Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/01/2001 RMarch 1, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 1, 2001 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 Ken Abernathy Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Dwight Richardson Sam Saadeh Lora Jean Young NOT PRESENT: Russell Budd ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager 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, MARCH 1, 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 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-35, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofieid Marine Consulting, representing David Redshaw, requesting a 16 foot extension for a boat dock protruding a total of 36 feet into the waterway, for property located at 173 Topanga Drive, further described as Lot 84, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2000-38, Dominic Noveilo, Jr., of Noveiio Building Company, representing Monty Wuttke requesting a boathouse to be built over an existing dock on property located at 434 Germain Avenue, further described as Lot 5, Block "P", Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 South, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) Co 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 yard setback requirement for a gas station canopy for property located at 2902 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) V-2000-36, Craig R. Stephens of Stephens Design Group, Inc., representing Allied Doors, Inc., requesting a 35 foot variance from the required 50 foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for property located at 1509 Railhead Boulevard, further described as Lot 35, Railhead Industrial Park, in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Continued from 2/15) (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) Eo PUD-98-14(I), George L. Varnadoe of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Granada Shoppes Associates, Ltd., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development having the effect of amending the PUD document and PUD master plan to add a hotel as an authorized use and to reduce authorized retail and office space in lieu of said 175-room hotel, for property located on the southeast corner of U.S. 41 and Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.23__. acres. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) Fo PUD-99-10, Karen K. Bishop of PMS, Inc. of Naples, representing T.O.S. Development, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural with "ST" overlays to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Mirasol PUD for a mixed residential development consisting of not more than 799 dwelling units on property lying north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and west of a northerly extension of C.R. 951 in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1,527_+ acres. (Continued to 3/15) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) PUD-99-21, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Edward R. Bryant, Jr., P.A., and Lloyd G. and Nancy Sheehan, Trustees, requesting a rezone from "A", and G.C. Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Castlewood at Imperial PUD for a maximum of 34 single-family dwelling units for property located on the north side of Imperial Golf Course Boulevard, approximately 1.25 miles east of North Tamiami Trail, in Section 14, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2 I. 16__. acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PUD-2000-19, George L. Varnadoe, 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 l l, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 14.99_ acres. (Coordinator: Ron Nino) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 03/01/01 CCPC AGEND/RN/im March 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let's call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Thursday, March 1st, 2001. And we'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio is absent. Commissioner Wrage is here. Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Commissioner Budd is absent. And we welcome back Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Which is plus or minus body parts. I'm not sure which. COMMISSIONER PEDONE'. Minus. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any addenda to the agenda, except for the continuation to March 15th, Item F? MR. NINO: No, Mr. Chairman, no addenda other than the continuation. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Entertain a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy to move Item F, the T.O.S. Development to March 13th. All in favor, signify by saying, aye. Opposed? Carried. I do see we have one set of minutes in front of us. The February 1st, any additions or corrections? Entertain a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So moved. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Young. All in favor, signify by saying, aye. Page 2 March 1, 2001 Opposed? Motion carried. Any Planning Commission absences? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I may, in fact, not be here on the 15th. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' So noted. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I will not be here on the 15th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I won't be here on the 15th. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Looks like I will be here on the 15th. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Getting shorter by the minute. Those that plan on being here, please take note of that. Ron, anything from the Board of County Commissioners? MR. NINO: The Board of Commissioners, all of the petitions that were on the agenda yesterday were -- were solved in a manner consistent with your recommendations. The largest discussion yesterday was on excavations. And you might expect that staff in the near future will prepare an amendment dealing with the whole issue of excavations, particularly in the estates district. I think in the estates district we'll probably have the -- come to you with an amendment that suggests certain conditions prerequisite to their being allowed in the estates district, for certain size excavations, for sizes -- for excavations that are a little larger than the 4,000 -- are large enough to really cause a problem will probably become a conditional use in the near future, but you'll be -- you'll be seeing in the near future an amendment to the land development code dealing with that whole issue of excavations in the estates district in particular. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So the petition for the five acres that we turned down, they also turned down. MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY'. No. MR. NINO: Where's Chahram? Chahram here? Was that on the agenda? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let the record show that Commissioner Saadeh is here. Okay. Welcome back. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Good morning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Did you bring us presents from abroad or anything? Page 3 March 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Myself. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. MR. NINO: Russell, that wasn't on the agenda yesterday, anyway, that was M&H Stables that was on. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Oh, okay. So that hasn't come up yet. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. The chairman has no report. So we'll go right into the advertised public hearings starting off with BD-2000-35, boat dock. All those wishing to give testimony in this please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners, for the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. The petitioner is requesting a 16-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 36 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 173 Topanga Drive in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 75 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a U-shaped dock with a single boat lift. While the proposed dock would result in less than 50 percent of the waterway width maintained, the 50 percent specified by the criterion, the petitioner submits that the 60 feet of navigatible waterway remaining would still allow safe passage of vessels. In support of this contention, the Southport Property Owners' Association has approved the location and configuration of the dock. We've had no objections to this petition. Taking this into consideration, the staff feels that the proposed dock meets the main intent of the code, and we, therefore, recommend approval. Questions? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions? If not, I have one, which will probably be answered by the petitioner, but I noticed the -- the way the dock is put in, you have to come across the neighbor in order to get it in; in other words, it's a side loading dock, so to speak, rather than a straight in. And I do notice that the next lot is kind of an odd shape. I guess, I'd ask the petitioner to address that, if he would. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield representing the applicant. I'm also working for the neighbor. And we've Page 4 March 1, 2001 already located his dock, and it's going to be far enough away from this one, George Kellogg, owns the lot -- the lot adjacent to that, so he's going to start building, and I'm going to be doing his petition, so he's well aware of this, and there's no objection from him. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. Any questions of petitioner? Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Don't everybody speak up at once. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Call for a motion to approve the petition, BD-2000-35. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion made by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Pedone. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Next is boat dock 2000-38. All those wishing to give testimony on this please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ross. MR. GOCHENAUR.' For the record, Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services. The petitioner's requesting approval of a boathouse to be built over an existing dock and lift. The property is located at 434 Germain Avenue in Connors' Vanderbilt Beach and contains about 75 feet of waterfrontage. At the time when the existing dock and lift were built and permitted, there was a single-family home on the property. This home has since been demolished and a new home is under construction on the site. The existing dock and lift cannot legally be used until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the home now under construction. The facility would meet all code criteria for a boathouse and the roof would match that of the principal structure. We've had no objections to this petition and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any questions of staff? Does the Page 5 March 1, 2001 petitioner wish to address the commission? MR. STEVENS: Only if the commission has any questions. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And there's been no comments from the public of the -- MR. Gochenaur: Oh, no, sir. We've had no objections. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward petition BD-2000-38 to the -- or that we approve BD-2000-38. 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? Motion carried. Next is V-2000-34, Handy Food Stores, Incorporated. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners, Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for a variance at an existing Handy Food store. And it's -- the location is at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road in Immokalee. It's the existing Handy Food Store. The automobile service station and convenience store regulations require a 50 foot front yard setback for all structures, including pumps and canopies. This gas station was constructed without a canopy, and it -- the existing pump, let's see, here in green is the existing pump, was constructed prior to 1999 when the 50 foot regulation was put in effect. At that time it was a 25 foot front yard setback, and this existing pump is approximately 35 feet from the property lines. That easily met the setback at the time. Due to insurance regulations, the petitioner would like to install a canopy and as long as they're doing the construction, they wanted to install and reconfigure pumps at the station. This would involve either moving the entire tank infrastructure at the Page 6 March 1, 2001 bottom or to request a variance to allow the canopy and pumps to encroach into the front yard 50 foot setback. The petitioner would be required to have a site development plan, which will bring the landscaping up to code to the greatest extent possible. And the canopy will have to meet the architectural design guidelines for the new part of the canopy. We had no objections from any surrounding property owners to this until yesterday, Transportation Department had some questions on pedestrian traffic flow in the area. And I see Mr. Kant here, I'll let him address that for you. MR. KANT: Good morning, Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director. Thank you, Fred. Commissioners, I -- I happened to glance through the package and I thought this was a relatively innocuous request and probably still is a relatively innocuous request. But I think there's some information that you need to be aware of before you make your recommendation to the board. First of all, the location itself is a fairly tight site. It's located at a very busy, heavily traveled intersection with respect to pedestrian traffic and school children. There is a crossing guard stationed there. We have targeted that particular intersection for a traffic signal analysis. Across the street to the east is the Jubilation or Jubilee -- excuse me, Harvest for Humanity site, and when that starts to build out, there's going to be even additional foot traffic in that area, and probably more pedestrian traffic. Our concern is not with the fact that they've got gas pumps, they want to continue to use gas pumps. They've had them there for a number of years. Our concern was with the intensification of the use, with the reconfigured geometry that would bring the vehicle traffic much closer to the edge of the sidewalk than it is today. When I looked at the way those pumps are proposed to be configured, it is reminiscent of a similar configuration, for example there's a Hess station right up the street here near Mercantile Avenue that some of you may be familiar with, which has a similar type of configuration. That's going to attract a lot more traffic. Obviously, it's going to be better for business, but it's also going to cause some great interferences with the pedestrian traffic that's already there. Page 7 March 1, 2001 I realize that if they choose to merely meet the setback, they could probably get what they want to get, and only get through the site plan process. Our concern is that by moving those pumps closer to the street, there may be an increased danger to the school children and those pedestrians. I'm not here to lobby or argue against this variance, I simply want to put these facts on the record so that you'll have all of the information when you make your decision. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question for Mr. Kant through Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Ed, we also at some point would like to think that that road's going to be improved there, and another lane put in or some -- some widening -- MR. KANT: Are you referring to Lake Trafford Road, sir? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Lake Trafford, yes. How is this -- how is this going to fit in with -- MR. Kant: That would be tough -- I don't know of any present plans, and noticed Ms. Wolff is here. She may be able to give you some information, but I don't believe there are any present or near term plans to do any major improvements to Lake Trafford. I know we're looking at some shoulder and sidewalk improvements, definitely some shoulder improvements. I doubt that the traffic volumes along Lake Trafford are ever going to rise to the point where we have to seriously consider four-laning it. On the other hand, I do know that we have some constraints with turn lanes and things up there as some of the commercial development intensifies. So I can see some localized improvements over time. Also, Carson Road, where it comes down there, we already begin to see the need for some additional turn lanes. I would be very concerned, because I know that at some point we'll most likely have to approach these folks and possibly the Jubilation Harvest for Humanity folks about some additional right-of-way slivers in order to accommodate the traffic. Especially, if we do wind up signalizing that at some point. So there are a number of concerns, but, as I say, that's something we'd have to encounter in the ordinary course of business, anyhow. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And what is the sidewalk Page 8 March 1, 2001 situation at this site now? MR. Kant: There is a sidewalk immediately -- well, in the drawing here, where this blue -- where I've got my pen, is a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MR. Kant: About a five foot, I think it's an asphalt sidewalk. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah, yeah. MR. Kant: Across the street, going north and south along the east side of the road, there's a sidewalk, and then there is none on the west side of Carson, as far as I'm aware. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Okay. If these, the configuration of these dispensers were, rather than put on a diagonal, if they were -- were parallel to the road, would that help a little bit or -- MR. Kant: It's -- as I said, it's still a tight site. They can certainly geometrically get what they need to get. This is an issue that's going to come back to you probably a number of times over the next few months or a few years. I know that Handy Stores alone has got several shops up in the -- in the Immokalee area that they're probably going to look to modernize and upgrade. As far as whether or not -- we have not done any kind of a detailed geometric analysis. I've never -- I had not even seen this until yesterday. So -- but it just -- it caught my eye, because it is very typical of the type of thing that we find where you do have a tight site, and you're very close to the roadway. The further back front -- that's why we have these setbacks in the first place. The further back you can get the canopy, the pumps and move that circulation away from any potential for intermingling with pedestrians or with traffic that's merely trying to transit the site, the better off you are. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Well -- MR. REISCHL.' And I'd just like to just add a comment too that the site plan, and if you decide to recommend approval for this, the site plan is approving a 30 foot setback. They're not approving the pump configuration. That can be addressed during site plan review, along with landscaping, along with -- another thing Mr. Kant brought up was access control; for example, the east property line is basically one big driveway. Access control would be put in place with the SDP. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Ed, would it -- would this be an appropriate time or at the site development would that be an Page 9 March 1, 2001 appropriate time to -- to maybe help with the turn lane, or what's needed on the -- MR. Kant: Well, this is a variance, which is the zoning matter. The site plan won't come back to you folks, I don't believe. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No. MR. Kant: I believe the site plan is an administrative issue, and, frankly, if at that point in time it's determined that it's appropriate for us to try to obtain a piece of property for a turn lane or whatever, I don't think that we can very well use that as a quid pro quo for approving the site plan. We're going to have to go out and buy it like anybody else. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. And I'm not -- wasn't heading in that direction, but if it -- if it helped at this point with configuration, I know that's not exactly the issue here either, but it-- MR. Kant: I can't answer that, sir, because we -- as I say, we don't really have a geometry proposed for that intersection. We don't -- we don't know what the effect of this is going to be on the traffic circulation. As I say, I haven't had a chance to really look at it, but because I -- I'm aware of the issues surrounding this particular intersection and these two streets, the surrounding neighborhood, I felt it was appropriate to bring these issues up and make sure you're aware of them while you're making your deliberations. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Reischl, they're -- presently they're 35 feet away and they want to go to 30 feet away from the edge. The amount of -- it's supposed to be 50 foot, but they ran ahead of that. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So it's a grandfathered nonconforming in effect right now. MR. REISCHL: Legal nonconforming the way it exists, correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And want to make it further legally non-conforming -- conforming by coming up another five feet, am I hearing it right? MR. REISCHL: Generally, that's -- Page 10 March 1~ 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Going from 35 to 30 feet. MR. REISCHL: Correct. Plus an additional structure. The canopy is new. There's no canopy there now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The canopy is within the envelope that's permitted. The canopy is not what's creating the variance; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: No. The canopy is part of the variance, too. All structures require a 50 foot setback in automobile service stations. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: My other question then to both of you, in view of the fact that you've got the transportation people now on board, and there's seeming -- to my ears, coming up with a different view than your current accumulation of views, does that alter your view towards recommendation? MR. REISCHL: No. I think that the issues that Mr. Kant raised can be addressed during SDP review, and as I said, the configuration is not etched in stone on this plan that you see. The 30 foot setback would be, but the pump line, and if they can devise a better on-site circulation that would better suit pedestrian traffic in the area, I think that would be a site plan issue, more than a variance issue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you predict for me that the site plan, though, will materially change the fact that this -- all this operation is closer to the street. I mean, I just don't see that the site plan is going to deal with that issue. MR. REISCHL.' Well, we can have improved traffic flow. That was the main thing, because right now, as I said, the entire eastern boundary is basically a driveway. It's asphalt to asphalt. By putting in landscaping, having directional arrows, which are all part of the site development plan, that will create a traffic -- an on-site traffic flow. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which is the eastern side on the -- MR. REISCHL: I haven't got a north on my map. Right here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is the eastern side? MR. REISCHL: Carson Road side, yes. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Are the gas pumps -- the gas pumps are currently in place, aren't they?. MR. REISCHL.' One pump. They want to add -- they want to Page 11 March 1, 2001 reconfigure that pump and add two more. MR. NINO: Want to add two more. But then the underground -- of course, the underground tanks don't necessarily dictate the location of the pumps, necessarily, is there -- but there's only one set of pumps? MR. REISCHL: One island, right. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Just a comment, having used this station for about eight years, to me it's an improvement, but my question, and as far as the sidewalk is concerned, you're right, there's a lot of school children. When I used to go by there most of them went through the gas station anyway, because most of them go to Eden Park. And I realize it's all vacant area around there which will be developed some day. But as far as the sidewalk, was the least used part of it presently. MR. REISCHL: Yeah. That was one of our concerns. Obviously, you know, you can't very well, short of, I guess, putting some kind of a fence or something, but you can't very well keep those kids from cutting across or any of the peds., but, again, the issue has to do with the intensification use, which, again, is not really germane to be addressed at this point, but there may be -- there may even be a way that they could accomplish their purpose without even getting the variance. I don't know. The issue here is that -- that these -- these types of concerns, I think, are appropriate to consider when considering this particular application. That's the only thing I want to get on the record. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Fred, one question, then, what is between -- is there just a curb between the sidewalk and where the cars are, or is there a little buffering area in there? I can't tell by looking at this. MR. REISCHL: On the south? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Between the sidewalk and where the pumps are, is there a buffering area in there or is it a sidewalk curb, asphalt? MR. REISCHL: No. There's a -- on Lake Trafford Road there's small landscape. They're proposing to curb it, and, again, what we require on a site development plan -- the site development plan may well very require a sidewalk along the eastern Carson Road. Page 12 March 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm not talking about the -- the southernmost part along Lake Trafford. There is somewhat of a little dirt buffer area there. Is there still going to be one of those or is it curbed asphalt? MR. REISCHL: No. It'll be landscaped, in fact. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, can we hear from the petitioner?. MR. KIRBY: Hi. For the record, Don Kirby. I'm representing Handy Food Stores. Also Charlie Martin is a representative of the owners' group here, and he'll be able to answer some questions. A couple things I want to clear up. I think from what we found out in our research, the road work that has been planned to go in this intersection has occurred at this time. I don't believe, other than some additional sidewalks and stuff around that area, that's about all we're going to run into, as far as -- with addressing the potential for right-of-way in the future. I'm sure that Fred's group will be able to confirm that. We -- we want you guys to know that we intend to bring -- to work with the County and bring this entire site up to a modern-day appearance with the new canopy and the gas islands. If you notice now the gas islands themselves, if you look in the center of those dog-bone shaped islands, that's approximately where the pumps are going to be located. So the pump itself is only going to be slightly forward of where the existing pump is now. The other concern that -- that might not be considered a hardship, I heard Mr. Kant indicating that there might be another area on the property to relocate this entire fuel system. If we take and attempt to move the island back towards the store to fall inside -- fall inside the building envelope, what we're going to do is limit the backing -- create more of a danger of people coming out of the store, getting in their car and backing out. The islands would be closer to the store, thus creating a greater chance of an incident occurring from that angle. We feel that when we do our site plan remake of the whole area, we're going to be putting in delineation of painting, stripping, re-delineating the entrances like Fred was saying earlier, we're going to be required to put in some landscape islands and that. Safety is our number one concern. One of the main reasons we're pushing for the canopy is to Page 13 March 1, 2001 provide a cover over the customers to keep them out of the rain and the environment. We certainly don't want to mix any spilt gas with water, becomes a slip hazard. These points have been brought up to us by our insurance company to try to do something about it. So we've come to you to ask for this variance. Based on our research, we feel that we have no choice but to leave it where it is. If we try to move it back, we're going to run into what we call our tank farm, underground tanks, and if we get into that we're going to have to excavate about $250,000 worth of tanks and reinstall, because if we move our canopy system and islands back, in order to put the footings in for the canopy, we'll have to penetrate into the ground, and unfortunately with the water table and the way it is, we can't get the tanks deep enough to allow the canopy footings to go on top, nor is that a practical construction solution. That way if you ever have problems with your tanks, you cannot get to them without destroying your canopy system, to service your tanks. So, Mr. Kant might've not been aware of the location of the tank farm, but we are really restricted as to where we can place this at this time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: This is not part of the variance, but are you basically upgrading that whole corner of your store? MR. KIRBY: I'm going to let Mr. Martin address that. He's been working with the Chamber and the County. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Because there's presently a Laundromat there also which adds to the traffic. MR. MARTIN: Excuse me, I'm Charlie Martin with Handy Food Stores. In addition to the gas canopy, we are going to be putting in there Elastamerit (phonetic) coating over the metal roofing, doing repainting, doing some upgrade on the inside of the store. And also dressing up the Laundromat, addressing the restroom facilities in the Laundromat for customers. One thing that Don didn't mention is along with the security concerns that we have; is that we're working closely with the cops program in Immokalee, the community cleanup organization, I think they have the Cleanup 2001, and in Immokalee, this happens to be on one of the highest crime streets in Immokalee. So we felt like we needed to get the additional lighting that the canopy would provide to help Page 14 March 1, 2001 minimize vagrancy, crime and everything in that area. And we feel that this is a good step towards providing that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of petitioner?. MR. MARTIN: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No further questions -- I was asking if there were any further questions -- MR. NINO: Is there any level of tolerance, I mean, can you move it back five feet, six feet or is it -- MR. MARTIN: We've studied that. MR. NINO: -- this is absolutely the minimum you require? MR. MARTIN: In order to have a car back out of the -- of the parking spaces in front of the store where the handicap and all of the other customer parking is, this is a minimum for them to back out and make a radius without interfering with somebody at the gas island. It's tight now the way it is with the dogbone running parallel to the store. We thought by putting them on an angle that would facilitate traffic getting in and out of the gas pump. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Presently there's two egresses, an egress off of Lake Trafford and one off of Carson Road. Will that still be the same? MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir. The two on Lake Trafford and one on Carson Road, that will all be the same. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Because back to Mr. Kant, the one of them is the right part of that corner, that goes off onto Lake Trafford. MR. Kant: The Lake Traff-- excuse me, the Lake Trafford side as Mr. Reischl pointed out is pretty much one continuous driveway that goes around the corner to where you see the island on that drawing. I do want to make one comment, I wouldn't call it a correction. I want to make one comment to something Mr. Kirby said, he's correct in that the existing geometry is what it is. But if we determine that a signal is an appropriate traffic control device at that location, and if we find that due to the need for storage or queuing for turning movements, that we need additional right-of-way, then we will, in fact, be coming back to the adjacent property owners to obtain that right-of-way. So I don't want you to think that, okay, you know, this is never going to be affected by anything that goes on up there. I Page 15 March 1, 2001 just didn't want -- and I don't think Mr. Kirby meant to leave that impression with you, but there is a potential out there for additional right-of-way needs. MR. KIRBY: Yeah, my comment was that at the time of research it appeared that all of the work, but, of course, in the future anything can change. The important thing along the side, Fred indicated that that's basically asphalt from asphalt on the Carson Road side, I think it was, Fred. And, of course, in our site plan, we'll work -- we'll be working with the County on. There'll most likely be some requirements to break up that asphalt a little bit, thus creating some islands, whether they be landscape islands or turning traffic control islands, there's probably going to be some requirements from them to address that, which would also restrict the flow, as right now you can come in and just ]et right into the store. But once we break it up a little bit in the site plan development, that'll help slow that traffic down coming into the site, which, of course, would create a little bit safer environment for the kids that, you're right, do cut right across the store, shortest distance is a straight line. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: But my part was the cut in along Lake Trafford, the people basically go right through the whole intersection, coming in and going out, in that particular-- MR. KIRBY: Yeah. That's one of the issues we're going to have to address with Fred, because we do want to create a little bit more controlled environment with the traffic flow there. But our big concern is pushing -- is the safety, and this is a proven, the dogbones at an angle is a proven traffic, you've got -- when you're backing out of the store, you're now backing into the lead ends of the island, which are protected with some type of protection devices. Right now if you take to try to move those in, I think we're going to be creating a little bit more of a safety hazard from the aspect of backing away from the store after you've done your shopping and that. So we really feel we're good where we are. We hope you guys agree with us and can grant us approval to move on to the next step. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner?. If not,~ anyone from the public wish to address this issue? If not, I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we Page 16 March 1, 2001 forward petition V-2000-34 to the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a question on the motion. I'm always influenced by the comments of my fellow commissioners, but in this particular case, I'm very much influenced by Commissioner Priddy and Chairman Wrage's views of this, because that's your backyard, and I really depend on your views to reflect what's best for the public and without hearing that I can't really, without your input, I would not feel very comfortable with the safety issues out there, but if that's the position you take, I'll support it. · COMMISSIONER PRIDDY-' Yeah. I feel the -- being able to better define the ingress and egress improvements that'll take place with the site development plan will, in fact, you know, perhaps enhance that area, as opposed to the wide open asphalt to asphalt that is there now. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I certainly agree with that. And I was glad that Ed was here, because that was my concern, it's kind of an open season area right there. And, unfortunately, the kids, when they come down, they just kind of -- it's a shotgun dispersement right through that whole area, but anyway. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Let the record show that our Vice Chairperson has shown up, Commissioner Rautio. With that, we'll go to petition V-2000-36, Allied Doors, Inc. All those wishing to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services staff. This is a rear yard variance request for an industrially zoned property. The property is located on Railhead Boulevard, off of Old US 41. On the east side of the road there are seven lots. Six of them are Page 17 March 1, 2001 already developed with a 15 foot setback. When the subdivision was created it was adjacent to an agriculturally zoned property. And the setback -- rear setback from architecturally zoned property in the industrially zoned district is 15 feet. Now, the applicant is -- which owns the building next door is trying to expand into this vacant lot. And the property -- the architecturally zoned was recently rezoned to residential PUD. And the setback for residential PUD is 50 feet, as opposed to 15. However, the residentially zoned PUD does not have any residential tract abutting this industrial lot. There is a buffer, some preserve on the golf course, before you reach a residentially zoned tract. And that's why staff recommends approval of this variance. And I have received a letter from the Bonita Bay Group, which owns the Mediterra, which this lot abuts, and they have no problem with it. They asked for some conditions and stipulations, which I don't believe the owner of the industrial lot has any problem meeting these conditions. Mr. Thinnes from Bonita Bay Properties is here to address this. As I said, the staff recommends approval of this, since this is the last remaining lot and all other lots, they were built with a 50 foot setback. MR. NINO: Fifteen. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Chahram, could you identify the concerns that Bonita Bay has? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. They don't want an overhead garage in the back. Let me read it, no overhead doors be allowed at the rear of the building. Any new addition would provide overhead doors in the same configuration as the existing building, which that's what they were -- are going to do. Any exterior lighting on the rear of the building be shielded to prevent light from displaying over the property line. Any exterior PA or sound system be directed away from the rear property line. Those are the conditions that they would like to have. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, let me understand, that's -- that PUD, that's the Mediterra that's behind? MR. BADAMTCHIAN-' Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And you -- did I hear you say that's a golf course that's planned there or -- Paget8 March 1, 2001 MR. BADAMTCHIAN'- Well, there's a golf course. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There will not be any residences on -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' There will not be any residential close to this lot, correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question for the county attorney. Marjorie, I've done business with Allied Doors, a couple lobs, and I'll probably do business -- I'll do business with them in the future. Just for the record, if that's a conflict, I'll abstain, if not -- MS. STUDENT: I think that it maybe will for you on the appearances of the impropriety to conflict out. I don't have the forms. I would, again, ask members of the commission to give us a little advance notice if they can, so I can bring the forms with me to the meeting, and do any necessary research, but I think that would be the wisest thing to do. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Can we hear from the petitioner? MR. STEVENS: Craig Stevens, Stevens Design -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: You need to come to the microphone, please. MR. STEVENS: Craig Stevens, Stevens Design Group, and I'm representing the petitioner. I don't have any questions (sic), unless the board has any -- any questions they'd like to address. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Do you agree with Bonita Bay's conditions? MR. STEVENS: Yes, yes. We will not be putting any overhead doors in the back, and any lighting can be directed. Their terms and conditions that they -- that they're implying here will not adversely affect us in our expansion of the building. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: Bob Thinnes. MR. THINNES: Good morning. For the record, my name is Bob Thinnes, planning manager with the Bonita Bay Group. The only comment I wanted to make is that we understand the Page 19 March 1, 2001 situation, and all we're trying to do is just lessen any off site impacts that we may have. But we -- I've met with the owners and I've had a couple discussions with them, and I understand what their situation is. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, I'll close the public meeting. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward petition V-2000-36 to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy, and that's the Board of Zoning Appeals, right? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Board of Zoning Appeals, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a question. If the commitments that they've talked about are not included in the package, do we add -- make sure those are added? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. I'll add the request by Bonita Bay -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We were late with that. The letter I have received is dated February 28th, so it's -- I received it this morning. We will add this to the resolution of approval. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Let it show that Mr. Saadeh abstained. With that, we will go to PUD 98-14 (1). I keep saying it's Grenada, but I'm told it's Granada. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I need to make a statement on the record before the testimony. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Before or after we swear them in? MS. STUDENT: Probably after. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. All those who wish to give testimony on this please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Mar]orie, for the record. MS. STUDENT: Mar]orie Student, Assistant County Attorney. A question's come up about this PUD, because there's an Page 20 March 1, 2001 addition of a setback change. I have reviewed the county ordinance that was prepared, and the title is generic, stating that it is a rezone from PUD to PUD. So I see no problem based on that title. And that's what we advertised. I see no problem with this addition, because it doesn't -- it's not in conflict or anything with the title. And this is how we always do a PUD to PUD, with a generic title, and it can include anything, so. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Okay. Thank you, Mar]orie. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this a disclosure situation? MS. STUDENT: Yes. There needs to be ex parte disclosures. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I had a conversation with Bruce Anderson about this subject. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd like to disclose that I also had a conversation with Bruce Anderson, an attorney from the law firm representing this petitioner. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm disappointed I was not contacted by Bruce Anderson. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: He was lucky to catch me. MR. NINO: For the record -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Ron. MR. NINO: -- Ron Nino, Planning Services. The petition that's before you purports to amend the Granada Shoppes PUD, which you all know is actively under construction. The vast majority of the floor area intended there is now in place. The amendment does two things, that it asks that you trade off current development in retail and office space for a hotel. And the trade-off -- the trade-off in terms of traffic impact does -- staff report advises and the traffic analysis, which I think you-all received a copy of the traffic analysis in that packet, as well, supports the premise that there is, indeed, a reduction in traffic generation by this trade-off from the current authorized floor space, 275 suite unit hotel. And the location of that hotel, I think has been a matter of some concern. We understand it's going to be on the south side up against the Pelican Marsh golf course development. I don't have any speaker slips, but I did receive some calls from people that were concerned. I gather that if they're not here, then that problem's gone away. The other thing that this amendment asks you to do is to Page 21 March 1, 2001 reduce the setback requirement for buildings on four -- US 41, Tamiami Trail from 40 feet to 25 feet. And I think you-all know why. There's a building currently in a state of construction, which has come to a halt because of this issue, that was erroneously located nearer the street line than the 40 feet. And apparently it's going to take about a 25 foot reduction -- 15 foot reduction in setback to 25 feet to correct that situation. That amendment will only apply, incidentally, to that building and not to the rest -- the remainder of the property on -- on the Tamiami Trail. Your plan may not include the -- a detail that allows you to really appreciate this situation. And I'm going to hand out -- blowups. Quite frankly when staff looked at it, and as the staff report points out, the 25 foot setback is not -- is not something that we are not accustomed to. It is, after all, the minimum setback that is required in most of the commercial zoning districts. So, you know, it's not that unusual to have a building 25 feet from the street line. When that setback was generated, I suspect that the thinking was that we ought to get a wider, more open space vista here. However, if you look at the location of the Macaroni Grill site, if you drive along that street, you'll note that there's a lot of open space. I mean, most of the -- there aren't any out parcels close to this Macaroni Grill, and, indeed, north and south of it, are amenity features, which as a professional planner, I think goes a long way to ameliorating the impact of that building at 25 feet verse 50 feet. Additionally, when you think of buildings at a greater setback, you normally think in terms of a front loaded parking condition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron -- MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- before you go any farther, where are we talking about on the map, right in the middle where it says development? MR. NINO: I'm glad you mentioned that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Between the two water features. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm assuming that's where it is, but -- MR. NINO: We're talking about right in this area here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Page 22 March 1, 2001 MR. NINO.' Between that lake and that lake. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Again, as I say, when you think about setback, you normally think about in terms of front loaded setback, front loaded parking. There will not be any front loaded parking in front of the Macaroni Grill. It'll entirely be a landscaped view. And because of those circumstances, staff did not really have that much of a heartburn over an amendment to the PUD to allow the Macaroni Grill to continue constructing their building. Additionally, in order to clarify the document with respect to amenity -- amenity features, we wanted to make sure that they didn't apply to amenity features. For example, they have an arbor or something they want to put near the corner, and technically that would be a structure and would be subject to the 40 foot setback requirement, and that really was not the intent of the setback requirements. They're not meant to handle landscape or streetscape amenity features. But we just simply wanted to make sure we were on the right page -- appreciate, however, that the angle of sight cannot be encroached upon by any amenity feature. That sight angle is currently addressed in the zoning ordinance under general provisions, which would supersede the PUD to that extent. So those are the things we want to do here. Not have amenity or streetscape features subject to the setback requirement. Nevertheless, they would not be able to locate nearer than 20 feet, because after all that's the minimum landscape buffer requirements. Amend the setback for a site specific property, from 40 to 25 feet, and trade off a hotel for a bunch of the other floor area space. Our staff recommends you approve the amended PUD. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron, what's the height limitation for this corner; i.e., the hotel? MR. NINO: The hotel, the height limitation is 60 feet. And the current height limitation in the PUD for an office building is 60 feet. So there's really no difference. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought it was 50? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that essentially four stories, as I recall or is that -- MR. NINO: Oh, I suspect you can get five stories with 60 feet. Page 23 March 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, when this was first brought to the public, they wanted to put six stories, and as I recall when the PUD was approved, that it was significantly reduced to satisfy the concerns of the local citizenry. And I think it was brought down to three or four stories on each end. I just want to make sure that we're not giving something new here that's not contemplated in the existing PUD. MR. NINO: I don't recall that. MR. KEESEY: The current PUD allows a 60 foot office building -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could you give your name and we'll just turn it over to you as the petitioner to answer the question. MR. KEESEY: Thank you. My name is Larry Keesey. I'm with Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson. And I'm representing the petitioners, Granada Shoppes Associates, Limited, on this PUD amendment. As you know this was approved in 1998 for 300,000 square feet of commercial and 90,000 square feet of office development on this site located at the corner of Immokalee and US 41. US 41 running north, south. The -- since that time there's been the opportunity to develop a hotel, and the hotel would not exceed the permitted 60 foot office building height that is allowed in this -- in this parcel right here. What's before you is the PUD as approved. You have the new proposed master plan in your package, but I don't think you have the approved master plan, that's why -- what's before you. And the effect of this PUD amendment would be to take this southwestern development parcel here, which now calls for RO and office, office right here, make that one hotel parcel, and locate the hotel on this parcel on the southwestern portion right here. With that approval of a maximum of 175 rooms for the hotel use, there would be a dropping of the amount of approved commercial and office space. The office would go from 90,000 that's approved today, down to only 10,000 square feet of office. The feet, commercial retail, approved for 300,000, would drop to 280. So that's if the hotel is allowed, those uses would drop. Obviously, if the hotel is not approved, that those uses would remain as they are approved today. Ron Nino mentioned the neighbors to the south, below here. We have met with them. We have talked with them. And we Page 24 March 1, 2001 think we have resolved it. I was assured by their attorney yesterday, they would not be here today to take any position whatsoever on this, because we have agreed to work with them. And, specifically, we've agreed to increase the setback along this southern property line. The Bay Colony golf course is on the opposite side to the south down here. And the setback required by the code or by the PUD actually today, would require a 50 foot setback. We've agreed to increase that to 70 feet, minimum, and that will be written into the PUD document. It's not before you now, because we just agreed to it, but by the time the PUD is approved -- considered by the Board, we just agreed to this yesterday, but it will be a minimum of a 70 foot setback here, and, of course, there will be parking on this side. And we've agreed that the parking lights or the lights for the parking lot, which, of course, are required for safety reasons, will be shielded so that the light does not shine across the boundary, and that the poles will be a minimum of -- or maximum of 20 feet high. So 20 foot poles for the lighting and the lighting will be shielded. And for your information, there's already a very extensive berm along the south on the Bay Colony property. It's a berm that's about 18 feet high, plus it is very heavily vegetated. We've agreed with them to work with them to add any -- or add landscaping to that berm that's already there. That, of course, will not be in the PUD. It's not on our property. But we've agreed to work with them to add landscaping to that. But the PUD will be -- incorporate the -- at least the 70 foot setback along this property line for the hotel building itself, and the lighting features that I mentioned. So that's what we'll be doing for the hotel use. The development standard use, specifically the setback for the Macaroni problem, when this -- this was not part of our presentation. We filed it in December. We just found out about this problem with the location of the Macaroni building. And on the old PUD plan it sits right in here. So there's approximately a 180 foot frontage there out of a total of 1700 feet along US 41 for this project. And we're only asking for a change to the PUD setback, which right now is at 40 feet, 40 foot required setback for buildings, we're only changing that for this parcel right here, 180 feet, roughly. And we're not pointing fingers. There was blame on all Page 25 March 1, 2001 sides. We, obviously, submitted the plans that were approved for the site development plan. We are responsible for that submittal, and it showed it in the wrong place. It did go through the county, and so there's something to be said for everyone on this, but we are trying to make it better. And I think, actually, it's consistent with the Dover Cole study of community character, that we're trying to improve the community character in Naples. You will recall that one of the main recommendations of that study and plan is to eliminate the separation from the street of these large parking lot areas to front load the buildings, put the buildings close to the -- to the right-of-way and put the parking behind the buildings. And this entire project incorporates that. The building will be -- the facades of the buildings will not have parking in front. They will be around to the back. And that's actually what got us into trouble here, because instead of the 40 feet, we built the building right next to that 40, and it turned out it was less than 40. But that's, again, only for this building, the 40 foot setback will still be in place for the entire rest of this. As Ron mentioned, there are two significant lake features, or water features here on either side. So this is the only location where that will occur. There will not be another building next to this to compare it to. The lakes will be on the other side. We are agreeing to increase the landscape buffer in this area. There is a required 20 foot landscape buffer along the entire right-of-way, or the parcel, from the property line, 20 feet of landscape buffer and in this area, for the Macaroni Grill, we've agreed to increase it by five feet, to a maximum of -- a minimum of 25, and, in fact, we've come up with a plan which does exceed code. This is the proposed landscape plan. And, again, this is just for this area. So what you're seeing here is just the Macaroni Grill parcel and the landscaping of that. So to orient you again -- actually, I guess this should -- you'd go north, south, would be the same -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If you'd have your senior partner come up, he can straighten that out. MR. KEESEY: Yeah, he's pretty good at holding those things -- getting them worked out and pointed the right way. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I often wondered what his duties Page 26 March 1, 2001 were. MR. KEESEY: This is north. So this is the highway and this is the front of the Macaroni -- again, the building plan itself was 35 feet, 7 inches, instead of 40. So this line here is the one that's a little bit over, and then you have a little patio and an entranceway, which is why we need the entire 25. But this will be very nicely landscaped. We think it will be a real improvement. It'll be consistent with the Dover Cole recommendations, and as non indicated, part of the problem for this is it's a PUD, but a lot of the people who were approving it were thinking zoning and zoning only requires 25 feet. So that's why it was allowed to go that close in the first place. But we do request the change just for that one area, the 180 feet for the Macaroni. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr, Chairman, question, This proposed commercial use -- here, I'm up here. I'm surprised that the entrance is off of Highway 41, that is your patio and entranceway into the -- if you're really going to go by the Dover Cole kind of concept, it would seem that the entrance should be off of the parking lot, not off of the street side. MR. KEESEY: I think there's a lot of entryways shown on that Dover Cole report that do have the entrances on the main street, but it's not separated by the parking. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Where's your sidewalk on this layout? MR. KEESEY: The sidewalk, there's a very extensive sidewalk along this north parameter and also the brown through here, it's an internal to keep people -- we didn't think -- this is going to be six laned, of course, with cars going by, so we wanted to provide a better landscaped internal pedestrian way. And that is already required in the PUD to meander through the -- through the project. So there is no sidewalk here. There is sidewalk up here, and, of course, this feature that Ron spoke of, the streetscape feature will have benches, and there will be a -- I don't know whether it's lattice work or trellis work, but some structure here. But the pedestrian way would come through the project here and will be landscaped. Page 27 March 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if the pedestrian way is on the inside, which I think is an appropriate way for this to work, then I don't understand why the entrance is on the Highway 41 side. That seems to me, you're creating a problem for yourself. MR. KEESEY: I think all of rest -- and there will be several other restaurants along here. One is already in for permits, and I believe another is about to -- have the entrance on that way. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On which way? MR. KEESEY: Facing the street, the entrance, with parking in the rear. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the way this is going to function, people will park in the big parking lot, interior, and then have to walk around the building to get into it? MR. KEESEY: Here's some parking identified on this landscape plan for -- for handicap. That, of course, would be the closest. There'll be a sidewalk going through here around to the entrance. You're correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In your landscaping features, will there be a berm there? MR. KEESEY: No, not a berm. That berm that I mentioned was on the south side separating this from the Bay Colony golf club. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you'll still be at ground level, and the building very close to Highway 41, in my view it's entirely too close. And does not comport with your PUD and what was promised to the citizenry in that area. That's just my observation. MR. KEESEY: Well, it was a mistake that it had to encroach four and a half feet, and we did it -- it was approved. I can't tell you that it was -- I don't think it benefits anyone, and I think the extra buffering here, the extra five feet of buffering along the length of the Macaroni parcel, plus the extensive additional buffering; such as these coconut palms and a lot of these plants are way beyond what would'ye been done had it been at 40 foot. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But none of that landscaping is elevated, it's all still ground level. If I understand you correctly. MR. KEESEY: I'm not aware of any berm in front of that building. It will be -- Page 28 March 1, 2001 MR. GITTINGER: It's all inoculated, that whole frontage there. MR. KEESEY: It undulates. I can't tell you a specific height. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I was just trying to find out if -- how you're going to try to ameliorate the fact that you're right on top of Highway 41 there, and I don't see it with just a path you're creating -- MR. KEESEY: Just landscaping. Well, increased landscaping is what we're trying to do. The patio here has columns, which will, of course, that's one of the reasons for the patio. The white area outside the wall of the building. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You know, I can see the picture in season, that place is going to be crowded with people sitting out on the patio, you know, right in the exhaust fumes of six lanes of Highway 41, and I just don't -- it seems to me the building should be where it should have been based on the way it was designed, and the way it was approved in the PUD. I don't -- I don't hear any response that materially changes my view that this is a building that's in the wrong spot. MR. KEESEY: Well, it was four and a half feet, this building wall right here is four and a half feet closer than it's supposed to be. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. If for some reason this development standard amendment, i.e., a variance was not approved for this, what would it cost to tear the building down and start over? MR. KEESEY: I don't the -- I don't have the dollar figure. I would, you know, guesstimate --would estimate on a guess, you know, a couple hundred thousand. The utilities are in, the pad's in, the frame's up. It's not roofed in, but the utilities are in. The frame is there. The pad is all there. I don't have an actual dollar figure. I don't know that -- this gentleman may have a better estimate of how much is in the ground. MR. NINO: May I add, which I think is somewhat ironic, the west side of 41, Tamiami Trail, is in conventional zoning, C-3, minimum setbacks, 25 feet. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question. Larry, you may have answered this while I was rooting through these papers, but when we talk about maximum heights, it calls for Page 29 March 1~ 2001 office buildings to be four stories, not to exceed 60 feet. The very next line, hotel, not to exceed 60 feet. MR. KEESEY: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's nothing about stories there. How many stories is your hotel going to be? MR. KEESEY: I think the plan that's current -- when we first got into this change, it hadn't yet been finalized. And that's why it was sort of in the alternative of a hotel, if we do do the hotel, reduction in commercial and office, but there was still an either-or. We are certain now the hotel will go in -- and I believe the hotel will be six stories. But it has to remain within that 60 foot height limit. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: What difference does it make if it's eight stories, if it's only 60 feet, I mean a 60 foot building is a 60 foot building. I mean, what we were looking at going down the road is the height if, you know, if it's only going to have 175 rooms, you're measured out there to, I mean -- MR. KEESEY: You want to know how many stories there would be -- I'm pretty sure it's six stories now. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your room number -- number of rooms stays the same? It's accurately stated? MR. KEESEY: No more than 175 rooms for the site. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well, that would impact traffic, but it doesn't make any difference, again, how many floors it's spread over. MR. KEESEY: That's the maximum number of rooms, 175, and the maximum height can be 60, whatever -- whatever works for that combination is what will go in there. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You know, if I could observe the -- the difference I see between four and six stories, as you correctly point out, the profile is the same. But it does have something to do with keeping faith with the community and the representations that they have made to the surrounding neighborhood that this would be limited to four stories. So -- MR. KEESEY: What the PUD calls for is four stories of office, you're right. There was no commitment as to the hotel. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we've got a new ball game, but I'm just saying we're going to have six stories here COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, we're having 60 feet either Page 30 March 1, 2001 way though, Commissioner Richardson. I mean 60 feet is 60 feet. And that was -- 60 feet was represented to the community to start with, and that's not changing. I mean -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Not to rub salt in their wounds, but just recently we recommended a denial of a variance up to 80 feet for a building in a similar intersection of which the -- our iljustrious leaders decided to overrule us and allow. I'm having no problem with the 60 feet, and how many rooms -- if he wants to squeeze in five foot rooms and make 10 floors that, you know, he can still have only 175 rooms. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: You have to remember that on a hotel you don't have a drop ceiling. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make sure that this Macaroni Grill, the mistake that has been made, that is the only structure that's going to be involved in this development standard change, the setback change? MR. KEESEY: Believe me, it will be the only one. I can guarantee that. We are not going to go through this again. It's very embarrassing for everyone concerned. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Because I'm not really convinced that it's going to blend in like it should, but I think I understand that it was a mistake, and that you can somewhat hide it, the visual view from the impact of the driver going up and down the road. MR. KEESEY: That is the intent of this landscape plan, which is very extensive. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Have you had any discussions with anyone in Naples Park? MR. KEESEY: I'm not aware of any -- any -- I know I haven't received any comment from anyone in Naples Park. I'm not aware, and I think I would'ye heard from my client if there was expressed concerns about the Macaroni building. I have not heard any. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, for the record, I'm from Naples Park, and that's among the reasons I'm particularly interested in what you're planning to do here. The other out parcels, if I can call them that, that's to the south of that, can Page 31 March 1, 2001 you predict how many buildings that they're planning to put in there? MR. KEESEY: Yes. There is a very upscale, I believe, Chinese restaurant will go in this area. That will be one restaurant. There will be another restaurant in this location here and, again, I'm referring to the old plan. The configuration in your plan that is the new PUD proposed master plan is the one you should be looking at. But, generally, they correspond. Again, this is going to be one parcel instead of the two shown on the old. This will be the hotel site, restaurant, restaurant, Macaroni. That's it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And they will be set back appropriately. MR. KEESEY: Absolutely, 40 feet as per the PUD now. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Let me ask you a question about the water retention areas. They're shown very irregularly, the shapes there, which are pretty. But I see them in the ground, they look like just square, rectangular -- MR. KEESEY: Again, this is the old PUD. The new plan there is probably a little more current in terms of the shape, but they're certainly not round. MR. NINO: However, your copy, you won't notice that they're squared, because -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. They'll grow up -- MR. NINO.' -- our requirements were for aqua vegetation that would ameliorate that rectangular view. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: They look like just all concrete and square sides now and it's not very attractive. That's why you always see something like this and it looks great, but you see it in the ground and it's -- MR. KEESEY: There's still a requirement for the 20 -- 20 foot landscape buffer -- 20 feet of landscape buffer along that perimeter. Again, we're increasing that to 25 for the Macaroni area but it still remains 25 -- 20 feet landscape buffer within the first part of that 40 foot setback. Now, the lakes, of course, aren't subject to the 40 foot setback, but the buildings are subject to the 40 foot setback. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would the applicant consider then making that 25 foot landscaping all the way along Page 32 March 1, 2001 there just to make it uniform? MR. KEESEY: I don't know that we can do that with the restaurants and their current state of -- of 25 feet of landscape buffer, within the 40, is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, you know, it's your plan. MR. NINO.' Excuse me, Ron Nino, I heard you, you know, earlier, Larry, you said that there would be no front loaded parking in any event -- MR. KEESEY: Right. MR. NINO: -- so if that's the case, it is going to be landscaped. MR. KEESEY: That may be feasible. I don't know. MR. VARNADOE.' For the record, George Varnadoe. Mr. Richardson -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. VARNADOE: -- two things, the -- you're right, there's concrete bulkheads around those water features, but within those they are sculpted in a non-rectangular pattern. I think what Mr. Nino is telling you is that there'll be plantings around the edge of those, so that if you -- in a couple of years when they're grown up, you will look in there and see the irregular, but for water management purposes when we have a rainy season, we do have concrete bulkheads that will take the excess. And, yes, the 25 feet is -- as Mr. Nino says will be some type of landscaping, whether it's grass or vegetation, because all those buildings are -- parking is behind, which is, obviously, what our community character study is going to tell us to do with the buildings closer to the road and then the parking behind. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm just dickering here about the five, is you're going to do something -- you represented you're going to do something special to help ameliorate this Macaroni Grill problem, and add an additional five feet, and I just wondered if that something special then is going to apply to all of it, or is it just more grass, which is not bad, but I just want to hear your position. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, again -- I think -- try to say this right, what we don't want is what we see in some of the older centers where every 20 feet we have a tree or a bush where you get this engineered, as I'll call them, engineered landscaping. So Page 33 March 1, 2001 there are clumps and -- but, yes, we can go to 25 feet for a landscaped buffer along the front of the project. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I'm hearing then that's your intent; is that correct? MR. VARNADOE: Along 41, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of the petitioner? If not, anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. NINO: I don't have anybody signed up. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Seeing no one standing up, then I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY.' Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PUD-98-14 (1) to the Board of County Commissioners for the recommendation of approval with the stipulation of a 70 foot landscape buffer on the south side of the property, with 20 foot tall poles or the agreement that you had with the neighbor. MR. KEESEY: I just want to make one comment, it was -- the agreement with the neighbors was for a 70 foot setback -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Setback. MR. KEESEY: -- from the building, that not all that would be landscaping, some will be parking, and I think I was up front about that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The 70 foot -- MR. KEESEY: Building setback. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- building setback, and the 20 foot tall light poles shielded. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Seconded. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Rautio. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Question on the motion. Mr. Priddy, would you include the latest view, that the applicant has said that he would increase the buffering to 25 feet along Highway 417 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yes. We can include that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll agree to that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye with a comment. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Pardon? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Aye with a comment. Page 34 March 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: My comment is I'm very reluctant to bless mistakes, and in effect this is a variance that I really have some concerns about. I feel the applicant has made a good faith effort in trying to improve the situation that he found himself in. But hopefully he'll be more diligent about the rest of the site. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that -- Item F has been postponed. We go to Item G. PUD 99- -- MR. NINO.' Postponed until March the 14th. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Fifteenth. It says 15th here. MR. NINO: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. We're going to PUD 99-21, Castlewood. All those wishing to give testimony in this please rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Ray. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a disclosure. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Lloyd Sheehan has called me relative to this project, just to let me know it was coming. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Okay. Did Mr. Priddy leave or was it something I said? But, anyway, with that we'll go to Ray. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of Current Planning staff. Presenting petition PUD 99-21. The applicant is requesting to rezone 21 acres from agricultural golf course to a planned unit development to be known as Castlewood at Imperial PUD. You can see on the location map, the subject site is located off of the north side of Imperial Golf Course Boulevard, just north of an existing golf course, adjacent to ours is three residential units to the east, ag'd. zoning to the north, and the undeveloped Imperial Lakes PUD to the west. The master plan, as you can see on the master plan there's several preserve areas located at the entrance off of Imperial Golf Course, providing a buffer area at the entrance. There's also a drainage easement along the eastern side buffering the project from the existing RSF-3 dwellings to the east. A water retention lake along the western property line. Page 35 March 1, 2001 The PUD provides the adequate open space requirements consistent with the land development code, and the total is 15.4 acres. Access is provided from private Imperial Golf Course Boulevard, which access agreement has been provided. The subject site was approved by the environmental staff. It was not required to go to the EAS because of-- due to small size site, and has no wetlands on site. The project is consistent with the growth management plan for density. The density is 1.39 units per acre, which is consistent with the three that the project is allowed in this area. From a compatibility standpoint, the subject site is limited to single-family dwellings at a maximum of 35 feet, which is consistent with single-family development to the east. Staff has not received any correspondence objecting to this petition. It's consistent with all elements of the growth management plan and staff is recommending approval of this petition. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: A couple of questions, if I may. I notice on the site map that there are properties to the north of the one that's being asked to be this PUD. How are those properties going to be impacted by this? I notice in your comments, you say that they're not impacted, but how is access to those -- they're not developed -- how is access to those properties going to take place? MR. BELLOWS: Access to the vacant agricultural properties? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: They can get access from other sources. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You're not sure how, though. MR. BELLOWS: Are you referring to these? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Further north there's a road system, and I'm sorry I don't have a map that shows it, but there's a road up there that they could get access down there. The problem we have is we're limited in capacity to Imperial Golf Course Boulevard. This petition was reduced in the number of dwelling units. It originally asked for to gain access to Imperial Golf Course they had to reduce the number of dwelling units. This is a very highly Page 36 March 1, 2001 congested road as it is, and to an interconnection to the north, allowing even more units to come here was not acceptable to the homeowners' association. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I agree. That's a private road and that's two lane and it can't stand much more traffic, but I'm just concerned that our actions here don't foreclose access to those other properties. MR. BELLOWS: No more than it already is. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In other words, you're saying we have properties that can't be accessed in Collier County; is that -- MR. BELLOWS: This project was landlocked so to speak until they reached an agreement with the homeowners' association to gain access. But they would not allow an interconnect with allowing more units in. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And you're -- this is where the east-west road system is to go in? be the access? MR. BELLOWS: Further north, you mean? - there is a Would that MR. NINO: No, the east-west, I think you're talking about the east-west leg of Livingston. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, further north. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Is that how we might expect those properties to be served? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's correct. MR. NINO: You raise a very good point. It would be nice if -- as a former resident of that area, you must be very familiar with it, but it would be nice if we were in a -- and Don's not here, if we were in a retrofit mode, and we could make the entranceway pray tell, they wouldn't want to hear me say that, to Imperial Golf Estates, a public road, then we could do that interconnectivity, which I think is very desirable. I think it's very desirable to have this property interconnect with properties to the north. However, we have to appreciate this is a gated community. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, if I could just follow that point then, and particularly your comments, Ron, back earlier this was a four-phase project, and then they put in a fifth phase, if you may recall. At the time phase five of Imperial Golf Estates went in, there was a commitment made to connect that to provide this connection out to Livingston Road when it came Page 37 March 1, 2001 through. Now, Livingston Road is coming through, the roadway is still stubbed out to go that direction. What can you tell me, or is it appropriate to ask? MR. NINO: It's appropriate to ask; as a matter of fact, we have to go back to the board, you will remember that phase four was limited to 50 percent of the units, then there'd be a moratorium, and we took that issue to the board, and the board eliminated that requirement, recognizing that the lots had all been sold and it would be an unfair burden on the person who bought a lot in phase five, to say, no, no, you can't build a house on it until, somehow or other, a road magically appears from the back end of Imperial Golf Estates to the extension of Livingston -- Livingston Road. However, you can rest assured that staff in approving every project, including the Mediterra, makes provision for getting another road to the back end of Imperial Golf Estates. It's going to take time, unless the Imperial Golf Estates people feel so threatened that they ask the county to use some special authority and they're prepared to finance a road out to Livingston -- Livingston Road. However, in the normal course of development, staff will make sure that a road is made -- is developed that gets access to the back end of Imperial. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So that is still an active condition of that phase five. MR. NINO: Yes, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One last question, just to educate me, this base density and traffic congestion boundary, the minus, I've not run into that before. Could you help me understand what -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On the future land use map, the boundary running along Airport-Pulling Road is a traffic ingest boundary. The development to the west of that would be subject to losing one dwelling unit per acre. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I see. While it's four for everywhere else. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions of staff? If not, you want to hear from the petitioner?. MR. HOOVER: Good morning, commissioners, Bill Hoover, Hoover Planning, representing the petitioner. I think everything Page 38 March 1, 2001 is self-explanatory. And what was pointed out by staff is correct. We do not have the authority to grant a cross access easement to the property to the north, to grant access onto the main private road into the community. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No questions of petitioner? Anyone from the public wish to address this issue? MR. KING: My name is Jerry King. I am the president of Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association. As you may be aware, we, in 1999 when this PUD was originally submitted, we filed an objection to it, and then we entered into about 18 months of negotiations with the parties, Mr. Sheehan and the others. We have reached an agreement with them, which Mr. Bellows made mention of, that has caused us to feel that this is a development that will be attractive to the community, provided that terms of the agreement are met. And we hope to work with the development community and with the County staff to assure that those terms of the agreement are met. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?. If not, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, I would offer a motion to approve the petition PUD-99-21 and forward it to the Collier County Planning -- to the Board, for their consideration. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Richardson, seconded by Commissioner Abernathy, any further discussion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. PUD-2000-19, Sandpiper Village. All those who wish to give testimony on this, please rise, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn in.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay, Ron. MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino, for the record, Planning Services. First of all, let me apologize, I can't for the life of me figure out how that site map got in the report. Sandpiper Village PUD, all of this land is currently zoned C-4. Recently the Bayshore triangle overlay subdistrict was approved by the County Board of Commissioners and is now pending approval of the DCA. That overlay district calls for exactly the kind of thing that this Page 39 March 1, 2001 petition represents; i.e., a mixed -- mixture of commercial and residential uses in a traditional village like setting. However, that will not be -- cannot be instituted until the DCA approval is finalized. So you're -- Mr. -- MR. VARNADOE: It's final. It was advertised on February 2nd, and there was a 21 day appeal period and an appeal hadn't been received by the county, it's now a law. MR. NINO.' Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Could I ask you to tell her who you are, sir, please, for the record? MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. MR. NINO: Thank you. We weren't concerned that that wasn't going to happen, but if it didn't -- if it hadn't happened, why that would -- just going forward with the development would have been subject to that condition. I think you-all have the details of the proposal. It's 45,000 square feet of retail space, retail, office space and 180 units of housing, of which 154 or 156 are in the county portion of the development. The development standards we think are consistent with the provisions of the Bayshore Triangle Overlay district. Mr. Weeks of the long range planning division has -- has reviewed the document and there are -- a number negotiations took place in the path, and there are a couple of outstanding issues that I gave to Mr. Varnadoe, and he's going to address them in his presentation to you. Staff encourages you to recommend approval of this PUD. We think it is consistent with the Bayshore Triangle Overlay District with perhaps some very minor tweaking. This is exactly the project the community was looking for. And we heartily recommend that you approve it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, just a quick -- I notice on the -- just tell me how this works. Part of this is in the city and part of it's in the county, a small part of it's in the city? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: How does that planning go -- MR. NINO: The city will have to deal with zoning of that property, if it's not currently zoned, the city will have to deal with that issue. You're only dealing with the portion within the county, 156 dwelling units and the 45,000 square feet of retail Page 40 March 1, 2001 space. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: As a matter of course, is there communication between your two staffs. MR. NINO: Yes, there is. The city is very much supportive of the project. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Ron, not being a professional planner, the maximum height of the buildings, where it says commercial is limited to three stories, but yet commercial, residential is four stories. What, is that just something they wanted to do here or -- MR. NINO: That is to provide for the mixed use building in which commercial is in the lower spaces and residential was above it. In that context they're allowed to go somewhat higher, a story higher. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Okay. Any questions of staff? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. VARNADOE.' Again, for the record, George Varnadoe. We're here today on behalf of Antaramian Capital Partners, LLC, the owner and developer of the property in question. Also today we have with us George Garcia, the architect of the project, and Charles Thomas, Director of Planning and Development for the director. As the, excuse me -- as Mr. Nino mentioned, the project is a redevelopment of a dated strip center that's been there since I moved to town in 1975. The Chlumsky property, or the Naples Shopping Plaza, the Furniture Man was on the corner, and then you had a strip running north, south along Sandpiper. Sandpiper, obviously, is -- I think everybody here is familiar with, this is US 41. Sandpiper is the road that goes into the Royal Harbor, Oyster Bay area. The property is 15 acres in size. Thirteen acres are in the county. Two acres are in the city. And, Mr. Richardson, the dividing line is roughly along this street, something like that. The two acres that are in the city are zoned R3-12, which allows residential up to 12 units an acre. What we are doing in the city is consistent with their zoning at this time. And as Mr. Nino mentioned, this project is consistent with the recently adopted and finalized growth management plan overlay for the Gateway Triangle Redevelopment District, and the intent of that district was to provide incentives for money to come in and redevelop in that area, and it's certainly worked in this instance. The intent was also to foster this mixed use concept, which is becoming Page 41 March 1, 2001 the byword around the nation, traditional neighborhood development, urban development, where you have your mix of residential and commercial uses, alternate in the same building or, if not, in close proximity where you have an old-time village with the street -- with the buildings close to the street, parking behind the buildings are in separate structures, with green spaces devoted in larger areas as opposed to green spaces being everybody's little backyard. We're trying to develop more of a neighborhood feel. And this project does that, and if you'll allow me a couple of minutes, I'll kind of walk you through this very briefly. Starting on the west side, as I said, we have residential only along Sandpiper, two stories of residential with separate garages here, two stories of residential over parking here. In working with the Royal Harbor people and the Oyster Bay people, we have maintained what we call a linear park along here with a minimal of 40 feet on our property, plus we're going to be able to landscape about 20 feet in the right-of-way, which is not currently used. And provide a walkway at their request for entry into their project. Our rec. facilities at the corner. That'll give us the opportunity to buffer the residential from 41, and have a very interesting architectural feature at the corner. The feature of the project is obviously what we call the town square in this area here. We have three access points, one on Sandpiper that aligns with Osprey Drive to the west, a right in, right out on 41 that will serve the commercial, and then a third access on Frederick Street, which will probably serve mostly the residential. The town square, as I said, will have an architectural feature in the -- in the circle. You'll come in, you'll have parking on the street here, parking's allowed on all of the streets. We're encouraging it in some places, others, as you'll see, really is no parking. This building in this location presently will probably be one or two stories commercial only, and then transitioning on the east side to a mixed use with commercial uses on the first and maybe office on the second and then residential above it. And, Mr. Wrage, what they've done to encourage the mixed use is allow you to have an extra floor, if you have mixed use in the same building. These buildings here will be our mixed use buildings, with residential above commercial. We'll have a pedestrian walkway with an arcade on the first floor through the buildings, Page 42 March 1, 2001 to encourage that mixed use. Our green spaces, as I said, are basically in one location here, and, of course, the walkway over here. These buildings will be residential only, max. of three stories over one level of parking, but limited to 42 feet in height, pursuant to the Triangle Overlay District. We think this project has a -- going to be kind of like a miniature Fifth Avenue, is what we envision, with a nice pedestrian streetscape in the middle. The ability for residential use -- people who live here to walk anywhere, provide services on a minimum level to the surrounding neighborhood. Now, if you live in Royal Harbor, and you want anything, you're out on US 41 to go get it. Here we're trying to provide opportunities for a limited commercial, I mean, we're not going to have the Walgreens or the Eckerds or Winn Dixie there, but we will probably have a little neighborhood market, coffee shop, maybe a small restaurant in our mixed use buildings. We've also integrated into this with the same kind of architecture a parking structure to provide parking for the residential and the commercial uses. And I'm not going to go on, unless someone has questions. We're really excited about it. I think it's really going to be a real jump start for that area, and hopefully bring this Gateway Triangle District back to life. I'll be glad to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The type of commercial that you intend in there is to support the village concept, and the surrounding neighborhood? How do we know that that's really a viable concept? MR. VARNADOE: Because it's working on Fifth Avenue, I guess is my basic plain answer to you, and we just are -- we just zoned another project like this on Marco Island, we wouldn't be putting the money into it if it didn't show that this would be supportable, Ms. Rautio. We've also gone to the extent of actually sending questionnaires to everyone that lives behind this in Royal Harbor and Oyster Bay asking them what they'd like to see there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's excellent. MR. VARNADOE: They'd like to see a convenience store. They'd like to see a dry cleaning dropoff, hair salon, coffee shop, ice cream parlor, you know, just what would you like to see. And Page 43 March 1, 2001 I guess I would be remiss if I didn't say that we have met on several occasions with the Oyster Bay and Royal Harbor board of directors and I'm authorized to say they're both in support -- in support of the project. I can show you a little bit of the architecture. If you were standing in this location looking at this building, this is kind of what we envision the architecture to be. This pedestrian pass-through, if you can see, it would be in this location. So you actually have a building above it, but you have an arcade through to the parking areas, and for the pedestrian traffic. And you see you don't end up with a one level building. You end up with a staggered roof line and a lot of texture in and out, which provides a very, very appealing landscape. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Remind me, again, about how many residential units are there. yOU, MR. VARNADOE: One hundred eighty. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One hundred eighty, okay. Thank CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Can you tell me, I've forgotten, the ST Overlay on this -- just to the east across Frederick Street, is that part of the district, as well? I know it's not your project, but -- MR. VARNADOE: That would be within the district and that property is zoned C-4 also. This district runs along 41 and then down Bayshore. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No further questions. Anyone else from the public wish to address this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward PUD-2000-19 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE.' Second by-- motion made by Commissioner Priddy, seconded by Commissioner Young. Any further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Old business, I have the Rautio letter. I'm sure you-all got a copy of a letter from John Dunnuck, any comments? Page 44 March 1, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think we owe Ms. Rautio a great vote of gratitude for the work she's done and the result that she's achieved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, thank you. I hope that we can continually receive at least one set of minutes each meeting. And we appreciate that immensely. MR. NINO: Well, I can tell you we just -- we just made it for this meeting. We just made it by a day. As a matter of fact we had to delay our -- we had to delay our mailing, because they weren't available yet, so. And I'm telling you, the fault's not ours. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Might I suggest that you talk to the technology people. MR. NINO: We're talking to them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think it's the county's side and not the Clerk of Court's side that seems to have the internal difficulties. So thank you very much for being on top of that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: More so than the minutes, I have often thought a recap, although Ron does his best, sometimes his memory is as bad as mine as to what actually happened. MR. NINO: It's getting worse all of the time. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I would appreciate that myself. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think that became a side benefit of having a long discussion with Mr. Dunnuck and explaining to him some of the things from my viewpoint and what I was sharing with him from other commissioners, and he decided that that would be a good approach, and I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does the county annotate the agendas of past meetings to show -- MR. NINO: The County Board of Commissioners' meetings are annotated. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So we can look at the minutes -- MR. NINO: I think our intent is to send you those. You're on old business. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Still on old business. MR. NINO: CHAIRMAN mean? MR. NINO: be prepared for that? The next meeting will also be a workshop. WRAGE: At the tail end of the meeting, you Tail end of the meeting. Marjorie, your office will Page 45 March 1, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Well, I think, Ron, it's a joint effort on development things between us and I'll answer any questions about the development order approval, but Ramiro Manalich will be here to discuss things like Sunshine ethics and things of that nature, so. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We might want to take another hand count, Mr. Richardson, you're going to be here? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. PRIDDY: You're not. PEDONE: No, I'll be in the hospital again. PRIDDY: Sammy, you're going to be here on COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER the 15th? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I will be. RAUTIO: I plan to be. YOUNG: I will. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You-all have fun. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No new business? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, one item, if I may. Ms. Student, I've been reading quite a bit in the newspaper lately about the Supreme Court taking on some land planning issues that are near and dear to my heart. I'm sure to everyone in the community -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. You're probably talking about the takings issues that are going to be hopefully, we say hopefully, because we don't know, usually they try to avoid this stuff. But harmonizing some disparate things, I believe it's in federal law, dealing with dredge and fill issues. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I'm particularly concerned as it reflects in our ordinances, our rules and my -- as the boundaries of what I'm permitted to work on, that Mr. Priddy keeps reminding me that we have to stay inside certain boxes. I'm finding out what those boundaries are, and some of those boundaries include giving density credits for submerged lands, which I think is utterly ridiculous. So I'm very interested in how the history of this came about, and where the issues in Florida relate to that and how we might hopefully resolve this in the future. MS. STUDENT: Well, the history of it -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You don't have to answer now, but that's my -- Page 46 March 1, 2001 MS. STUDENT: -- private property rights are something you can't really get your hands around, and if you want a presentation on the history, I would say with the workload in our office, give us about -- I'm serious about this, with the number of lawsuits and meetings, we'd need a lead time of several months to prepare something like that. And it started where -- as far as the Supreme Court goes, it's very fact specific and case by case, and they're very hard to apply these types of rules, just as the Burt Harris law is, and with any predictability to get a given fact situation, and about all I can say is if you have total zero use of your property, then there's -- you know, then a taking, the original case said when a regulation goes too far, whatever that means, so, I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, from a local standpoint, we go in two cycles, right? We have a growth management plan, land development code that gets reviewed every, what, every six months? MS. STUDENT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And I'm just -- on one of these cycles I'd like to somehow get on top of what the issue is and see if there's something we can't do to get these things to match up better. MS. STUDENT: Well, I think that they're very, you know, you can apply the case law, but they're very dependent on the facts, and to try to do that and apply it to property here can be difficult, but I think what you may be talking about is a land code amendment that you may also wish to discuss with staff in terms of, you know, this issue about achieving density for submerged land, and that may be something that the Planning Commission may wish to direct that that be looked at. Usually on these matters, we will -- I think the Board of County Commissioners is also interested in that. What we would ask for is like direction of the board in this area. There may be some property rights lost there, but it may not rise to the level of a taking, but once again, we are going to have the issue with Burt Harris. The Supreme Court issues, again, deal with, you know, dredging and filling. And it's federal law, so, and particular aspects of that will, you know, be -- be involved. So, but what I'm just trying to explain to you, it's like vested rights. There's no bright line. It's dependent on the facts, each Page 47 March 1,200t property is unique and you'll miss, you know, if you want to evaluate property in the County that might be subject to this, and see what would apply and what wouldn't, you almost have to have a process to do that, because it's very difficult. Vested rights and takings and private property rights are the areas of the law that are very difficult to get your hands around and any land use or real estate attorney will tell you that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, we're fortunate to have you on the team. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm sensing no public comment. I believe we are adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:27 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY DAWN S. MCCONNELL, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 48 FORM'8B MEMORANDUM OF VO-- ING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS .AST NAME~FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME )AT~ ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED THE EOARD, C~OUNCIL COMMiES[ON, AUTHOR[~ OR COMMI'CCEE ON WHICH [ SE.r~VE O C]~ ~OU~ O O~ER LOCAL AGENCY ~iCAL SUEOIVISION: uy .OSmON ,S. Z' A~om~v~ o ELECTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the ia'.'.' when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this re-:son, please pay dose a~ention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WiTH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local pubEc africa MUST ABSTAIN Irom voting on a measure which nures to his or her special private gain or toss. Each elected or appointed focal officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the nization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a reIative; or to the special private gain or ices of a business associate. Commissioners ol community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.358 or inde endenls ecia]tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited fromvct~ng in that 63.357, F.S., and officers of P P capacity. '- For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes onIy the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wite, brother, s;stor, a.her ~n- ,=. , nother-in-taw, son-in-[aw, and daughter-inqav.'. A "business associate" means any parson or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner ol properS, or corporate shareholder (;.,'here the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. =POINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you othe~ise may participate in these matters. However, you 'nust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTENO TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this Iorm (before making any attempt ~o influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the Iorm in the minutes. (Continued on other side) -- _ APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is flied. IF YOU MAKE NO A'I-fEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose oraIly the naIure of your conflict in the measure before parlicipafing. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately Io the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, '~ f%t"~i >/%* f"% ~ ~t-I{ , hereby discfose that on (a) A measure came or ',','ill come before my agency which (check one) __ inured to my special private gain or loss; ~.~ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate. __ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative. inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or __ inured :o the special gain or loss of ., by , v,,h/c h is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has relained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nalure of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting.., except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.31 I, S. 112.313, or S. 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of S.112.3143." // Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §1 'J2.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - REV. 1/98 PAGE 2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION April 5,2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Avenue Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-35, David Redshaw Dear Mr. Scofield On Thursday, March 1, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-35. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2001-05 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. S ncej Ross Gochenaur Planner II G:/admin/BD-2000-35/RG/cw Enclosure C-' David Redshaw 215 Topanga Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34143. 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. 2001- 05 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-35 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DES~ZRIBED 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 16-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 36-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition filed by Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing David Redshaw, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 84, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, as described in Plat Book 14, Pages 114-117, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 16-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 36-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude 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. o o Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented prior to issuance of a building permit. All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-35 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Donethis 1st dayof March ,2001. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNT~Oa___RIDA JOHN M. DUNNUCK, III Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj °ri~Vl. S~udent Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-35/RG/im COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION April 5, 2001 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Mr. Dominic Novello, Jr. Novello Building Company 6893 Mill Run Circle Naples, FL 34109 REFERENCE: BD-2000-38, Monty Wuttke Dear Mr. Novello: On Thursday, March 1, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-38. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2001-06 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Ross Gochenaur Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-38/RG/cw Enclosure Monty Wuttke, Jr. 220 Heron Avenue Naples, FL 34108 Customer Service 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- 06 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-38 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 20-foot by 32-foot boathouse over an existing dock protruding 20 feet into the Waterway in an RSF-3 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 Dominic Novello, Jr., representing Monty Wuttke, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 5, Block "P", Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, Unit 2, as described in Plat Book 3, Page 17, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 20-foot by 32-foot boathouse in the RSF-3 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-2000-38 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 1 st day of March ,2001. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GAR~ WRA'dt~, CH~ANi JOHN M. DUNNUCK, III Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Marj-o~-M. Student r Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-38/RG/im -2-