The next one is -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me. Is there any action that has to be taken on these one by one? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think we can take them all at the end, right, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. We take them all at the end. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We'll move on to CP-2000-04. MR. BLAIR: Good morning. Aaron Blair, for the record. The petitioner seeks to amend the future land use element and the Collier County growth management plan to allow the creation of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial sub-district. You did transmit this and so did the Board and there was no objections from the Department of Community Affairs. However, staff did object to this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a question just to help educate me a little bit. This whole particular petition has been denied then or -- well, it has been put in a position where we recommend it not be transmitted, which means it is not part of the deal. MR. BLAIR: No, you did recommend to transmit. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. Now, I go back to the staff report though at the beginning on page -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me. Would you restate that, please? I think I missed something. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Staff recommendation on this particular ordinance, CP -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is not to transmit. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is not to transmit, which tells me then it is not part of what's going to occur. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it was transmitted though. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It says -- MR. BLAIR: It says it was transmitted, but staff -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We overruled staff and the Board of County Commissioners overruled staff. And they're back here to just tell us that that's what their recommendation was. MR. NINO: Just reminding you. Reminding you that we Page 14 February 15, 2001 didn't like it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And the rest of us did. MR. NINO: And we still don't like it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So how am I to read this report then? I guess coming in after the fact I am confused. I was confused even before the fact. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The people that vote all liked it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The ones that really count. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. Us and them. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And the County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, on some occasions they count. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Voted to -- so your previous action did not support staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. MR. NINO: That's right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that's why there's a conflict in what it says and what's in the staff report. I'll tell you, it's going to take a road map. I wouldn't want to revisit that too much, but why did you do that? I guess I shouldn't ask that question. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' We don't always agree with staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would -- the only recommendation is that I'd just go back and read the minutes and you will see our reasons. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I don't want to go back into all that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I just wanted to say that I think part of it really relates to the contention on behalf of the staff that there is no real current shortage of existing commercial retail property in the standard industry two mile radius of this area. And, I believe, we took pretty great exception to that and recognized that something specific has to happen in this area. And I do believe that was part of the review by the Board of County Commissioners that we all agreed as individuals who attempt to operate and do things in this County that we don't agree with staff that commercial is not in short supply out there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to the casual observer, it seems like we're, you know, shoving on that urban boundary a Page 15 February 15, 2001 little by putting it on the east side of 951. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It's been there for a long time. It goes a mile east of 951. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With all due respect, when you say shoving on the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, pushing. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- or pushing on the urban boundary, we want our development within the urban boundary and we have to utilize what is within that urban boundary so that we stop the pressures on the fringes. So we want to stay within the urban boundary and do what we need to do according to our criteria. So it's not a question of pushing on it, in my opinion, it is utilizing the land the way it was designed within that boundary line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As long as we hold the line on the fringe, I will certainly go along with that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Not wishing to cut short this philosophical discussion, but is there any further questions of staff? If not, is there anyone else that wishes to address this issue? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The petitioner. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, my name is Wayne Arnold representing the applicant today. We're here to answer any other questions you may have. We hope that you concur with your original recommendation to transmit and do without this amendment. I think the issues have been debated. And as you can see, we don't seem to have any opposition from any parties. We hope that you concur and adopt this. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wayne, in your letter of May the 19th of last year you said that there is 6,000 homes there today and by next year there is going to be 8,000. That's a 33 percent increase. Is that valid? MR. ARNOLD: It certainly is. We received those numbers from Collier County long-range planning. That estimates the number of housing units in that Golden Gate Estates area. And Page 16 February 15, 2001 we aligned that with our projected trade area, which was about a two-mile radius, plus some additional area into Golden Gate Estates because there really aren't too many opportunities north, south, east, west. So you capture kind of an odd-shaped market area. But I think, as Mr. Coletta indicated on Tuesday, the Golden Gate Estates has the highest number of housing starts of any part of our community and it is tremendous the amount of growth that's occurring there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY-' So putting aside the staff's estimate, if you're driving around out there it looks like that's going to happen; is that right? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. It certainly does. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: DiVosta is building one a day or completing one a day just in that one project, so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' With the five-foot setbacks. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions? Anyone else wish to address CP-2000-047 Seeing none, thank you. We'll move on to CP-2000-05. Amy. MS. TAYLOR: Hi. Good morning. For the record, my name is Amy Taylor with comprehensive planning staff. Before you for your consideration is Comprehensive Plan Amendment Five, 2000-05. This was an amendment to the future land use element as requested by the petitioner to create a Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial in-fill sub-district. It is at the corner of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge. It would allow up to 125,000 square feet of both retail and office uses. There were no objections by DCA after transmittal and approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm available for questions if you would like details. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions for staff? Seeing none, anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO.' Yes. We have a Frank Craparo who wishes to speak today. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Frank. MR. CRAPARO: Hello, my name is Frank Craparo, C-r-a-p-a-r-o. And I -- probably this is overdue. Ten years ago they Page 17 February 15, 2001 probably should have had this done by themselves. And we knew it was all going to be commercial. I'm next door, so I'm probably going to make a lot of money today when you pass this. So I don't want to say that I'm against it. I would have hoped that they put -- like the County had the vision to put 80-foot buildings, five stories on the property, instead of only 50-foot. That's kind of -- they probably will come back and do that. But I do have a few concerns. I had made concerns about Pine Ridge Center West was getting a median cut. And in the final stipulations October 25, 2000, Book 2736, page 4306, this project seems to be getting a median cut, too. So this is going to make three median cuts if I defend mine and keep mine on Pine Ridge Road. But I don't think that's before the Board. The latest plan shows them using mine anyway. So I don't know if this is a problem anyhow. But there was one other problem. There was a deed of conservation, Ordinance 2266, page 0691, that was dedicated 4.69 acres of mostly the rear of the golf driving range or conservation easement. But I was kind of assured being in the urban boundary that that probably is going to be erased. The fine planners, I think, have talked to everyone they need to and the conservation organizations aren't opposed to doing anything about getting rid of it, so I think that will be gone. But I don't really have any concerns. I think they'll probably do a fine job. And, more or less, I support it. As long as they don't walk on me, I'm happy. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else on CP-2000-057 If not, thank you. Let's move on to CP-2000-07. Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff. The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard opposite Golden Gate City. This is the petition that was submitted in the 1999 cycle for a very similar amendment and ultimately was not adopted by the Board. Staff did not support it at that time, but the Planning Commission did support the transmittal and adoption of it. The Page 18 February 15, 2001 Board of County Commissioners transmitted it, but when it came time for adoption it failed. A motion for approval failed 3 to 2. This particular amendment filed in 2000 is similar to the one filed in '99, except they have provided some additional buffering requirements upon themselves and they've also added some uses -- some retail uses and some additional -- I believe some additional office uses. This morning the petitioner handed to me some additional changes. I'm still looking over those, so I am going to defer to them to explain how this version is different than what you saw last fall. But there are some additional changes here. And it looks like lessening of restrictions, allowing additional use for them to be spread -- I am going to let them go through that. The staff recommendation was not to transmit, but the Planning Commission did vote to transmit it 7 to 1. The Board of County Commissioners transmitted this item by a vote of 3 to 1. The Department of Community Affairs had no objections pertaining to this petition. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Excuse me, Mr. Weeks. What was the BCC's vote; for it or against it? MR. WEEKS: Their vote was to transmit it -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: To transmit it. MR. WEEKS: -- by a vote of 3 to 1. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: David, you say that they added some uses this time around. Is that a good thing? Does it delete any? MR. WEEKS: I'm going to let them explain that. I hope I haven't misstated by adding use. Added uses from the 1999 petition -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, yeah. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. It increased the intensity of the site in staff's position. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: again this time around? Increasing the intensity? And you all are against it MR. WEEKS: That's correct. They've made several changes and there's certainly some pluses and minuses. Again, they added some buffering. They limited themselves to one bank or Page 19 February 15, 2001 pharmacy; whereas, previously there was no such limitation. So they could have had one of each potentially. So they did some things to increase intensity. They took some actions to offset that. And then specifically -- since you saw this last fall, there's been some additional changes and the petitioner -- I'm going to let him explain those to you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But on balance, it's your position that it is a less acceptable proposition than it was last fall? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we can hear from -- anyone else on that? Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: Good morning, Planning Commissioners. For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioner. The sheet that you just got is about six or seven pages. The first page is a quick summary of how this petition is different from a full year ago. And essentially the front page basically reflects how this was forwarded to the State for a review. We did meet with the -- and the reason we're bringing some changes in at the last second is we met with the Golden Gate City Civic Association Monday evening. And the reason we -- part of the reason we met with them was Perkins has a strong interest in putting a restaurant on the site. And we also -- in our sit-down restaurant, it doesn't quite match all of the stuff we have there. One of the things we've got in there for restrictions on sit-down restaurants, number one, it would have to be attached inside the building sort of like a Chrissy's restaurant, if you're familiar with that. Okay. We've taken that out so that a restaurant could be freestanding. There's no accessory sales of alcohol. We kept that in there. So if you wanted to put a Chili's in here, for instance, they would probably not go in because the alcohol sales is a big portion of their business. So it basically would be a family-type sit-down restaurant would be allowed. We -- the Civic Association -- they have a concern over traffic. However, as far as the land uses, they support the land uses there. The changes for the Perkins they do not have a problem with that. Page 20 February 15, 2001 Changes -- if you look on that, we've got double strike-throughs showing what we're deleting and then in italics is what we're adding. So on the bottom of the third page, Item F-3, the freestanding drugstore or bank would no longer be limited to the eastern 40 percent of the site because we're not sure. Perkins has indicated that they may want to be on the corner, instead of on the west side. So that could throw the bank or the drugstore onto the west side. Going to the next page, a couple of items. We deleted the freestanding restaurant where it could not happen. Now a freestanding restaurant would be allowed as long as it's a sit-down restaurant with no drive-thru or alcohol sales. The restaurant -- if you go back to the second page from the end, yesterday afternoon late we got a drawing from Greg Timmons of a Perkins layout. And that's what necessitated some of these changes at the last minute. And one of those is the size of the restaurant is a little bit over 9,000 square feet. So the 2,500 square foot obviously would not work. So that's been changed. The other -- I think the only other key change we're making, if you look at the drawing on the very last page, we've got a -- on the west side we've got a 50-foot buffer, plus a 25-foot water management area. Previously that was a 50-foot water management area, plus a 50-foot buffer. So as far as -- I think the 50-foot buffer if you look -- if you went down there and saw the trees in there, the existing trees in the buffers are going to be all retained, except for what would be required to put up a fence or a wall, whatever it ends up being. Plus, we would plant additional trees in there. So I think we've got more than -- probably more buffer and native habitat area of probably any commercial project that has probably co'me in in the last few years. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Anyone else that wishes to address this? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I want to go back to David Weeks, if I could. Golden Gate Parkway along there is four lanes now? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When is it due to be six; pretty soon, isn't it? It's in connection with the new interchange Page 21 February 15, 2001 there? MR. WEEKS: Unless there has been a change over the last handful of months, it wasn't on the five-year CIE. The six laning was to occur -- is to occur from the interchange to the west. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Not to Santa Barbara? MR. WEEKS: My recollection is no. No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well -- MR. WEEKS: It eventually will there is no question, but I just don't believe that it's in the five-year CIE. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And how many feet is it from the western edge of this property to that interchange would you say; in the hundreds or thousands? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thousands. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thousands? MR. WEEKS: Thousands. Probably in the neighborhood of a mile. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, it's that far, okay. MR. WEEKS: I think so. At least -- I don't have a map, but I'd say between a half a mile and a mile. MR. HOOVER: If I remember right, it's slightly under a mile. So I'm going to say 4,000, 4,500 square feet. Say three-fourths of a mile, in that range. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the congestion that's going to be caused by that interchange and the convoluted way that DOT wants to do it is really being ameliorated short of -- or it won't take up until way west of your property. MR. HOOVER: Yeah. And I would expect -- I think that interchange is, what, seven years out or something. I'm going to expect that the County or maybe even FDOT, but -- may help fund that. I think you're going to see that the road would get six laned up to Santa Barbara when the interchange goes in. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It would make a lot of sense because they've got an access road and there is a road to go across in front of the David Lawrence Center for access to the lots that will be frozen out. So people would have to -- coming from the City have to come out and make a left turn to go in there. So it's going to be something of a mess, but -- MR. HOOVER: But one thing the Civic Association mentioned is they did not want commercial at that interchange. They do want to attract people into Golden Gate City, so that Page 22 February 15, 2001 was one of the pluses that a Perkins does attract a few -- a lot of local people, too, but they do attract a few people. So if they have -- it would bring some business and put some jobs in the community, plus their facilities are rather nice looking, too. So if this was at the interchange, we wouldn't be here today because there would be a whole room full of people that we wouldn't want to take on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Marjorie, in terms of process, I know there's -- based on what I've read here, there's a time constraint as to how this has to go through, like 60 days and ten days and all that kind of stuff. MS. STUDENT: Yes. There are time constraints from when COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And so keeping that in mind, I'm wondering process-wise how we deal with something we are handed just today and the staff has not had a chance to review or make a recommendation on it. MS. STUDENT: Well, this frequently happens with comp plan amendments. Believe me, when we did our original plan there were things being passed out at meetings. And, in fact, some of the provisions of the plan were crafted at the meeting. So it's pretty typical in the process that that happens. I don't know if staff, you know, has the -- I would think they probably do since this is typical to comment on these changes. The only risk that's run -- and I have to advise you of this. And I don't know that it's enough of a change to cause DCA some problem. But when we do make changes to a comp plan amendment that DCA has not seen at the transmittal stage, then we -- you know, there is a slight risk that there could be litigation. There's probably -- there may be somewhat greater risk that they would have a problem, but that problem could probably be worked out easily enough without going to litigation. And so that's why I think that would be rather slight. It may even be slight that they'd have any issue with it, but that is one of the things that happens. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I just want to signal that I'm reluctant to go against staff on this particular issue Page 23 February 15, 2001 because they are the ones that have invested the time and energy in analyzing this. MS. STUDENT: Oh, I understand. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And so I would depend quite a bit on your recommendation, whether you're going to keep with your current recommendation to deny this, which would influence my vote, or whether you're now satisfied with the changes that have come in. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I might comment. I have spent the last few minutes looking over this. And it looks like without exception the changes are increasing the intensity. Item F-3 by the deletion of certain language there now allows for a bank or drugstore to be located anywhere on the site, not limited to the eastern 40 percent. On Item 4 the change previously was restricting one-third of the gross building area on the western 60 percent of the site to medical or professional offices. Now, if I'm reading it correctly, that one-third square footage limitation is only to a multi-tenant building that includes retail, which has the net effect of lessening the amount of office, if I'm reading that correctly. Number 5 is increasing the square footage maximum from 2,500 square feet for a sit-down restaurant to 9,500 square feet. And then Item Number 6, no change. They're clarifying. I guess it is clarifying that the sit-down restaurant would have a 75-foot buffer requirement -- setback requirement, excuse me. And Item Number 7 is lessening the northern property buffer from 100 feet to 75 feet. So it doesn't alter staff's recommendation. We did not support this originally and because this is making the petition even more intense, it certainly would not sway our recommendation. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman. David, a couple of things. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Them increasing from 2,500 to 9,500 square feet, yes, that's increasing intensity, but ultimately doesn't that limit what's going to go on the balance of the property because of physical space and parking spaces -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- required? So, you know, it is not exactly fair to say that they are jumping from 25 to 95 and Page 24 February 15, 2001 it's going to, you know, make things much bigger and better. Because by doing that you're giving up and eliminating what you can use the rest of the property for. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Number two, is there any commercial use that you know of that long-range planning would approve on that site? MR. WEEKS: Let me take them in order. The first comment is that I absolutely agree. I mean, certainly if the restaurant gets bigger, then there's less square footage of building space available elsewhere. I believe the reduction, however, is going to probably be in office space. A less -- generally speaking, a less intense land use from the standpoint of hours of operation, from the standpoint of traffic generation possibly. Those are the two main items that come to mind. So I do believe that it's an increase in the intensity of the land use. As far as the second goes, staff does not support commercial at this site if-- as we've stated before, we tend to look at it in a stair-step approach. If the analysis is this is not appropriate, this location, for residential development, then we would first look at non-residential development, institutional uses, your conditional uses; churches, child care, et cetera. If we go beyond that level, the next step up is office use. So, I guess, I'll answer it this way. If staff were to be supportive or the least objectionable commercial, it would be office use because that is the least intense. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Anyone else that wish to address this issue? MR. JASSEY: Members of the Board, I'm John Jassey. I am the petitioner. I just wanted to -- for the sake of some of you who perhaps weren't here for the last go-round of this, a lot of these changes -- the reason we were really turned down the last time was because we had opposition from the Golden Gate City Civic Association. And over this period of time we've spent a lot of time working with them to make sure they were satisfied and that the Estates Civic Associations were satisfied and so on and so forth. Page 25 February 15, 2001 And a lot of these changes were brought about from meetings with them to keep them, you know, happy with what was going on the site and try to make the site the most practical use for the site that was possible. I think Bill has done a nice job on the front page here of highlighting those. I would like to take a moment to discuss them because they are, I think, significant changes. In all due respect to David, I think this site is less intense. Before we were looking at two-story buildings. And at the request of the association and so on and so forth, it has been brought down to a one-story. Previously we were going to have it be a more commercial intensive site. In here we have stated that we're going to now have outdoor attractive pedestrian areas, more vegetative shading, some water features, so on and so forth, making it really an attractive entrance to Golden Gate. And, you know, more of an attractive landmark helping set a precedent for future improvements of Golden Gate according to what the associations want. Previously we were going to do a bank and a drugstore. And apparently -- and we really got approached by the civic association as to why don't we have something like a Perkins restaurant on there and a bank, instead of that and a drugstore. And so even though we are leaving the drugstore use in it, from a practical standpoint it is probably going to be a bank and the Perkins, which is what the residents would really prefer to have out there. The retail uses out there I think are, you know, more Iow intensity uses and we'll have office out there. And overall we've reduced the square footage from 36 to 35,000 based on, again, you know, making a lower intensive use, a more attractive project and spending a lot of time with the associations giving them what they have asked for and, you know, what seems to be -- would be most beneficial for the area. So I just thank you for your time, but I just wanted to take a moment to show how we've spent time working with, you know, the associations on that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Mr. Jassey, are you saying that the Golden Gate Civic Association and the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association are no longer against this project? Page 26 February 15, 2001 MR. JASSEY: No, no. I think they're in favor of it. No. What -- maybe I didn't answer you. No. Previously at the -- when we went around last time, there was some opposition to it and we said, "Okay. What would make you happy?" And they said, '~Nhy don't you put a Perkins in, instead of this," and so on and so forth. So we have done this to make them happy. And we've met with them and they seem satisfied. They seem happy with this. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is anybody here from that group; do you have anything in writing? MR. JASSEY: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We have a fax from the family that is right north of this, the Sharoo (phonetic) family. MR. JASSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And they're still indicating here in writing that both of those associations still do not support this, but it's sort of indirect. I just wanted to make sure it was clear. MR. JASSEY: I know that the family north of us is against it. We have gone on record and you have documentation that they've offered to -- they've been trying to buy this site as a commercial corner for $100,000 for a long time. And they've basically tried to stop any development on it in order to purchase it for $100,000, which is obviously not a reasonable thing to do. And we've given, you know, documentation to that fact. So -- but Bill -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But my question still is: You feel comfortable in stating that both of these civic associations are more in support of you than they were previously at our last public hearing? MR. JASSEY: Yes. MR. CUYLER: Ken Cuyler, for the record. Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson. Specifically, our firm went out with Mr. Hoover, I believe, and talked to the civic association about the Perkins. And the position with them was, "Is this something that you want? Because if it is not, we're not going to go through the trouble of trying to change any documentation." Because we don't like doing things at the last minute any more than you like seeing them at the last minute. But we had specifically had a meeting within the last couple Page 27 February 15, 2001 of days and they said, "Yes, we will not object to that. We will support that." Excuse me. I don't want to say they will support it because I think that, you know, they never actually said, "We're going to come and we'll stand behind it." But they did say, "We will not object to that. So if you go ahead and submit that, we're okay with that." So we -- we have been very careful to make sure that we tailor what we do on the site. And just very quickly, a couple other items. I agree with Marjorie. You'll notice that most of this is site specific. This isn't the type of thing the Department of Community Affairs is going to generally take any kind of close look at. If they didn't object before, we don't see them objecting to any of these changes we're talking about. Again, this is a comp plan amendment. So you're talking about not the zoning level, but the broader level. And we understand staff philosophically has not been happy with commercial at that corner, but I think that decision has already been considered by you the first time, as well as the Board in the transmittal process. And these changes were just really for that sit-down restaurant. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ken, before you go away or, Mr. Jassey, I heard the word Perkins this morning about 15 times. But as the Estates knows, they have been told a lot of things. You're telling me that there is a potential. It could be a Denny's or a Wag's or something else, as long as it meets the same criteria. MR. CUYLER: It would have -- true. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I don't want people calling me and saying, "You said there was going to be a Perkins up there." MR. CUYLER: Correct. It would have to be something that falls within this criteria. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just so that's said. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Commissioner Rautio, we know from past experience that if either one of those groups are against something they're here in large numbers. MR. JASSEY: And just specifically, we are in negotiations with the Perkins people right now for the site. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Page 28 February 15, 2001 MR. JASSEY: No, no. That's true. I just want you to have all the facts. Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I understand that. MR. JASSEY: But, yes, they have approached us. And, yes, they are interested. And, yes, the association likes it. It doesn't mean it's going to happen, but we are all doing our best to try to get there. But it could be another restaurant. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The "P" word with the Publix and Perkins makes me a little nervous. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just a quick note for the record, if I may, regarding the discussion of support or lack thereof. For the 1999 comprehensive plan amendment staff did receive a letter of objection from the Golden Gate City Civic Association is my recollection, not the Estates. One or the other associations did submit something in writing in objection and showed up at the Board hearing, as Mr. Jassey, I think, alluded to, speaking against. And this year we have not received a letter one way or the other from either of the civic associations. MR. HOOVER: I can probably-- Bill Hoover. I can probably add a little bit more to that. The Golden Gate -- this is actually in the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association on the west side there. And then on the east side of Santa Barbara is the City Civic Association. The Estates Civic Association said, "It's way out on the corner for us, let's defer it to the City Civic Association." And when we met with the City Civic Association Monday to discuss these changes, they -- we basically told them we would come back to them if this is approved by the County Commissioners during the rezoning process and things could be looked at in more detail. So they -- they gave us a -- the Perkins they do not have a problem with. And they do understand that it could allow a Denny's or another similar type restaurant to go in there instead. So they are basically saying, "Hey, we can put the kibosh on this if we want to during the PUD rezoning stage, but we're going to basically give you a moderate approval at this point to go forward because we know that if we don't like it when the PUD rezoning comes in we're going to make some noise and you're not going anyplace." Page 29 February 15, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comments on CP-2000-077 If not, let's move on to CP-2000-11. MS. MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, Michele Mosca with the comprehensive planning staff. This item before you, CP-2000-11, is a BCC directed amendment to the future land use element to modify the definition of direct principal access for the TTRVP district. This modification would allow access onto arterial roadways from local roadways or driveways provided certain criteria are met. The Department of Community Affairs had no objections. And the staff recommendation is to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You haven't heard anything more from that trailer park out there off of 951 that was sort of objecting to this the first time around? MS. MOSCA: Not to my recollection. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else wish to address this issue? If not -- no further questions? Do we have one more item? MS. MOSCA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Scrivener's errors. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Again, another error. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Sorry. MS. MOSCA: That's fine. The final item related to the comprehensive plan is a scrivener's ordinance. And it is to correct omissions on the future land use map. These omissions include the traffic congestion boundary, the shading for southern Golden Gate Estates and certain properties within the Belle Meade NRPA area. Staff recommendation is to forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? Mar]orie. MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to make a note for the record that under our special act to adopt comp plan amendments we Page 30 February 15, 2001 have to have a majority not of the full Planning Commission approval and not just a majority of those present and voting. And that language comes out of the special act that we've had for these many years. I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You're telling me I should ask for a vote on each individual item probably here from the way it sounds. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. MS. STUDENT: No. Just that you need five votes. If there is a problem -- if there's going to be a problem with one, you might need to break one of them if there is a -- more out if there's a problem. I don't see that you'll need to. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any last questions on any of these items? Is there any particular item any commissioner would like to recommend separately? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I just have a question about the conflict in staff recommendation to the one we heard just before and just to get -- try to get a sense of the commission as to -- I am happy that they've made the contacts with the civic associations and the apparent support that they're getting from them. I am a little concerned about the dependency on a specific use that seems to be attracting them to support it, like a Perkins restaurant. Because, as we know, that may or may not happen. Once the space is there, I'm not sure how we -- once this amendment is in, I'm not sure how we can influence it. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: When they come back for the zoning -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is the time to -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: When they come back for the zoning change you would have an opportunity to influence it. And that's what the civic association was saying. This just allows the opportunity to ask for a zoning change. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Are we likely to get to a -- this is rhetorical, perhaps. Are we likely to get the same staff report at that point? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Not likely because I think now you're dealing with long-range planning staff and you'd then be dealing with current planning staff. And there, you know, may, in fact, be a different opinion on how things are looked at at that point. Page 31 February 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, my dilemma is obvious. I'd like to support what the citizens want out there and yet I'm reluctant to go against our experts who have more experience in this area than I do. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Well, my experience -- and I agree with Commissioner Priddy. If the Golden Gate -- either civic association has a problem, trust me, they would be here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And they have in the past. I certainly don't want to get into a long discussion, but staff -- long-range planning staff has intended that there is already enough commercial available. I think the issue has always been location. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, and size. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I think that drives part of their reason for the denial, along with some other issues. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Richardson, if it makes you feel better, we can pull that out and vote against it separately and, you know, maybe have a 5 to I vote and the rest of them -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't necessarily want to be an obstructionist. I just was seeing how the process might work. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Back to my question. Is there any one of these items that we need to pull out? If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: out. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All right. 04, 05, 11, and the errors ordinance. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we send the adoption cycle 2000 growth management plan amendments to the Board of Collier County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carried. Yes. Let's pull number 07 I will accept a motion on 03, Page 32 February 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we send our adopted cycle 2000 growth management amendment CP-2000-07 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Young. All in favor -- excuse me. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was going to also oppose. Now I don't want to create a problem. That gets into not having five. MS. STUDENT: Well, it just -- you need the five. So that just -- it's still going to go to the Board. It's just going to go with the recommendation of 4 to 2 with that explanation in there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm going to call for the vote one more time. All those in favor of the motion on CP-2000-07 -- all in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Aye. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Aye. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Make that 4 to 2. MS. STUDENT: And, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to take a separate vote on the scrivener's errors ordinance, too, because that was a part of another amendment that is being fixed now. And we will send it to DCA for their information, but -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The error-- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward the scrivener's errors ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Page 33 February 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: That motion was made by Commissioner Priddy and seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Carried. With that we go to Item H, recommendation to accept a settlement proposal. MS. STUDENT: Yes. For the record, Mar]orie Student, Assistant County Attorney. You have your staff report with the agreement attached and I also passed out the exhibits to that agreement. And just by way of a little background, also Mr. Pires is here and he represented the homeowner's associations that opposed the project. Mr. Cuyler is here from Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson where Mr. Yovanovich is also an attorney. Mr. Yovanovich represented Bic's who operate the King Richard's Amusement Park there. And, basically, just by way of background, there was an insubstantial change to the PUD amendment for King Richard's. And the Planning Commission voted to approve that and then it was appealed to the Board and they called it. And then this litigation ensued from that where there were certiorari petitions filed in -- I believe it was July and September of 1998. And it went through certain procedural hoops in the court and then the court directed mediation. We mediated and this settlement is the result of it. Legal staff has no problem with the substance of the agreement wherein -- and it's outlined for you also in the staff report and also in the settlement agreement. I don't believe planning staff has any problem with that. I have talked with Mr. Pires about two items, and also Mr. Cuyler, in the settlement agreement that the County has a bit of an issue with. And if you'll bear with me a moment, one is paragraph 10 about the execution and delivery of a general release. The County just wants it on the record that that in no way would abrogate any of our home rule powers under the Florida Constitution or 125. Other than that, we have no Page 34 February 15, 2001 problem. And paragraph 15 is going to be amended. That issue deals with if there's any suit to enforce the settlement the prevailing party gets their attorney's fees and costs and expenses. The County does not, if such litigation should ensue, agree to pay, and the County didn't win, anybody else's attorney's fees, costs as set forth. Mr. Pires and Mr. Cuyler understand the position and have agreed to clarify that provision. So other than that, I don't know if anybody from planning -- Mr. Nino, I don't know if you have any-- I guess he doesn't. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron. MS. STUDENT: I was going to ask if anybody from planning had any comment. And absent that, if Mr. Pires or Mr. Cuyler want to put anything on the record, they're free to do so at this time. MR. NINO: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Ms. Student, there is no monetary considerations, except for attorney's fees and stuff, right? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. They'll just come back to us and have to sort that out with staff and come back for an amendment or possible amendment to the PUD. I have to sort that out with staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Pires, do you have any comment? MR. PIRES: I'll be real brief. Tony Pires representing the various petitioners in this instance. The mediation was -- it was an experience that worked out real well for all of the parties involved. And the neighbors are working and living well together at the present time -- I'm glad to report that -- under the spirit and the intent of the settlement agreement. So that's always good, I think, for the Board to hear that and staff to hear that. With regards to what Mar]orie mentioned and to what Ms. Student mentioned about paragraph 10, I agree. From my understanding of Florida law is that the County cannot abrogate its lease powers. And we -- that will be clarified in the form of the releases themselves. And as to paragraph 15, as I understand, the suggested language would be that each party would bear their own costs in any such proceedings. And that is acceptable. I'll go back to my client. If we need to initial it, that will be achieved. Page 35 February 15, 200t If you will note also, there are three signature lines that aren't signed. Two of those have sold their property. I believe a third has. We'll clarify that by the time that it gets to the Board. So those parties in the meantime have sold their property and no longer have any ownership interest in that community. So it's just a matter of when it happens as time goes by. But we're glad to be able to bring this to the Planning Commission. We're glad to have this resolution. And I think it is one of those where all of the parties worked well and hard towards a resolution outside the juris -- you know, the litigation aspect. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on this issue? MR. CUYLER: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Ken Cuyler, for the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The first team is back today. MR. CUYLER: Now, I wasn't going to say that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I do. MR. CUYLER: I took a little heat when I got back to the office on that. Just for the record, Ken Cuyler, Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson. And we are in agreement with the settlement agreement and the changes as outlined by Ms. Student. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this? No further questions, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we accept the settlement agreement with the two proposed changes in 10 and 15 as outlined by the attorneys. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's carried. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We put the Vineyards off until March 3rd; was that the case? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I thought it was. What year? Page 36 February 15, 2001 Okay. Next, the last item, which was previously moved, Petition PE-2000-05. All those wishing to give testimony, please rise, raise your right hand and repeat as the court reporter -- be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a parking exemption. And you've seen a couple of these. Parking exemptions can be for various types of exemptions. This one is for shared parking. And on the visualizer you can see the location. This is Pine Ridge Road, 1-75. This is basically the Crossroads Market. And it's an out parcel in the Crossroads Market commonly called Vineyards Publix, if that helps you with the location. The petitioner is proposing an office building that would share parking with an existing parking area behind the shopping center. And I have in green here part of the existing shopping center. The location -- this blue line is the out parcel that we're talking about. And pink would be the area of the proposed office building. This would be one of the areas of shared parking. And this is the existing parking on the shopping center site, the site that would also be shared. As you read in the staff report, there are alternatives to this. A smaller office building could be constructed or a parking garage could be constructed to have all of the parking on site. If you're familiar with this shopping center, you know that at the end here is a restaurant. And there are a couple of smaller restaurants in that vicinity. The petitioner's idea was that the restaurant -- since the restaurants are concentrated in this shopping center and the office building would probably have hours of 8:00 to 5:00, restaurants normally are more busy during the evening hours and, therefore, the sharing arrangement would be beneficial to both parties. And, in fact, the leasing agent for the -- and the owner of the shopping center, Lutgert Companies, has agreed with the shared parking arrangement. And Mr. Masters will have more on that. I did get a phone call yesterday or a return phone call yesterday from one of the other non-restaurant tenants in the area, a dentist's office. And I believe she's here. But just to Page 37 February 15, 2001 briefly give you her idea is that a dental office is going to have the same hours as the professional offices in the proposed building. She felt that that would create a conflict for her employees parking in the rear. I will let her expand on that on her own time. And as you read in the resolution, one of the -- the stipulation that I put in there was that if this is approved that there be no parking garages allowed. Therefore, some future owner would come in and, say, want to convert the professional office to medical office by increasing it and putting up a parking garage. This is meant to have a more open feel than having the site intensified with a parking garage. And so I put that provision in there. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. Fred, what is the size of the office building that would be permitted without this shared parking? MR. REISCHL: Well, as I said, they could still put 32,000 square feet in there and have parking either in a parking garage or configured in there somehow. So, yes, you could have a 32,000 square foot building. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In other words, they can provide for their own -- MR. REISCHL: Parking. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- parking on site? MR. REISCHL: Correct. They just didn't want the feel or the mass of a parking garage on there and approached Lutgert and they entered into an agreement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I am just concerned about the -- your -- your analysis of whether there are more viable alternatives available and your comment that reducing the square footage of the proposed building, which you had earlier mentioned was a possible solution, now I'm not hearing you say that. MR. REISCHL.' Oh, that's definitely -- one of the solutions would be to have a smaller building on there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But then not build a parking garage? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. But your analysis Page 38 February 15, 2001 says that by reducing the square footage of the office building would be a financial hardship to the property owner. You're saying that the developer cannot maximize his profit, unless we go along with this. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that an objective of the planning staff? MR. REISCHL: No. And that's not how I -- maybe I worded this poorly. But, yes, the petitioner could reduce the square footage of the building. With a smaller building, you'd need less parking. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. So he could take care of his own problem himself without, in my view, over intensifying this use. MR. REISCHL.' Correct. But then another alternative would be that he could construct the parking garage. And that way he could put the 32,000 square foot building on there, have all the parking on site. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But that's all his choice -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- and not one driven by financial considerations that we should take into account? MR. REISCHL.' Correct. I was just trying to point out an alternative. I wasn't stating that that's one of the staff's objectives is to lessen the financial hardship. It's -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Philosophically, I'm kind of opposed to increasing the intensification by utilizing somebody else's property. It seems that this property should be standing on its own. MR. REISCHL: That is an alternative. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. You used the magic word, philosophically. What are the philosophical -- what is the philosophical thrust of this? What are the principles underlying this? And I suggest to you that you ought to think about where the -- where there are obviously large massive parking lots proposed next to one another. It is preferential to have that sharing as opposed to creating greater amounts of asphalt surfaces or physical structures that tend to denigrate the quality of the area. To suggest that every building has to stand on its own Page 39 February 15, 2001 means that you're irrevocably committed to the standards that are in the ordinance. And those standards do not apply equally from the -- throughout the 24-hour time cycle. You know, standards, like all standards, are meant for general application. And the shared parking notion is driven by the opportunity to maximize existing parking lots as opposed to having larger parking lots that are only utilized to their maximum extent for a very, very short window. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ron, we're not here today to debate the 32,000 square feet because he can go build that today without being here. MR. NINO: That's right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So we're not here for the 32,000 square foot building. He's going to go build that anyway. We're here saving the neighbors from having to look at a parking garage. MR. NINO.' Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO'. By doing this, you're allowing for 34 additional spaces in a shared capacity versus, as you said, a parking garage. Plus, I do believe that there is a number of people that live in -- that have been here before with reference to all of those wonderful named streets, Tamarind Ridge, that whole area, that if they realized a parking garage was going up I would bet that we would have quite a few people here. So I would prefer to see the shared aspect, rather than another structure that is going to go up and we know will probably be complained about because it is much higher than what many of those people want to see when they are driving up and down Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: One of the linchpins seems to be that these restaurants are principally nighttime restaurants. Is that, in fact, so? MR. REISCHL.' The larger one is. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The larger one. MR. REISCHL: The others are more -- they could be -- they're sit-down restaurants, but, you know, there is an ice cream store, something. That could be busier all day, but it is the Jammer's restaurant on the corner that is the big traffic generator. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And that's the evening restaurant. Page 40 February 15, 2001 MR. REISCHL: For the most -- it's open during the day, too, but most of the traffic is -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you've been to Chrissy's up there at Airport and Radio Road and seen what that restaurant does to the parking in that area. And I don't believe it is open in the evening at all. But a restaurant can do a big lunch business. So if you're counting on those spaces not being used, there may be a lot of disconcerted people looking around for a parking space. But if the two owners want to do it this way, then it seems to me they're the best judges of their situation. MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, is there any practical way that you can prohibit shared parking? MR. NINO: By not approving. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You'd have to put a fence around the property, right? MR. REISCHL: Oh, unauthorized shared parking. Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. I mean, if the parking lot is there, people are going to park, are they not? MR. REISCHL: That would be my guess, unless it says parking for "X" store only. And people don't always obey those signs either. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not really sure why I'm here. Maybe that's a different issue, I suppose. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. SAADEH: Good morning. Michael Saadeh, president of Vineyards Development. I would just like to make a couple of points. And one of them is eloquently made by Mr. Nino. The requirement on the parking is -- has nothing to do with the size of the building per se as the needed spaces. We really don't need the extra 34 spaces, but by ordinance based on the number of square footage you're going to build you have to have so many parking spaces. So for that reason it is not that we need this. And it is not a commercial building today for application of renting for other people. This is strictly today, as it's proposed, for use by Vineyards Development, Vineyards staff. We don't have any intentions at this stage of our development to ever rent Page 41 February 15, 2001 the building. The one time it might be rented is when we conclude the development at the Vineyards and move on. And I don't know how many years ago from now that should be. We have real estate architectural standards and guidelines for Vineyards. And part of the reason we chose not to embark on a large parking structure is because we felt it's not -- it's not conducive to the area. There is a mile of parking spaces in the shopping center. We have an agreement with the owners of the shopping center. I think, in their judgment, if there is any derogatory or negative or bad repercussion to this agreement, they wouldn't enter into. I mean, they have an allegiance to their tenants also and so forth. So we're trying to preserve an appeal, like Mr. Nino said. And in doing so, this is not a zoning petition. I mean, the property is zoned for anything. We could put a 50,000 square foot building on it. Our needs are for 32,000 square feet. Our needs do not require the extra 34 spaces, but the County ordinance does. And we felt that's the most eloquent way of getting it is having a shared parking agreement. In answer to your question, Commissioner Abernathy, the restaurant in question is called Jammer's. It's a sports bar. So the sports bar -- yes, they do have lunch business, but I don't think -- and I am only saying from my own judgment. I don't think that that's the bulk of their business. I think the bulk of their business is people after hours and happy hour and 5:00 and weekends and football parties and baseball parties and so forth. And those ought to be exactly the hours that we will be closed. So from that standpoint -- I mean, the adjacent restaurant, the one that's impacted the most by our project, that abuts our project is the one that's going to benefit the most because we're going to provide them with 50-some spaces that otherwise they don't have and they can use it all weekends and all evenings. Our hours of operation are typically 8:00 to 5:00. So, you know, we feel this is a straightforward thing. And really, I mean, we didn't even anticipate being here pitching this today. But if you have any other questions, I will be happy to answer them for you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have -- I still Page 42 February 15~ 2001 have some confusion. I'm hearing the applicant say that he can build this building -- Mr. Priddy said that -- and he doesn't have to come to us at all. He has sufficient parking spaces on his site. But yet I read your analysis and it says that he requires 107 and he only can put 73 on his site. MR. REISCHL: I believe what Mr. Saadeh was saying is that for the offices that he knows are going in there, the Vineyard Development corporate offices~ he would have enough parking on site for his number of people. However, the County requires that 107. And County requirements would govern -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That wins. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Your requirements are our requirements. MR. REISCHL: Correct. MR. SAADEH: That's why we're here. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I just want to commend you with coming up with this shared parking idea and I wish we could advance more of this so that we stop blacktopping over Southwest Florida. MR. SAADEH: Thank you, Ms. Young. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I have one burning question. Do you know -- can you expand on the whereabouts of Sammy and is he ever going to come back? MR. SAADEH: Well, actually, he's -- I'm supposed to pick him up Sunday. He's coming in Sunday. He went overseas. The first time in 22 years he had the chance to go back to the old country for the holidays for Christmas. And so he had a nice time. I had a few nieces that he hadn't seen yet, so he enjoyed himself and ended up spending some time. But I need him as bad as you do because I'm watching over his business and I'm too busy now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. SAADEH: So I'm anxiously picking him up on Sunday. Thanks. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: We have two speakers, Mr. Chairman. We have two speakers. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further questions of the petitioner? Page 43 February 15, 2001 If not, anyone else wish to speak on this issue? MR. NINO: Jack and Beverly Crouse. MR. CROUSE: Seven years ago my son came here to practice dentistry. And at that time this shopping center consisted of a bare slab. There was no business. There was no traffic on Pine Ridge Road. 1-75 you could turn on and off of. Things have changed. There are three things that are terribly important in running any office, any restaurant, any business. You have to have access at the back door so you can get supplies, so that the maintenance men can come in, so the employees have a place to park so they can go out to lunch and do other activities that are required. I can't imagine a restaurant that would get supplies at night and wouldn't have to have big trucks coming in during the day. Because the restaurant's business, as a for instance, they have to have plenty of parking in the front and they have to have parking in the back so that they can take supplies in during the daytime to prepare for their night business. In addition, they -- there are two other restaurants in this complex, I believe. They have mostly a daytime business. When Beverly, who is my daughter-in-law, voiced opposition to this, she went around to the various people in the complex asking their opinions are they willing to share their parking place and access to their businesses with people that are latecomers -- I won't say casting envious eyes at the business there because there's a lot of business there. But that makes it even harder to get in and out of that parking lot. As you notice now, just go down to the Home Depot and see what happened since they put a whole lot of shared parking in their parking lot. You're lucky to get in, but you're even luckier to get out. It's terrible there. And this can happen in a small shopping center. It impacts my son's business in that he has maintenance people come to service his compressor and his vacuum system that's out in back. Naturally you don't want a lot of noisy equipment inside a dental office. He is absolutely required to have parking by the rules. When Dougall McCorkle from the Lutgert Corporation leased him this office, he was explained -- it was explained fully he had Page 44 February 15, 2001 to have so many parking places available front and rear. Now we have a bunch of people wanting to change the rules. We have been through this with an election. Let's recount the recount again. This is crazy to change the rules right in the middle of the game and penalize those people that are in there trying to run an honest business. I just can't imagine that they think that's normal to change the rules. Now you people are -- have to uphold the integrity and the rules of Collier County. And that doesn't say you can take away from the little guy to give to the big guy just because he wants their parking. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. MR. CROUSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I didn't want to misunderstand you. You're not implying that the proposed office building is going to have another restaurant in it that would create problems; the restaurant -- all of the problems there with the restaurants currently exist? MR. CROUSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're only talking about a corporate office building. MR. CROUSE: Well, I went into this parking lot yesterday. There were four empty places at about 3:30 or 4:00 in the afternoon. There were two cars illegally parked on the yellow no-parking zones, which nets out to be two parking places that are available for shared parking. And this is during the daytime. How can they jam a bunch more people in there? Now, Beverly has photographs of this parking lot showing the congestion available. And I think that she better go on with the photographs and proof. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Sir, it strikes me that -- I'm not sure the County has a dog in this fight. You have got two landlords and a bunch of tenants. It seems to me that your remedy is against your landlord if you don't like the way he's handling the parking. We're here to decide as to -- if these two landowners' reciprocal agreement is within the parameter the code sets out. If it's going to deprive your son of his ability to earn a living, then he ought to take that up with the Lutgert Company. MR. CROUSE: Well, it's pretty hard to take anything up with Page 45 February 15, 2001 the big dogs. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Move then. MR. CROUSE: Well, that's a very nice thing to say, but with dentistry you have to build a clientele and that's slow. You can't hop around from one place to the other like a gas station because your clientele is based on a small area of people in a local area. And if you start moving around, you're going to terribly affect your business and the client's ability to get to you. It used to be you could drive across town here. Try it now. You can't even get on 1-75. It's very difficult. So that is not of-- that's not a viable thing to fight with the landlord or to move. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. MRS. CROUSE: Okay. I'm Beverly Crouse, the spouse of Steven C. Crouse, DDS. And I'm here because I basically just want to preserve my right to park in the space that I've always been in. I want to be able to leave the office and be able to come back and find a spot and not have to possibly park in the front of the office. Thereby, it would make a detrimental effect to the office because a patient might not be able to park there. I do have some pictures of the parking lot. And also I have counted the number of spaces in the back area, which is about 52 spaces. I'm not exactly sure, but you're -- the Vineyards Development, from what I understand, needs to use 35 of those 52. I just want to make sure that I have the ability to park there. Could I have some assurance from the Vineyards that there is always going to be a spot for the tenant? MR. NINO: Are you saying -- in your lease agreement, do you have specific stations spelled out in your lease? MRS. CROUSE.' No. I don't have a certain place to park. MR. NINO: So your clients or patients, like everybody else's in that shopping center, need to find a space somewhere in the parking lot, not necessarily directly in front of the establishment they're doing business with. I suggest to you that is not an uncommon feature of shopping centers. MRS. CROUSE: But if I can't find a spot in the back, then I have to park in the front. And that makes it a detrimental effect to my business. MR. NINO.' Do your pictures -- perhaps we ought to look at Page 46 February 15, 2001 the photographs to get a feel for the intensity of the use of the parking lot. MRS. CROUSE: Okay. This is one of the lots. I'm not very good at this. That is showing all the spaces are taken right there. MR. NINO: At what time of the day was this? MRS. CROUSE: That was taken -- the pictures that I will be showing were taken on 12 -- 2/12 and 2/13. MR. NINO: At what time? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What time? MRS. CROUSE: Around noon and in the afternoon. MR. NINO: Around noon. So that's at lunchtime? MRS. CROUSE: Approximately. MR. NINO: Okay. MRS. CROUSE: Could you help me with these pictures? I am not familiar with this. MR. NINO: Go ahead. Put it on. MRS. CROUSE: This is the same row. MR. NINO: Is this the front? MRS. CROUSE: No. This is the back. This is the employee parking lot. MR. NINO: This is in the back, okay. MRS. CROUSE'- Okay. This is also the employee parking lot. MR. NINO.' None of your pictures show the entirety of the lot. They only show snapshots of the lot. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you're saying that the 52 spaces you counted will be impacted by the sharing with the corporate office; is that what your contention is if we do this shared agreement? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, that's what the analysis says, too, that they require 34 spaces out of the -- in the shared parking. MRS. CROUSE: Well, from what I understand, this building, according to code, needs 100-some spots. In order to be in compliance, you need to use 35 of mine. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm trying to figure out -- I am not a very good visual person when it comes to where you are on the MRS. CROUSE-' Could we have the other picture of the Vineyards -- Page 47 February 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: If you can touch on this particular exhibit where this location is. MRS. CROUSE: I would assume this is the -- Jammer's down here. Our office is, I believe, 103. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: 103. Thank you. MRS. CROUSE: And in this area right here is about 52 spots. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. MRS. CROUSE: That's where the employees are supposed to park. And also I would like to make a comment that Fashion Fresh used to be at this location. They're down at the other end of the plaza now. Therefore, I don't have the lot even as fully used because of that. Plus, Island Tan will be soon opening. But at the present time that's not open. It will be opened next week, I believe. MR. NINO'. Do you want to show more pictures? MRS. CROUSE: That's the front showing the busyness of the front parking lot. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It seems to be a very popular place. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' What isn't? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Greentree Plaza. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further comments, ma'am? MRS. CROUSE: I did talk to other tenants about their concerns and I have a piece of paper that was signed by a number of them. It just says, "We, the undersigned tenants of Crossroads Market object to the proposed variance because having been in this location for several years, we know the survey is in error. It is not true that room exists. Most of the time the employee lot is full." And I put, "Pictures enclosed." "This unfair variance would propose tremendous hardships on our businesses. We strongly urge the Board do not pass this. It is unfair and needlessly hurts our business." I do have to interject that on one of my signatures they rescinded and they do not want to be part of this petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Do you wish to submit that as part of your testimony? MRS. CROUSE: I am not sure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The document. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The documents that you have. Page 48 February 15, 2001 MR. NINO: If you want it to mean anything, you need to submit it into the record, ma'am. Do you have a signed petition? MRS. CROUSE: I have a signed petition. MR. NINO.' Do want to enter that into the record? MRS. CROUSE.' The only thing -- my concern is that AmSouth was the group that rescinded. And it was shortly after I talked with Mr. Reischl and then I received a call from Mr. Masters. And then soon after that AmSouth said that they needed to take their names off the list. So I don't know. They are not tenants, so I think that was part of it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further comments or questions? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: May I just ask one question? The photographs that you showed us are of the parking lot to the left and the new project would bring in additional parking sites to the right of the picture I'm looking at; is that correct? So that there would be additional parking -- MRS. CROUSE: That's what it appears to me. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- places. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: She is talking about "B" and we're looking at "A" as part of the attached -- the corporate building. So your photographs are of -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: MRS. CROUSE: Of"B". COMMISSIONER YOUNG: additional parking lots. "B". And there would be MR. SAADEH: Yes. We're going to add approximately 70-plus parking spaces. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Right. MR. SAADEH: So the pictures you saw is just the back of that one section of the shopping center. The shopping center sits on a very large parcel. And in addressing a couple of their concerns is -- as it pertains to the history of we're coming in as latecomers. We've owned the site since 1961. We actually sold the site to the shopping center to Mr. Lutgert. We also maintained ownership of that parcel from day one. So actually we've been there since 1961, not last year or the year before. So we're not really latecomers. The other point that I'd like to make is -- when we talk about Page 49 February 15, 2001 impact in traffic, not just parking. Our facility right now is within a mile from this site. Unfortunately, we've never built a building where we are right now. We used trailers. And we had conditional use for these trailers. So now we're up to about 12, 13 trailers. We're on a residential site, so we decided to take it to this center and move our offices there. So the same amount of traffic in and out of the area would be the exact identical because we -- the same employees we have drive the same routes every day coming to work would be within a mile from that site. As far as the parking, I would like to make one point. Because I think Commissioner Richardson is still, you know, not fully understanding what I'm trying to say. I'm doing a poor job explaining it to you. There is a difference between what we're saying and what we're trying to do is -- for a certain size of buildings, you have a certain requirement for a number of spaces. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MR. SAADEH: There is certain uses that are intense uses that would require those spaces. Like if we were putting 32,000 square feet restaurant, I would submit to you that we would require every bit of those spaces and then some. And for an office building that we just have staff coming in and out, we don't really require these spaces. Everybody is assuming that we're going to take 34 spaces next door every day on a daily basis. That's not the case. So, I mean, this is the whole premise of the whole idea that -- I mean, earlier in the discussion you heard from Mr. Weeks that the least intense commercial use you would have is an office building on a long-range planning. This is exactly what this is. And this is not going to have tenants. We're not renting space for anybody else. We're just taking it for our own employees. So the premise is we're going to take all of these spaces daily. That's not the case. I mean, there might be an occasion if we had a huge something or an opening or something or a party at the office that this might happen. That might be once every two years or five years, but that's not going to be a daily occurrence. So we need to keep that in mind. And also on the bank, we pride ourselves in working with the neighbors. So we checked with Mr. Reischl daily. Mr. Page 50 February 15, 2001 Masters, my associate, checked with Mr. Reischl daily on opposition. The first time we heard that these individuals are opposing was yesterday afternoon around 4:00. And then when the statement was made that she had -- also the bank was also opposing us, we just simply made a phone call to the bank inquiring about the nature of the opposition. When they understood the concept, they absolutely withdrew their opposition immediately. And my associate attempted to talk to the lady and explain to her what we're doing and how we're doing it. Unfortunately, I mean, it was too late in the day and then she had already made up her mind. But it's not like we -- and one big point is the guy who owns the center-- I think he is not going to compromise his tenants regardless because it affects future business. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one statement. You mentioned that the assumption is that you're going to take up all of those 34 spaces, but the other assumption here that's not being stated is that you're going to have the other 70 completely full by your corporate office. And that doesn't appear to be logical to me. So you would have to take up all of your other spaces and then the shared spaces in addition. MR. SAADEH: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that doesn't quite make sense to me from what I am aware of you having your corporate office. MR. SAADEH: I don't think that is not going to be the case. And also, I mean, the other side of it actually is the people next door and the people who run an evening business, particularly the sports bar, who is the largest tenant, is going to benefit of having 70 spaces next door that they don't have today. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Michael, how many employees are you going to base in that building? MR. SAADEH: I don't have an exact count, but in my personal office there is under 30. 27 or 30. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Seeing no one else that looks like they want to give testimony, no further comments or questions, I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we forward PE-2000-05 to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board Page 51 February 15, 2001 of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have a short discussion. I think we have a conflict between something that is very desirable -- and that's the shared parking. And I commend staff for supporting this. But that has to be balanced against the intensity of use of our zoning and the parking requirements that go along with the intensity of use. Now, we've presumed that with a 32,000 square foot building that that's a given. It is a given because that's what he has come in and proposed. And once you have that as a given, then that pushes us into the shared parking agreement. It would seem to be just as logical to look at this and say if he had a less intense use -- that is, some smaller number of square foot and whatever use that matches up to in the parking requirement -- that he, in fact, could live with the lot that he has and the same amount of parking. So it seems to me that we're taking one good concept and then building on that an opportunity for this applicant to not have a financial hardship and do something more to this site than the site, in fact, actually supports. So I'm really torn there. I'm sympathetic to the circumstances we have once we assume that there is a 32,000 square foot building with a particular set of uses. But I suggest that maybe we've started with the wrong premise. Maybe he has too big of a building. MR. REISCHL: And that was one of my suggested alternatives. We did listen to the three alternatives and decided that we could support the shared parking alternative. But there are -- I mean, that's not the exclusive option. There are other alternatives that could be pursued. They decided to go through with this one and we decided that by not having -- I can't say open space because parking is not open space. But without the mass of a parking garage that we supported this shared solution. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But all that goes from the development services vent towards helping maximize the development of profits, which you stated a number of times in Page 52 February 15, 2001 your analyses in the past. I'm not sure that it is really appropriate for us to be continuing to maximize intensity of uses when there is other alternatives, like coming in and meeting the zoning code the way it is. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman -- MR. REISCHL: In which they could with a parking garage and not -- if they couldn't build a parking garage -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. If we're going to have discussion on my motion, I'd like for it to be up here amongst us and not with staff. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I agree. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, then all of my comments are devoted towards the commissioners then. How do you feel about it? I'm just suggesting that there is a problem and I don't see it -- hear it being addressed. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, the problem, Mr. Richardson, is if we don't approve this Mr. Saadeh is going to go out there and build a parking garage because he is going to build his office building. And then we're going to have thousands of people in the Vineyards really upset because they've got to look at an ugly parking garage. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you accept as fact then that the 32,000 square foot is what he's entitled to? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, sir. If he has to build a parking garage, I suspect he's going to build a 50,000 square foot building, which is what he's allowed, to help support the parking garage that he has got to build. MR. SAADEH: Can I say one statement on the record? Mr. Richardson-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. The public meeting is closed. I'm sorry. Discussion amongst the commission. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: He's entitled to a 50,000 square foot building. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: With a particular set of uses? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' With a particular set of uses. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which requires a certain amount of parking? Page 53 February 15, 2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Right. And he can accomplish that with a parking garage. And he can go do that right now without being here. So if we tell him no on the shared parking, he's not going to say, '~Nell, I can do with less office space," and build a 25,000 square foot space. He's going to go build a 50 and build the parking to go with it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're persuaded by his statement of financial hardship then? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, sir. I don't think he has got any financial hardship. I think that he can go build that parking garage and not bat an eye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the financial hardship, if any, if we're going to -- I don't think we should consider, but building a parking garage -- and I don't accept the fact that all parking garages are ugly. We have a couple in Naples that are better looking than a lot of the buildings. But it's an expense when he can solve his parking problem right on the ground level. So why penalize him by making him build a parking structure when -- with this little device of sharing parking, he avoids that. Assuming it's a beautiful parking garage, it costs money to build. So-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah. Then he could take, what, about 18,000 square feet and rent it out or lease it out to someone else and you'd have even more people that could come because he could actually build a 50,000 square foot building, have that parking garage, and he could maximize his investment and have additional tenants in there. That would really impact the rest of the people there. He has the right to do that at this point. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this -- in your view, Ms. Rautio, this is a lesser of two evils? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I actually think that this is a very reasonable solution. I truly do. And I -- having sat here for as long as I have and knowing what the people in the Vineyards would be concerned about, even though -- in deference to Mr. Abernathy, they probably could build a very nice, attractive parking garage. And I know that the Vineyards would. There is a number of other residences that are there in the Estates that would probably take great umbrage with us to say, "Oh, yeah, sure. Go ahead and build a parking garage." They Page 54 February 15, 2001 would be very unhappy. I think that this is reasonable and with the uses of the tenants that are in there. There will be some inconvenience during the day, particularly during season. We are a very large, busy, growing area. However, I feel that the shared approach here makes a lot more sense than a parking garage, as beautiful as it could be. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm persuaded by the potency of the arguments of my peers. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Well, it seems like we're having a philosophical discussion here. I would just like to point out to Mr. Abernathy that I think parking garages are ugly, in spite of the fact that he doesn't like the wall I have behind my house. But, anyway. That aside, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. Thank you. Any old business? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yes. I had promised a final report on the difficulty of having at least one set of regular minutes with our packet each time. I'm sorry to say that my telephone calls did not produce the final information from the County side. The Clerk of the Courts has been very cooperative, very forthcoming with information. And it would appear to me from my research that none of the delays relate to the contract that the Clerk of the Courts has. Therefore, I am putting my efforts back on the County side from the County Manager's office on down. And instead of just doing this by telephone calls, to make it easier to understand the process and why there might be a hole in it, I've been forced now to have to do some writing. So I intend to send out some faxes to various parties involved. And, I guess, we'll just have to commit this to writing because I can't seem to get a full answer or an understanding of what it is that we're asking for. So stay tuned until next week. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not sure that's an issue with all the commissioners, but I commend you on your report. Any new business? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'- I'd suggest we give her a pay Page 55 February 15, 2001 raise for all the work that she's been doing. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: We should double her salary. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no public left, I assume there's no comment. With that, we're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:26 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES BY: Kelley Marie Blecha, RPR Page 56 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION February 20, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Milbum Pierce 10265 N. Tamiami Trail, #7 Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-34, Larry and Gloria Squarci Dear Mr. Pierce: On Thursday, February 15, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-34. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-04 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincer~ /~/~ Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/B D-2000~34/RG/cw Enclosure C: Larry & Gloria Squarci 8 Linda Drive Newburg, NY 12550 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. 01- 04 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-34 FOR A BOATHOUSE 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 hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 12-foot by 16-foot boathouse over an existing dock protruding 19.6 feet into the waterway in an RSF-4 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 Milbum Pierce, representing Larry and Gloria Squarci, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 316, Isles of Capri No. 2, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 46, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 12-foot by 16-foot boathouse over an existing dock protruding 19.6 feet into the waterway in an RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: o 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. 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-2000-34 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted at2er motion, second and majority vote. Done this 15th day of February ,2001. ATTEST: JOHN{~/I. DUNNUCK, III Executive Secretary COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj~r~VM. Student Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-34/RG/im