Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/19/2001 RApril 19, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 19, 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 8:31 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gary Wrage Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Michael Pedone Joyceanna J. Rautio Lora Jean Young NOT PRESENT: Russell A. Priddy Dwight Richardson ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Planning Services Page 1 CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2001 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF. AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF l0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS VA-2001-AR-398, Don Kirby, representing Handy Food Stores, requesting a 45- foot variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback established for automobile service stations to 5 feet and a 23-foot variance from the required 50-foot side yard setback established for automobile service stations to 27 feet for property located at 1812 Lake Trafford Road, further described as Trafford Pines Estates Section 1, in Section 32, Township 46 South,'Ran~e 29'East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) Bo VA-2001-AR-400, Don Kirby, representing Handy Food Stores, requesting a 45-foot variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback established for automobile service stations to 5 fee. t and a 25-foot variance from the required 50-foot side yard setback established for automobile service stations to 25 feet for property located at 417 New Market Road, further described as Lot 1, Block 27, New Market, in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chaharam Badamtchian) 3. 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM I I. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 04/19/01 CCPC AGENDA/SM/ira April 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Let's call to order this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission this April 19th, 2001. And we'll start by first calling the roll. Commissioner Priddy has skipped. Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Wrage is here. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Commissioner Richardson is excused. Any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: We have no minutes in front of us. Any planning commission absences? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I will be absent at the May 3rd, 4th, whatever it is. First meeting in May. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I will also. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll be absent from it. I won't be absent at it. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I'm glad we clarified that. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Important distinction. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any BCC report, Susan? MS. MURRAY: I went over the agenda. I didn't see anything I thought you would have a huge interest in. There was a conditional use that was approved, CU-2021, Bill Hoover's Page 2 April 19, 2001 conditional use for a child day-care service off of Naples Boulevard. And that was all I saw that might be of interest to you. And I didn't know if any of you caught the BCC workshop, Community Development BCC workshop, but I highly recommend it. If you didn't, I'd be happy to get you a tape and take a look at it because a lot of -- there's a lot of positive things that came out of that, a lot of good information on our technological enhancements that we're planning for the future that might be of interest to you as well. So if anybody wants a tape of that, I'd be happy to get that to them. Or if you'd like me to present a summary at the next meeting, I'd be happy to do that as well. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. With that, I have no report. We'll move right into advertised public hearings, the first one being VA-2001-AR-398. 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.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chahram, it seems to be all your show this morning. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. You have seen a similar variance, like, two weeks -- four weeks ago for the same chain of food stores. Basically, Handy Food Stores requesting a 50 -- a 45-foot variance from the required 50-foot setback along Lake Trafford Road and a 23-foot variance from the required 50-foot setback along 19th Street to allow the construction of the canopy over existing gas pumps. Basically what they are doing, they are renovating the site and the building. The problem is they have pumps, and they have no canopy over them, and insurance is asking them to build some canopy. They are afraid that the lightning will hit the pump Page 3 April 19, 2001 without the canopy over it. And also, when it rains the ground -- asphalt gets real slick and slippery because of the gas residue on the ground. They want to cover the pump area. They are not adding additional pumps. They are not relocating pumps. They have two pumps, and they are putting just the roof over those two pumps. Basically staff recommends approval of this variance. You have approved a similar variance four weeks ago for the same store -- the same chain. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: The only major change was the other one was a reconfiguration of pumps and -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: -- different -- these are still just -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They were adding additional pumps, and here they are not. They are just -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Yesterday I drove by both these sites, and I guess to show you how observant I was, I didn't even realize there was no canopy at all, not even a sign. And I can -- my other colleague from Immokalee has left, but I can assure you this would be an enhancement. And they are upgrading all of their stores in Immokalee, which I commend them for that. Any questions of staff? If not, we hear from the petitioner. MR. KIRBY: Hi. I'm Don Kirby. How you doing? Just to bring you up to date on the one we recently got passed, we had a preapplication meeting with the planning department. And we want you-all to know that we've agreed to not only do the improvements that we came to get a variance for a few weeks ago, but they've also indicated the reconfiguration of the entry and exit. We'll be adding substantial green space in front of that, especially around the corner where transportation had concerns Page 4 April 19, 2001 with on the last variance. And basically that same procedure and policy that the owners have established will carry over also to the new site. So they do decide -- or they have decided to do additional landscaping and improvements, painting the parking spaces and locating the dumpster area around the side so it's out of view. And it looks pretty much that this is our first step in what we would consider a ma]or upgrade of our property. That's -- pretty much was the motivation originally. We wanted to upgrade and improve aesthetically what's there. Of course, if sales increase, that certainly would be a benefit to us, and we hope that. So we just want you-all to know that we're here for the long haul. Anything that we need to do after this meeting with planning during the permit review we'll be more than happy to comply with. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Kirby? MR. KIRBY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The staff predicates or seems to predicate your need for a variance on the fact that the tank and the piping is in place. It seems to me we went down that road on your other one, and that wasn't really so much -- it was more the turning radius for the cars to park at your convenience store. Which is it? MR. KIRBY: Well, what -- the situation -- of course, there's two things with the piping. The existing piping, if we had to move it, of course would be a ma]or expense to -- to relocate fuels and stuff. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' But you wouldn't necessarily. MR. KIRBY: No, not -- no, sir. In this particular case -- at least on the last one, if we had tried to move it back, we would have reduced the parking radius between the pump and Page 5 April 19, 2001 the building. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. That's what I thought - MR. KIRBY: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' -- was the principal driving force. MR. KIRBY: In this particular case, as you can see also, if we try to move back the pump, we again would crush that area a little bit more. On this site we have a little more green space already established around the front of the property. We intend to enhance that area also a little bit with additional landscaping materials and that. The -- our biggest concern is -- was we want to protect our customers from when they leave the pumps and they walk towards the building and keep them out of the environment. It's becoming pretty much a given now that if you are -- in this state, as we all know, three to six it's going to rain on us, some day at least, at least it used to. We're trying to provide that convenience and cover to our patrons. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Well, then what's the bottom line? You don't want to move the island because ... MR. KIRBY: Primarily is if we try to move it back too much, I think what we're going to do is end up with conflicts between the cars pulling in and the cars backing up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I thought. MR. KIRBY: Exactly. The -- and, of course, I have to admit that nobody wants to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars to dig up person -- perfectly good tanks. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Would you have to? MR. KIRBY: No, sir. If we had -- if we didn't get this variance, in order to push the canopy back, we would have to push it Page 6 April 19, 2001 -- literally the back edge of the canopy would probably be over the existing parking spaces. So by-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To get beyond the tanks. MR. KIRBY: Right. Right. To get to within what I call the building envelope, behind the setbacks, our islands would be pushed too far back that we wouldn't have any room between the islands and the parking to maneuver at all. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. KIRBY: So we definitely need it, but we certainly don't want to say that our hardship is we don't want to spend $200,000; we just can't. I mean, if we -- if we spent that money and moved them back, we would -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Defeat yourself. MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Yeah. Then we're -- then we're going to go up against planning because we won't have enough parking left. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are you saying the only option, if we don't give you this variance, is to spend $200,000 to move underground tanks and piping? MR. KIRBY: Well, to redo the entire fuel system, yes, ma'am. But then if we do that, we would be pushing the island too far -- too close to the building. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Actually, you could move the island, but you could leave the tanks in the ground and extend the piping. Or do you have to move the tanks? MR. KIRBY: Correct. Because the tanks right now, in order to move the island back, are between the island and the building. And when you go to move the island back, when you put your footings in, the tanks are already in that location. So we'd have to remove the tanks, put them where the island is now, if it can be Page 7 April 19, 2001 done. We really haven't checked into that as far as the exact dimensions that -- because we just didn't feel it was feasible to do that because it would mess up our parking more, encroach -- I mean, crush down the area between the building and reduce the area between the building and the islands to a point where traffic couldn't move. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So the island is integral to the tank -- MR. KIRBY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- staying in the ground. MR. KIRBY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MR. KIRBY: So we would have to literally flip-flop the two islands, put the tanks front, and put the islands back. But as soon as we move the island back, then we wouldn't have the room we needed to maneuver between the island and the building. So we're really kind of stuck. If there was an option that we could have avoided the variance hearings -- because we've had -- we've been working on these since December, and we would have been more than happy, if that was feasible, to go ahead and do that to avoid the time delay involved. But it just -- we checked to see the age of the tanks. They're all very current. They're all modern piping, double-wall piping, all that good stuff. So it would be kind of like throwing away perfectly good material in hopes that it would work if we moved it, and we don't think it will. With the requirements that transportation has for backing out and island distances, we couldn't keep all that space between the islands and the building by moving them, so we decided to go this way. And as it's turning out, we haven't had, really, any objections to this point. And we're trying to ensure everybody agrees with us by offering not only -- if the variance is approved, we also are Page 8 April 19, 2001 going forward with other improvements; painting, landscaping, that kind of stuff. Again, our motivation was to improve the aesthetics of these stores. Certainly, as I said earlier, we want our sales to improve a little bit, but that wasn't the primary trigger. We wanted to improve the looks of that area. This is Charlie Martin. He's with B & B Foods. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any other questions? MR. MARTIN: Excuse me. One of the other issues that -- that prompted us to try and get these canopies approved is also to provide the additional security and safety that the additional lighting under the canopy provides to the site in those areas. Again, like I said in our last meeting for the last variance, this is on one of the high-crime areas that the cops' initiative down in Immokalee has established. And, you know, we're always fighting graffiti and loitering and everything else. So by not only putting the canopy in, it'll make a more secure environment for our customers, but also deter crime in that area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this -- this makes No. 2 and No. 3. Is this it for Immokalee? MR. MARTIN: For the canopies. The other -- the other three stores that we have in Immokalee do have canopies currently. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? All right. I close the -- I'm sorry. Anybody from the public wish to address this? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Wait a minute. I do have one question. This letter from transportation that says they would back it only if they would agree to remove, at their cost, anything due to improvements to Lake Trafford Road and 19th Street. Do you agree with that? MR. MARTIN: I think that's putting an undue burden on us. If -- if they did widen the road and took a -- you know, part of our property, the normal course would be that they would be Page 9 April 19, 2001 compensating us for the property that they took. So we would be giving away these rights if they did that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. But you're asking for a variance now. You're asking for something from us. And if they decide to widen that road, you -- then you want your cake and you want to eat it too. If you -- if you're looking for something, you've got to give something in return, I would think, you know, SO -- MR. MARTIN: This is an if. You know, we don't know if and when it'll happen. If and when it'll happen, certainly we would have to -- to modify our site to accommodate what plans may come -- come about in the future. But to say that we're going to, you know, bear all the cost of moving the canopy and the improvements, which could be the gas tanks under -- underground and the gas dispensers, the pylon sign, and everything else that may be involved there, I don't think that's a - - a fair burden to place on us. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Under-- MR. MARTIN: I would have to take this to the executive counsel. You know, I can't give you a definite yes or no at this point. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Under normal circumstances if they tried to widen the road, would you be compensated for having to, say, move your tanks and the islands, etc.? MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma'am. From -- again, I'm sure the gentleman here from transportation could probably address that a little better. But our -- we see -- if this is planned and they have some documents that show this potential road widening, we certainly would like to see those. We've done our extensive homework, and as I understand it, if, in fact, these drawings are available, it's -- we don't want to go ahead if you-all are going to Page 10 April 19, 2001 in a year from now. But 20 years from now, ladies and gentlemen, I personally don't think I'll be involved 20 years from now. But, again, I agree with Charlie. That's something that we would be more than willing to deal with. My attitude -- and I'm a retired building official from St. Petersburg and Central Florida -- if in 15 years you-all come to a property owner and say, "Look, we're widening this road for the next 10 miles from Point A to Point B,' certainly there's always a person that's going to hold out, maybe, until the last minute. But the bottom line, it all comes about. And if your road widening is going to take -- totally take away the gas islands, that's something that we would have to deal with at that time. We couldn't stand in the way. We certainly would want to be compensated for the land we give you, like anybody else along the road, and that's the normal procedure. You-all would come along and pick up these right-of-ways or buy land if you need it to do that. But from my research -- and I've done extensive research here in the last few months -- there is no official record that shows there's a plan. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there's -- there might be some 20-year dream plan that we all have to work with but -- MR. SCOTT: Don Scott with transportation division. This covers -- it could be other types of improvements. It might not be a road widening. It could be lighting. It could be other issues like that. MR. KIRBY: MR. MR. MR. could be Road widening? SCOTT: I mean, it could be -- KIRBY: Underground issues and things? SCOTT: It could be lighting. It could be landscaping. other things -- It Page 11 April 19, 2001 MR. KIRBY: We-- MR. SCOTT: -- to do with the roadway. MR. KIRBY: I don't think at this point, unless you want to put an oak tree where one of our pumps is, we would have a problem even if you-all needed to come along the right-of-way and put in new pipes and cable communications, landscaping. As a matter of fact, our landscaping on the store that we had approved was -- our plans were to put in more than what -- based on what I've read on the landscape ordinance, we're intending to put in a little bit more than what the minimum requirements of the county. So chances are if you have a landscaping project that goes down that road, ours will probably be in better shape than what you-ali's minimum plans would be. So your concern with, say, 20 years from now the road going in and it might take out our canopy, well, that's 20 years from now. The canopy will probably be to a point where it needs to be replaced or -- you know, who knows with the conditions. I don't know if canopies really last 20 years, to be honest. I've never really seen a 20-year-old one still standing up without -- you know, with the wind conditions we have every other year or so around here. So -- but I'm -- we can go on record as saying that we would be open. We certainly wouldn't be the -- the thorn in the side on the issue. If you decided to go forward with the road widening, we would all be for it. Maybe 20 years from now our store would be to a point where we need to tear it down and rebuild. And at that point -- we've done this with some other companies, where they raise their building and move it back 20 or 30 feet and rebuild a whole new site with the new configuration of the roadway. So that's always an option. Twenty years from now is a long -- a long time. You know, a lot of things could happen. I can probably tell you the building 20 Page 12 April 19, 2001 years from now would be -- would be considered to be raised and rebuilt at that point, just for the architecture and the aesthetic values at that point. We just want you-all to know, like the other one, we're here to work with you-all. We're not going to stand in the way of improvements. If you need to take 200 feet of the land all the way up and down that road, let's face it; it will happen. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question of staff. This gentleman is telling us that he's done a lot of research since December, and there are no real plans that he can see to either widen the road or -- or add streetlighting or perhaps do some massive landscaping. My question to you is, do you have some plans? MR. SCOTT: I don't at the moment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. My other question is, you've had this, I guess, since December. Why do we have this document now and not part of our -- our packet to tell us that you're asking these people to give up rights? Why was it delivered to us today? I'm confused. MR. SCOTT: I couldn't answer that. I was given this about an hour ago. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, I can probably answer that. Typically the transportation department doesn't review variances. Our engineering review section and the current planning section does, and they're charged with recognizing whether or not there's a potential transportation impact, bringing it to our attention, and then us forwarding the packet to transportation for their review. And that -- that was not indicated to us in this case. This is the first time we've seen the memo as well. Just a couple comments, if I will, a couple things to consider. Granted, there are no plans to extend the road at this Page 13 April 19, 2001 time or widen the road at this time. Another thing to consider, too, is if this was a sign or a fence or something of that nature that was permitted by right, then if the county was to go in and widen the road, then we would be required to compensate the property owner -- correct me if I'm wrong, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: -- for taking any of those type of structures. However, you may want to consider that the -- the current ordinance does not provide for this type of setback. The setback is required to be 50 feet, and the petitioner is coming before you to ask for a variance from that. You might want to give that some consideration. I don't think their request is too unreasonable. If the county takes property, obviously the gas tanks are existing; anything like that, of course, the property owner would be required to be compensated. But in this case, in my opinion, they're asking for a special request through a variance, and I don't think it's -- it's unreasonable to request that they bear some of the cost of relocating that structure if there is a -- MS. STUDENT: And I would concur in that. And if there was a problem with the language -- and I haven't talked to transportation. But where the language says "proposed canopy and other improvements," just to make that clear that that's associated with the variance we could add language "other improvements associated with the grant of the subject variance." So that would make it clear that what the county is doing is not asking them to give up any proposed compensation for all improvements that might be impacted by any future road widening, but only the -- any other improvements besides the canopy that are associated with the grant of this variance. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Are we talking only about the canopy, then, that's -- Page 14 April 19, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Well, I'm not-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean, I just want to make clear - MS. STUDENT: I do not know, and maybe Mr. Badamtchian can help. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Pardon me. The variance is only for the canopy, and I believe that the language should be amended to say "for the proposed canopy" and not "other improvements." "Other improvements," I don't know what they mean by that. Probably they mean landscaping, a new sign, or whatever other improvements they want to do on the site. And I don't believe they should be tied to the -- they are not tied to the variance, and I don't think that we should ask them not to be compensated. If the county wants to remove them, we'll ask them to remove them. MS. STUDENT: That's what I had proposed because I don't know -- that language -- if there were other improvements associated with the grant of the variance, then that becomes kind of the quid pro quo, that we're being asked to grant a variance for something. But at the same time, with this language in there, that would mitigate, you know, the county for any -- you know, anything would have to -- like, as Commissioner Pedone said, you know, having your cake and eating it too. So that would be a trade-off. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you know, if the county had some imminent plans to do something over there, I can understand they wouldn't want people loading up the property with the knowledge, even, that they're going to tear it down or have to tear it down. But if we're just talking about something that's so far over the horizon that nobody can see it, the odds are that, as the gentleman said, the canopy's apt to be depreciated by that time and in need of replacement anyway so -- Page15 April 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Abernathy. If there's no specific plans, then why don't we just adopt a policy that any time anybody asks for a variance, we get extortions at that time? Well, that's not the way we do it. So if there's not specific plans, I think it's out of line to ask for exceptional requests. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing that's in the long-range plan is what they call the Immokalee bypass, which actually the main road that that would relieve is this one right here. MS. MURRAY: That's all that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And that -- that is to circumvent the truck traffic going through the residential, which is most of what New Market Road is so ... MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And I have a concern, just reading this again, that if we're talking about proposed canopy and what we do with this variance, that would seem reasonable. You're only 5 feet away from Lake Trafford. But the way this reads, "other improvements required for improvement," if you're having to remove your canopy and other improvements, I don't -- I think that's an undue, unfair burden upon this particular property owner. And I -- I would -- if I were this person, I would withdraw the petition. I wouldn't -- MS. STUDENT: That's why I suggested the language, because I feel that it would have to be tied to the variance, and it couldn't go beyond that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you indulge me for a moment and read the -- your change and suggestion so I can write it down and think about it for just a moment? MS. STUDENT: Okay. And I haven't discussed this with transportation because I knew it was coming, but I hadn't seen Page 16 April 19, 2001 the actual language. (As read): "Should removal or relocation of the proposed canopy and other improvements associated with the grant of the subject variance be required" -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Going too fast. MS. STUDENT: -- "for improvements to either New Market Road or Glades Street, the cost shall be borne in the entirety by the property owner or owners.". COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So all you did was insert the words "associated with this grant of" -- MS. STUDENT: "With the grant of the subject variance," uh- huh. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It seems a little more reasonable. MR. KIRBY: And possibly at that point it would need to come down anyway, with -- like the gentleman said, with depreciation. But we certainly in the future, if we do any improvements in, say, five or six years from now, we will come back to engineering and specifically say, "Guys, you know, we're planning on putting some landscape in. Is there anything come to, you know, term at this point? Is there anything" -- but it sounds like the bypass is the road that's going to be the number one priority, I guess, going around. If, in fact, that does go through -- if, in fact, the bypass goes through, the traffic on that area would probably be reduced some so .... MR. MARTIN: May I interject here? The site plan that we're talking about on this screen here and Variance Petition 2001-AR- 398 is Lake Trafford and not the New Market. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There was some mention of New Market, and that's the next one. MR. MARTIN: Right. So I want to make sure that we're both -- everybody's talking about the same project. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But on this one you're only 5 feet away from Lake Trafford Road if we grant this variance. Page 17 April 19, 2001 me, MR. MARTIN: From the property line -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: From the property line, excuse MR. MARTIN: COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- on the one on New Market Road. No, no. We're on -- Lake Trafford Road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because you're asking for a 45- foot variance from the required 50 foot, so there's only going to be 5 feet left. MR. MARTIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does anybody know how wide the right-of-way is along there? I mean, they might be able to four-lane it without doing anything like this. MR. SCOTT: A hundred feet of right-of-way. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How much? MR. SCOTT: A hundred feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And there are two lanes now? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: It's two lanes now. In fact -- and I apologize. I thought we were talking about -- both stores are similar. I thought we were talking about New Market. You're right. We're on Lake Trafford Road. On both of these, it is road with a drainage ditch and then their landscaping and then their curbing so MR. KIRBY: With our added green space, it will be quite a wide, green -- combining the county right-of-way and our land, we will have a substantial area. Now, whether or not the -- whether or not the road could fit in without taking any land, again, we couldn't really make that determination until some -- some Page 18 April 19, 2001 preliminary plans have been drawn up by transportation. It's possible when they go down that road -- in my experiences with public works and planning over my years in government, we consider -- we go out and see what it is. And if roads can be jogged slightly without having to build bridges or fill land in, sometimes it's easier just to jog a road 10 feet in the long term. So I don't know if there's anybody that can say they're going to take 60 feet of the one side of the road and 30 feet of our side or 60 feet of our side and 30 feet of the other side. It's kind of hard to determine. But as -- as being in planning for a while, you look at your existing conditions, and you try to plan road expansions with as little impact on the citizenry and the surrounding area as possible. And if a road has a few little curves in it, that tends to add to the -- you know, the character of the community. You know, these long six-lane straightaways that go from the interstate to the beach are great for main arteries, but maybe on some of the other roads some curvature not only reduces the impact on the people on the side of the road, but it also adds a little character to the road. And, again, it's -- nothing's been planned. So how do we do it? CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Any further questions? No one from the public wishes to speak? If not, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. We're talking about VA-2001-AR-398, the one on Lake Trafford Road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to forward Petition VA-2201-AR-398 to the county commission recommending -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Board of Zoning Appeals -- pardon me -- recommending approval without the language Page 19 April 19, 2001 requested by the Transportation Services Division. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commission Abernathy, seconded by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Opposed. (No response.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Motion carries. MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: With that we go to Petition V-2001-AR- 400, New Market Road. 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.} CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Chahram, is there any significant difference between the two? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. The only thing is they are asking a 5-foot setback on one side and 25 on the other side. The other one they were asking 5 and 27. So otherwise, they are similar variances, the corner lot, same gas, same -- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And I think the only difference between the two stores, one has a laundromat and one does not. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Other than that, the stores are fairly identical, and the -- the road ditches are fairly identical. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Chahram, before this goes forward, you need to clean this up (indicating). This last enclosure is from the other petition. It talks about Lake Trafford Road. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sorry. I fix that. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Any further comments, Page 20 April 19, 2001 questions of staff? Petitioner wish to make any comments on this petition? Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is the assumption that -- since we were handed the transportation memo for this particular variance also, that they're asking the same inclusion that we just had this discussion over? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's our choice to keep it in or take it out? MR. SCOTT: Correct. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: No further questions? Anybody from the public wish to address this? If not, I close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion to forward Petition V-2001-AR-400 to the Board of Zoning Appeals recommending approval without the language requested by the Transportation Services Division. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Moved by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Budd. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: CHAIRMAN WRAGE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Young had a request. Opposed. Motion carries. MR. MARTIN: Thank you very much. MR. KIRBY: Thank you. Any old business? Under new business Commissioner Page 21 April 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Having watched the community character hearings, I wonder -- I know I would like a copy of the community character report, and I don't know if any of the other commissioners would. MS. MURRAY: We've ordered copies for you. They will be in in a week I'm told. And once we receive them, we'll go ahead and mail them to you. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: I -- I did get your request yesterday, and I was trying to fish out a copy for you, and I was unsuccessful. So I've been told in a week they will arrive. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: If you --just enclose them in our next packet would probably be appropriate if that's easier. MS. MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Under the next item, there were some disclosures from previous discussion whether we want to do this or not. Any comments before we get into the workshop? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Well, the informational workshop on what to do as a planning commissioner?. I don't want to sound like I know it all, but unless there's some new rules -- I've been doing it for 7 1/2 years. I'm quite comfortable. However, I know there are new commissioners, and they -- and I know that when I got started I had an orientation, and it was most informative and most helpful. And for those that have questions, I think it would be very appropriate to discuss and participate. But for myself, if there's no new rules or new requirements, I'd respectfully excuse myself. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Just to comment. I know we -- Sammy has resigned, and I believe that's just being advertised at this time; right? MS. MURRAY: Right. That's handled by Sue Filson. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: So we're probably looking at a new Page 22 April 19, 2001 commissioner in another month or so? MS. MURRAY: I think that's reasonable, yes. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: And Commissioner Richardson, also a new commissioner, is not here. Unless there's a burning issue or anybody that's got a burning issue, I'd recommend that we have particularly those two present. And I agree with Mr. Budd, although I'm not as old and esteemed as he is. It would certainly have been beneficial to me -- I did not have an orientation, and it took me -- of course, I'm a little slower learner than he is. It took me a while to catch on. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: We didn't want to say anything, Gary. MS. MURRAY: Let me make sure I understand what you're seeking because I think -- it's probably a good thing you're asking to continue this because I don't think what I brought was -- sounds like what you were asking for. I believe -- what I understood to be the case was that you were looking for some presentation on the development review process itself-- perhaps, Ms. Young, I think this may have come from you -- you know, how property gets rezoned, kind of the procedural -- an overview of the process of how property gets rezoned and developed in the county. Now, that's what I understood, but that's -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. And maybe the -- all three of the coming new commissioners probably -- I -- I would like to know more about the pending changes in legislation, you know, and how they will affect some of our decisions. MS. MURRAY: With respect to the hearing examiner? Is that what you're referring to? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: The community character, the growth management. Aren't they working on the land -- the development code? MS. MURRAY: Correct. Right. Page 23 April 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: And -- and I know as a new member I need to know about these things. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: When is the next LDC cycle? MS. STUDENT: May 2nd are your -- I believe your hearings are May 2nd and May 16th. And the hearing officer amendments will be in that packet. And as far as the rural -- the comprehensive plan amendments and the rural fringe committee and the rural lands committee, we expect to have comp plan amendments coming to you in the fall for the rural fringe. And there -- in fact, I believe it's June 13 our board of county commissioners is going to have a workshop, and any of you would be invited, you know, to attend that on the rural fringe issues, community character. There's going to be a board meeting or workshop on that on June the 5th. And our outside legal counsel, Nancy Lenanne, has advised our board that -- not to take any collegial action on anything having to do with the rural lands or the rural fringe before those items are presented by staff and the committees. And it's just a process type of thing, not to run ahead of the process, the parameters of which are outlined in the final order, and just not to run ahead of that. So it's coming, and I wanted to advise you of those dates. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think I'd like to make a statement here. I've been on this board since, what, September 29th of -- an entire year ago. It's been more than a year and a half. I requested an orientation. I've been involved in the county government, the Development Service Advisory Committee. I've done an incredible amount of volunteer work to understand how our county works, whether it related to my business or not. And I had made the request of staff for an orientation myself when I first came on. We were new. I think there should be a standard orientation that's presented to new board members, even a Page 24 April 19, 2001 packet. In fact, I was so frustrated at one point in time I started putting together a packet to write -- when having the ability, to put words together on paper as a publisher, because it's frustrating for a new person who may not have been involved as much as I've been involved. I still don't understand some of the processes like I would like to, and it's unfair to have new commissioners come on board with not a lot of orientation or even written material that they can review. And I know that's part of what we finally got here. Commissioner Young kept being persistent and asking and got a response from staff. So in a way I'm disappointed that we're not going to have this information today, but I'm familiar with a lot of it. However, it would certainly be nice to extend the courtesy to those of us who give up our professional time to come and take the time to understand what's happening and that a little bit more information, both written and oral -- oral presentation from staff, whether it's legal or planning or transportation, whomever. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I appreciate that. Since your terms vary, maybe we could set a standard whereby at a certain time of the year we give an overall orientation and then we have a packet that we hand out to all new commissioners as they come on board one by one. And then maybe once or twice a year we could give an overall orientation of some of these processes to you. Does that sound acceptable, or any ideas? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm open for-- CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Anything's better than what we have now probably. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I mean, I'm not even sure that new commissioners get that lovely Land Development Code which can't seem to be updated on a regular basis with the contract we have with the vendor that's supposed to update Page 25 April 19, 2001 those on a timely basis, which is my taxpayers' dollars being used. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who wound you up this morning? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I didn't have enough caffeine. MS. MURRAY: Do all -- all of you do have a copy of the Land Development Code, though; is that correct? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. Yes. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Jodi has ordered some, and I've got a few, COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: lately. It certainly hasn't been updated MS. MURRAY: I -- we empathize. Patrick White, I understand, is still working on that process with Municipal Code Corporation, and we hope to have that resolved soon. I haven't gotten an update from him recently, but I will check with him. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Whatever happened -- Ramiro was in here on the edge of his seat to give us a briefing on this thing (indicating). Has that gone by the wayside? MS. STUDENT: No. There is a local government law seminar that quite a significant number of people in our office are attending today and tomorrow and, I believe, part of Saturday. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So he's still -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. That's still -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- in the wings? MS. STUDENT: Yes. That's still-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I hope he didn't expect us to read all of this. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: Okay. Everybody resolved that issue? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WRAGE: I gather we're not having a workshop Page 26 April 19, 2001 today. No one from the public? to comment on anything? The board? If not, we're adjourned. Anybody from the public want There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:12 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GARY WRAGE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 27