Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/21/2001 RJune 21,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 21,2001 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 8:35 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "B" (Supervisor of Elections) of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Ken Abernathy Russell A. Priddy Lora Jean Young Michael Pedone David Wolfley NOT PRESENT: Russell Budd Dwight Richardson ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Interim Current Planning Manager Page 1 CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2001 IN THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TRAINING ROOM, IN TIlE MARTIN LUTHER KING BUILDING, BUILDING "B', COLLIER 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 WRI'I'I'EN 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 SUBMITrED 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: LDC AMENDMENTS, MAY 16, 2001 & REGULAR CCPC MEETING, MAY 17, 2001 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: RUSSELL BUDD & DWIGHT RICHARDSON 5. BCC REPORT: LDC RECAPS, JUNE 6, 2001 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS BD-2001-AR-463, Miles L. Scofield of Tun'ell & Associates, Inc., representing Jack Antaramian, requesting a 120-foot extension to construct a boat dock protruding a total of 140 feet into the waterway for property located on Keewaydin Island, Parcel 2, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) BD-2001-AR-739, Turrell & Associates, Inc. and Cherry, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, representing Liberty Ventures of Naples, Inc., requesting a 14-foot extension to allow for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 34 feet into the waterway for property located at 9203 Vanderbilt Drive, further described as Lots 5 and 6, Block G, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 2, in Section 32, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) VA-2001-AR-688, Jim Hudson, representing Stoneburner-Hudson Trust, requesting a 2.0~foot variance from the required 15-foot side yard setback to 13 feet for property located at 1600 Airport Road South, further described as the east 158 feet of Lot 133, Naples Grove & Truck Company's Little Farms No. 2, in Section I 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) VA-2001-AR-814, McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing Gulf Coast Development Group, LLC, requesting a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for property located on the east side of Tamiami Trail (U S 41), north of Livingston Road, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) VA-2001-AR-848, Scott A. Lincoln, P.E., of Lincoln Allen Civil Engineering Group, Inc., representing Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, requesting a 7.6-foot variance from the required 50-foot front yard setback to 42.5 feet and a 3.25-foot variance from the required 40-foot rear yard setback to 36.75 feet for property located at 4716' Tamiami Trail (U S 41), further described as Lots 43 and 44, Pineland-on-the-Trail, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) PUDZ-2001-AR-620, Anita L. Jenkins, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Long Bay Partners, LLC, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" and "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Mediterra PUD having the effect of increasing acreage from 954± acres to 1168± acres, adding a Village Center District with a maximum of 20,000 square feet, reducing density from 0.56 units per acre to 0.65 units per acre, for property located approximately one mile west of 1-75 along the north side of the Livingston Road Easl/West corridor in Sections I I and 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) OLD BUSINESS: Workshop for Training/Planning & Legal Issues - WILL NOT take place on 6/21as previously scheduled NEW BUSINESS 8. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 9. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 10. ADJOURN 6/21/01 CCPC AGENDA/SM/im 2 June 21,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call to order the June 21 st, 2001, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission being held in a different location than normal. First item on the agenda is the roll call. Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd, absent. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, present. Ms. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And Mr. Richardson, absent. We do have a quorum. Next item is addenda to the agenda. Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. We would request that Item F, PUDZ-2001-AR-620 be continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So move. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion and a second to continue Item F indefinitely. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Call the question. All in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. I would like to mention to the audience that since we do not have mikes up here, it Page 2 June 21,2001 would be very nice of you-all not to talk at all so that our court reporter can stay on top of what it is that we are saying. And when you address us, please make sure you speak up specifically. Okay. The next item will be approval of the minutes. We have two sets here, May 16th and May 17th. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I make a motion we approve the minutes of May 16th and May 17th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a -- we have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One item I forgot on the housekeeping aspect of the addenda to the agenda, we would like to point out that on the second page we need to renumber. After the public hearings which are 7, old business is No. 8. New business is No. 9. Public comment becomes No. 10. Discussion of agend -- addenda is No. 11, and adjournment would be No. 12, and hopefully we can have that housekeeping typographical error fixed in the future. Okay. Planning Commission absences. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll be absent for the second meeting in July. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Anyone else anticipating absences? And it is a reminder that we will not meet on the first Thursday of July. Okay. Board of County Commissioner report and recap for June 6. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Madam Chair. I'll just give you a brief Page 3 June 21,2001 overview, and then we'll also distribute the summary sheet once we fill it in for you. I'll just hit the highlights. For the RT zoning district in the floor-area-ratio issue, the board voted to go back to the pre-June of 2000 amendments which basically were a density cap of 26 units per acre and a minimum and maximum room size for hotels and motels. MR. ABERNATHY: No FAR, though. MS. MURRAY: No FAR. That's correct. And staff is going to be looking at the C -- the commercial zoning districts and the RT zoning districts coming up in the future and doing a little bit more research and study on that and then possibly bringing forward a -- an FAR proposal or something to the effect depending on the outcome of the study but... The second major issue was the hearing examiner, and that passed unanimously with some modification. I'm sure if you're keeping up with the discussion, there was talk about doing things in smaller increments, such as starting out with the variances and some of the smaller processes that the board usually deals with, such as nonconforming-use alterations and things of that nature. So we did amend the hearing examiner provision to start out that way, for the hearing examiner to start out that way, and then they would be -- also be providing recommendations for conditional-use processes but would not be handling the zoning process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was there any discussion of variance losers being able to come to the commission instead of having to go to circuit court? MS. MURRAY: I don't recall. Do you recall? MS. STUDENT: No. MS. MURRAY: I don't think there was any discussion about that. There was modification made to public participation. I believe if by majority vote the board opts to hear somebody who wasn't Page 4 June 21,2001 present at either -- the hearing examiner, that they can do that. As well, we told the board in the administrative regs, when we're drafting those, that there will still be a second hearing in front of the hearing examiner. So there actually will be two hearings in front of the hearing examiner. Coupled with the public-participation strategy we have forthcoming, I think the board was happy with that and as well as the public. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: would still hear the zoning? MS. MURRAY: The -- right. So the Planning Commission The Planning Commission would still hear the rezonings, and the hearing examiner would do -- I've got an outline here, and I'll get that to you. But I've got variance, nonconforming-use alterations, Immokalee overlay district issues, off-street parking and stacking -- I don't know if I'm sure what that's referring to -- sign variances, parking exemptions, dock facilities, extensions, some administrative matters, special-treatment overlays. We have some issues with fences. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think for this morning indicated that the ombudsman in some form or another was included; is that right? MS. MURRAY: I'm not real clear on that. I'm sorry. It was last night at 8:30. I need to review the tape. I wasn't clear on the ombudsman process, so I'll get back to them with that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please do because I think the paper said that they intended to hire a citizen advocate ombudsman. Therefore, that adds additional cost to the whole concept of the hearing examiner. MS. MURRAY: Let me talk to Patrick White and review the tapes. Usually before we send this board up to DCA, we review everything, make sure we're clear on what the board did pass and did not pass. Page 5 June 21,2001 MS. STUDENT: It is my recollection that we might be dealing with this as an advocate and, you know, some kind of resolution or administrative right or something like that. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I'm not clear on that. But I'm not -- I'm not without looking at the MS. STUDENT: tape. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: for the record. MS. MURRAY: MS. STUDENT: As a reminder, please state your name I'm sorry. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Include everyone in the room. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, interim current planning manager. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: We'll get you some more clarification on that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I don't have a chairman's report at the moment, so we will move into Item No. 7, advertised public hearings. It will be necessary to swear in everyone and to -- I think you will come up here and speak to us at that particular location, if that works for everyone. The first public hearing is BD-2001-AR-463, a boat dock extension on Keewaydin Island. MS. MURRAY: There's -- that's not a live microphone -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh. MS. MURRAY: -- by the way, so it's just kind of a place to talk. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) Page 6 June 21,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good morning. MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenauer, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 120-foot extension to create a docking facility on Keewaydin Island protruding a total of 140 feet into a waterway which is about 425 feet wide. This protrusion is measured from the most restricted point, and the dock extends only about 80 feet into the actual waterway beyond the mangroves. The project consists of an L-shaped dock with two boat slips. Keewaydin docks typically require relatively long extensions due to the shallow water and mangrove growth along the shoreline. Extensions to 67 and 165 feet have recently been approved for similar docks in the immediate area. We've received no objections to this petition, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is this an undeveloped lot? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The last time we had an undeveloped lot on Key Island (sic) -- and I questioned why the petitioner wasn't being required to remove exotics -- you told me that that waited until a building was built or the building department would take care of that. Do you remember that? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you've got exotic removal in here this time. MR. GOCHENAUR: A stipulation -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Which way is it? MR. GOCHENAUER: It's actually the way I told you the first time. That stipulation should not be in there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: We can remove that. That's my error. Page 7 June 21,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would the petitioner like to make a statement? MR. SCOFIELD: Very quickly, Rocky Scofield representing the petitioner. To answer your question, the exotics have already been removed. It is -- when you have a -- an extension of this type where we have to go through the mangroves, we're going 60 feet -- actually, we're putting a boardwalk 500 feet -- we have 500 feet of mangroves from the shoreline to the upland. We go in 60 feet to the mean high waterline. Therefore, the extension is -~ is 120 feet. We're only 80 -- 60 feet into the waterway of the dock, another 20 feet for the mooring piles. So we're only 80 feet out into the 425- foot-wide waterway. The exotic things -- whenever you do a boardwalk through the mangroves to get to the uplands, you're impacting mangroves. We had to go through an ST permit. We had to do an environmental E -- environmental impact study through the county, with the state. So we've gone to a lot of trouble. They mandated all the exotics be removed when -- we have to go to an ST permit and an EIS and then this permit. So it's already been done on this lot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Which authority is it that mandates the -- MR. SCOFIELD: The exotics? That's the county. When you go through a special ST permit -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: -- and they are going to build a house on the upland -- but anytime we have a -- a few of these we've had in the past where we're -- we're -- put a boardwalk through the mangroves -- if we're just going to the shoreline, then it's a standard boat dock extension. Otherwise we have to go through all this other permitting; Page 8 June 21,2001 then they demand the exotics be removed, and that's already been done. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? MR. GOCHENAUR: If I could just clarify that for Commissioner Abernathy or at least try to, whenever this ST aspect is not addressed, then what I told you originally would apply -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. GOCHENAUR: -- unless they're building a house. They wouldn't have to remove it. But since they had to go through what Rocky explains -- this is a special situation. Therefore, they had to remove the exotics in this case. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I'll try to remember that. MR. GOCHENAUR: Well, I'll try too. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any further questions? MS. YOUNG: Looking at this layout, it appears that eventually there will just be a solid-line, dock extensions, as people buy these lots and want to put in boat facilities? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, ma'am. All of these -- all of these properties have the same problem. They have the same shallow water, the same mangrove growth. And it has been suggested by the interim community development administrator that we draft an amendment to the code that would exempt properties on unbridged barrier islands that are part of aquatic preserves from this extension procedure, since everyone seems to have to go through it, subject to their compliance with all applicable state requirements. And since the state requirements are more stringent than the county requirements, we feel that -- that this would cover all of the aspects and relieve us of the requirement or -- and the property owners of Page 9 June 21,2001 coming to you for these repeated extensions. MS. YOUNG: Thank you. MR. GOCHENAUR: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? Do we have any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. I have none for any of the hearings. I'm sorry. I should have announced. If you want to speak, I need you to fill out a speaker form and give it to me, please. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Having no further speakers, we close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we forward Petition BD-2001-AR-463 or that we approve this petition. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, a second by Mr. Abernathy to approve this particular petition. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Hearing no discussion, call the question. All in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Moving right along to the next public hearing, BD-2001-AR- 739. All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd like to make a disclosure. I had a discussion, a telephone conversation, with Lisa Barnett of Chaffy -- Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And I'd like to make that same disclosure. Page 10 June 21,2001 MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yeah. Maybe turn toward the court reporter a little bit more. MR. GOCHENAUR: The petitioner is requesting a 14-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 34 feet into the waterway which is about 1,520 feet wide. The property is located at 9207 Vanderbilt Drive in Conner's Vanderbilt Beach and contains about 295 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a dock with five boat slips each intended to accommodate one 30-foot vessel. The dock would be accessory to applied unit condominium on the property, and boat slips would be installed at the discretion of the individual unit owners. A petition for a 52-foot dock at this location was approved by the Collier County Planning Commission on 19, October, 2000. However, this decision was reversed on appeal by the Board of County Commissioners on 13, February, 2001. It's my understanding that the property owner has met with concerned local citizens and that the proposed dock is the result of an agreement reached between the owner and the citizens. We've received no objections to the current project. It meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. BARNETT: Wilson, and Johnson. petitioner. Any questions of staff?. Okay. The petitioner. I'm Lisa Barnett with Cheffy, Passidomo, I'm here on behalf of Liberty Ventures, the As Mr. Gochenaur said, I'd just like to take a quick minute to give you a little bit of a history. This had been approved. We had originally had -- this was last October, I believe. And we had originally requested a 32 foot -- I'm sorry -- a 40-foot extension. A Page 11 June 21,2001 32-foot extension was actually approved. It was appealed by neighboring property owners to the Board of County Commissioners. The board upheld the appeal, so at that point we actually started over. We went back to the neighbors, and we said, "Tell us what you want, and we will work with you on this." and so we came up with what is now -- you'll have copies of this in your packet, but this is the revised plan. It's upside down -- which should be attached to your application. And this was a joint effort between the petitioners and the neighbors. The primary difference between this and what we had originally requested, there are a couple of things. One is we shortened the request substantially. What we're asking for is actually a 5-foot extension for the docks with an additional 9 feet for overhang, and that's where that 14 feet comes in. The dock facility themselves will only be 25 feet. We also angled the docks out from the seawall so they're not going straight out into the lagoon and not a lot of further shortness. Another major difference is that originally we had planned for floating docks because we thought that would minimize impact to view. When we went back to the neighbors, they said, "No. We prefer fixed docks." and we said okay. So these are now fixed docks which also allowed us to come in quite a bit on the length. This extension is necessary primarily because the water depth in there. Attached to the application that we submitted as Exhibit B is a survey. And if you look at that survey, you'll see that the depth -- that the lagoon is very shallow. There is a canal directly to the north of our property. That canal is only a hundred feet wide and is also very shallow. So rather than build it in the canal, we moved around to the front of the property where we have 295 feet of water frontage so that we wouldn't impede navigation into that canal. About 20 feet out from the seawall the depths are only about 2 Page 12 June 21, 2001 1/2 feet. These docks are being built to accommodate 30-foot boats. The average draft of a 30-foot boat is 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet. And we also attached the application as an exhibit, an affidavit from Phillip Morris who has been in the marine business for 40 years and who we proffer as an expert in the marine industry. We also have at least one owner who owns a 30-foot Salt Shaker which has a draft of about -- an average draft of about 3 feet. So once you get out 30 feet from the seawall, if you look at the survey, you'll see that the depth increased to about 3.1 feet and a little bit more, so that gives us our average 3 feet that we needed. And that's -- that was basically what we premised the extension on. The neighbors, as I said, have approved this plan, and I have a letter here. I don't know if you've all received it. I have a extra copy of a letter signed by the neighbors on Palm Court which is the street that overlooks it. If it's okay, I'll give you copies. The neighbor's primary concern was that we make it clear that it is just a 5 foot -- there are three pages. I apologize. They're not stapled -- was that we make it clear that the extension -- that the dock is only 25 feet and then the additional 9 feet is for overhang of the boats, and I think that letter says that. As I've already said, the extension will not impede navigation out into the lagoon. The lagoon is approximately 1500 feet wide. We have attached to the application as -- also as an exhibit an actual sketch of where the docks are in relation to the neighboring properties. We're about 46 feet from the nearest structure to the south and 145 feet from the nearest structure to the north, so there's plenty of navigability. And we only actually go out about 2 percent into the width of the channel, so there shouldn't be any issue. We've also provided you with a copy -- we've had the entire lagoon surveyed, and that's also in your packet, showing the depth further out. And you'll see that it's pretty consistently 4 to 5 feet, so Page 13 June 21,2001 there shouldn't be an issue of going around the docks. These docks are being constructed to be of minimal dimensions necessary for the safe mooring of this size vessel. We believe we've minimized the impact to view. And, again, we have the approval of the neighbors, which was our primary concern. And I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have questions of Miss Barnett? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is the average -- in -- in neighboring docks that are on either side, what -- what is the average distance out from -- MS. BARNETT: You know, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know. Mr. Gochenaur, do you? MR. GOCHENAUR: There's a condominium to the south that has a dock extension to 25 feet. There's a dock diagonally across the canal that has an extension allowing a 40-foot dock. This is a single- family home, so there are 25- and 40-foot extensions in the immediate area of the project. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. MS. BARNETT: And, again, we're requesting a 14-foot extension so we would actually protrude out a total of 34 feet out from the seawall. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a question for Ross. These neighbors, Ross, want to quibble over whether it's a 9-foot extension or a 5-foot extension or whatever or a 14-foot extension. What do we specify? We specify the length of the dock extension. We never get into boat overhangs, do we? MR. GOCHENAUR: In a way, we do. The code specifically states that the docking facility comprises the dock and vessel in combination so if you had an L-shaped dock that went out 15 feet and you wanted to moor a boat outboard of that. Page 14 June 21,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. GOCHENAUR: With a 5-foot beam, your total dock extension would be 25 feet. That's why the overhang question comes in, because the stem or bow of the boat is going to stick out. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So in effect we've put a limit on the size of the boats that can go in there? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir. MS. BARNETT: And also, Mr. Abemathy, if I may, we have to have a submerged land lease for this property, and it will have to mirror whatever is approved here. So the DEP will also look at that to make sure that our overhang -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Overhang. MS. BARNETT: -- that our submerged land lease area is consistent with what we've requested. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Any additional questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: speakers? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 2001-AR-7 -- 739. Do we have any registered public Okay. I close the public hearing. I move that we approve BD- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I have a motion by Mr. Priddy, a second by Mr. Abemathy to approve this petition. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. Page 15 June 21,2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Next item is C, VA-2001-AR-688, a variance from a side-yard setback. Chahram. Oh, excuse me. All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a side-yard variance for a gas station located at the corner of Airport Road and Davis Boulevard. There is a Hess gas station which sits on a parcel of land with another building. And the owners of the building have decided to subdivide and sell. I believe they are selling the building with the land behind the gas station. That's why they need to subdivide it. By subdividing that, they end up with a 13-foot side setback for the gas station, and our code requires 40 for a gas station and 15 for other uses. The staff reviewed this, and staff believes that this will cause problem for redevelopment in the future, and also it's creating nonconformity, which we don't really need to be creating in that triangle area. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When we increase the side- yard variance requirement for gas stations to 40 feet, what was the rationale for that? Safety or whatever? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That happened in -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: '98. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- 1998 or '99. And at that time they wanted to get more landscaping and push gas station further away from other uses. That happened because a gas station wanted to go on Pine Ridge Road, if you recall, Pine Ridge and 1-75 intersection Page 16 June 21,2001 area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Uh-huh. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And at that time the board decided to increase the setbacks and the lot area for gas stations. MS. MURRAY: If I may, it was -- it was kind of an overhaul - - Susan Murray -- an overhaul of the entire automobile service station regulations. It encompassed increased setbacks, increased landscaping, lot area, separation distance from other gas stations. I guess the board was kind of concerned over the number of gas stations that were being lined up specifically on Pine Ridge Road, I think, was the example that was used. But in general, gas stations around the county, they wanted to improve the appearance by increasing side-yard setbacks and landscaping. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of course, that didn't have that effect on this parcel. MS. MURRAY: No. At -- at the time this parcel already -- or currently meets the side-yard setback requirement. But as a result of a subdivision which the property owners wish to do, then you result in a nonconforming situation with the side yard. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But did it affect their landscaping at all? MS. MURRAY: It -- well, they were in existence at the time. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. I don't think there is any landscaping on that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I was going to say. MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it didn't have that effect, and it doesn't have anything to do with safety, as far as you know? MS. MURRAY: I don't recall the discussions, but I don't think it -- safety was an issue. Page 17 June 21,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Do the -- does the petitioner plan to put up landscaping between the building and the -- or will the local labor force still be congregating there? MR. HUDSON: Name is Jim Hudson. I represent the Stoneburner-Hudson trust. I believe you-all have a copy of this survey. These buildings are existing. There is an existing concrete slab between the two buildings. They were built in the mid-'80s. I'm assuming they were conforming at the time. The term "gas station," I -- I'm -- we always called this a convenience store that does have gas pumps on the far north side of the property, and it's -- and then it's a convenience store also that -- you know, it's a Hess -- Hess -- used to be -- it's a Pick Kwik inside. It's a Hess station on the northern side of it. Between the two properties there's just a concrete slab there, and we're not looking to alter, change anything. No one will ever know the difference driving by the buildings or the two buildings that anything was to ever happen. Right now the current property line happens to go right through the middle of the convenience store. And we're looking to -- to give the gentleman which is trying to purchase the building to the south a hundred-foot frontage which will give him 16 foot, and then we would have to have the approval for the 13 foot. But other than that, we don't want to -- we won't alter the -- the buildings in any way. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you're not adding landscaping? MR. HUDSON: Well, I don't believe we can. It's concrete and pavement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, concrete can be dug up. MR. HUDSON: Oh. Well, yeah. I mean, if that would be a requirement, I guess we could. But at this -- we hadn't had any plans to do that. Page 18 June 21,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other questions of -- would you like to give us any more of a presentation since we just brought you up here? MR. HUDSON: I really -- I don't know anything else -- you know, I don't have any plans to say anything. I thought -- I didn't know that there was a 4 -- I always thought it was a 15 foot. I was originally under the understanding that it was, like, 30 foot in between, 15-foot setback each way. I had no clue that it was a -- I never heard the 40-foot measurement before. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: By granting this variance, then, I guess, staff -- we're actually allowing for a subdivision of the property for the sole purpose of a sale. MR. HUDSON: Yes, ma'am. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: any registered speakers? Correct. Any further questions? Do we have MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I feel like the petitioner has been sort of overtaken by events that -- beyond his control. And if the best rationale for the enhanced side-yard setback is to put in some landscaping, I don't think that should stand in the way of him being able to sell the southern half of the property. So I would support a motion to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Would -- would that in -- would that motion include them -- them doing some landscaping or leave it as is? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'd be satisfied to leave it as is, but if that's going to -- MR. HUDSON: May I -- may I say one more thing? Page 19 June 21, 2001 MR. PRIDDY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. MR. HUDSON: Oh. I'm sorry. MR. PRIDDY: You closed the public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I closed the public hearing. You can't say any more. MR. HUDSON: Ahh. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We ~- a motion by Mr. Abemathy, a second by Mr. Priddy, I think, to approve this, increase nonconforming and include landscaping? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, not unless somebody says their vote depends on it, in which case -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I would like to -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In order to gather the votes that way, I'll go to landscaping, but I don't necessarily require it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Pedone, you have a statement. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yeah. I would like to see landscaping put between the two buildings solely for the purpose that they're trying to improve the triangle area. That's right there at the triangle. It's a terrible comer to begin with with the Pure gas sign on the opposite side, the gas station, the Mobil station across the street. I think we should do everything we can to improve the area and start getting it to look like the rest of Naples. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's a good point so -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I would -- I would support the motion if landscape is included in between. If it is not, I will vote no. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The quantity of landscaping be worked out with staff?. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Would you say a -- 10 foot wide with landscaping with one tree every 30 feet in it, a continuous hedge? Page 20 June 21,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sounds good to me. MS. MURRAY: We might also want to look at the -- right now the traffic circulation between the two buildings is existing, and that is something we would want to maintain. So I might suggest to you that we at least maintain the existing traffic circulation between the two structures because otherwise people have to go back out onto Airport Road, if I'm reading this correctly, and drive back in another driveway. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Okay. You have a -- you have an entry on Airport. You have an entry and exit on -- on Davis. MS. MURRAY: On Davis, right. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Not Davis. I'm sorry. Yes, that's right. But then you also have another entry on Airport Road for the building that's in question to be sold. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: So in actuality, you could divide the two and have the egress and ingress on the gas station property separate from that on the building property. MS. MURRAY: I guess what I'm suggesting is right now between the properties I believe you can drive between them without exiting onto Airport Road and having to go in the driveway of the property to the south. And I would suggest that we might want to maintain that internal site circulation so we minimize impacts on the Airport -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: So, in other words, people in the gas station could drive between the two buildings and come out on the other side of it? MS. MURRAY: If somebody in the gas station needed to go to the building to the south, I mean, logically they might walk. But if they needed to drive, they -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I think if they needed to go to the Page 21 June 21,2001 building at the south, they should park at the building on the south. I think by doing that, you're defeating the purpose of the landscaping. You're trying to make it look good, which is something that East Naples sorely needs. MS. MURRAY: No. I'm not disagreeing with you. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: And -- and by keeping it open like that -- personally, if I owned the building, I don't want people, the old crowd from the gas station or the convenience store, to be coming onto my property line. That's for my customers. So, you know, I would think you would want to keep it separate. I know I would. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Would you agree to a stipulation requiring them to go to a site improvement plan and plant landscaping to the maximum extent possible on both lots? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I think that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, county commission's going to tinker with it in some ways that we haven't even dreamed of yet. So, yes, I'll go along with that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'll amend -- I'll amend my second to fit the motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I have a question. When you're doing subdivisions, do you normally need a variance to allow that to happen? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think this is an unusual situation because subdivisions are usually set up on raw land, and the lots are of sufficient size to allow for the anticipated use together with the setbacks. This is just an unusual circumstance where apparently this is older property. It was developed with two different types of uses on the same lot, and now the sale is going to result in a subdivision. And just interestingly enough, from a legal perspective, I think there's sort of a tension here. First of all, the law does not favor Page 22 June 21, 2001 restraining alienation, which means telling people they can't sell their property. But, on the other hand, variances are not supposed to be used for a self-created hardship. And looking at the sale of -- you know, selling off some of your property could -- could be construed as a self-created hardship. And I think you have to balance those two ideas in the law. But this just doesn't usually happen, and I think the law would probably come down on the side of not restraining alienation in this case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's my concern, I mean, is I don't feel comfortable with this. But I think you just explained from a legal standpoint what was making me uncomfortable because I could not really support this variance until you just made your statements. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The problem is the change in the code -- MS. STUDENT: Right. That made it -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So that's not self-imposed. MS. STUDENT: No, that's not. But the fact that it was conforming until it -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And they could have sold it prior to the change in the code. MS. STUDENT: That wouldn't have been an issue. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought we had to give a variance of some sort to that young man off of Rattlesnake Hammock Road whose grandmother wanted to let him build a house and he wanted to subdivide, so it's not all that uncommon. MS. STUDENT: It's not uncommon. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any further questions? Okay. We have a motion that's been amended and a second, motion by Mr. Abemathy, amended by Mr. Priddy. So I'll call the question. We have a -- do we have any Page 23 June 21, 2001 further discussion? No further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The motion carries. MS. BARNETT: Could you explain it to us? MR. HUDSON: What is approved? Call the question. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: He can explain that to you out -- outside. Let us get on with the meeting. MR. HUDSON: Oh. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Moving right along, the next public hearing is VA-2001-AR-814. All those wishing to give public testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a side -- I'm sorry, rear-yard variance for a commercial development adjacent to a residential development. Our code requires that commercial developments, when they're adjacent to residential, provide a 25-foot-wide rear setback. That is to separate those two uses which are not compatible. However, in here, on the residential side, we have 14 acres of preserve. And the closest building will be around, I believe, 300 feet or 250 feet away from any commercial building. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions of staff?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a couple. Surrounding land use on page 2 -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Uh-huh. Page 24 June 21,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you not have east and west confused there? Isn't the Meadowbrook estate east of this property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Meadowbrook is east. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: West? I'm sorry. It's the reverse of those two. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have it reversed. I'm sorry. West through the east. East is to west. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: My other question is, this -- this portion of Meadowbrook that abuts this property is referred to variously as a preserve and a conservation area. Are those terms synonymous? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: On the plat it shows us conservation, but on the land -- on the different plans it shows it as preserve conservation tract with different names. Basically they are the same. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could the -- could this tract be developed at some later time? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It's platted as a conservation tract. It cannot be developed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They couldn't come back and amend it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't believe so. We could give a variance. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. So that's -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The PUD master plans, that's shown as conservation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: forever. That's conservation COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Plus, that -- they probably have to keep that to meet the open-space requirements. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And also the density. I believe they Page 25 June 21,2001 have used up a -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- multifamily development. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. So it's locked in. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Hear from the petitioner? MR. CARLISLE: Kent Carlisle with McAnly Engineering. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions of the petitioner? Then I will close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we forward Petitioner VA-2001-AR-814 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, a second by Mr. Pedone for approval of this petition. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To the BZA, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me, BZA. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are now up to VA-2001- AR-848, another variance. All those wishing to give testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is an existing gas station from the service station Page 26 June 21,2001 at the comer of Thomasson Drive and east Tamiami Trail. Currently the building has a 20-foot front setback on both roads and 20 foot on one side. What they are proposing, to tear the building down and build another one which will have a conforming setback on U.S. 41. A small triangular-shaped area of the building would encroach 7.6 foot into the Thomasson Drive and 3.25 foot side setback in the back, vary -- encroachment in the back. Basically, this is a irregularly-shaped lot, and it's hard to make a building fit with the required setbacks for the gas station. And they are reducing the setbacks encroachments, as I said, from 30 to zero on one side and from 30 encroachment to 7.6 on the other side and from 20-foot encroachment to 3.25 on the side. Staff recommends approval of this variance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. Chahram, you -- you say that the overall roofed areas and impervious areas will be reduced and the landscaping will be increased. Roofed areas, that includes the pump island? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let him finish the question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That includes the pump island? I'm really concerned about the building. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I called it roof area because what they have, they have a big canopy, and everything is underneath the canopy. Buildings is underneath the canopies, pumps. It's a unique design. It is a huge canopy over the entire gas station. That's why I didn't know what to call it. I called it roofed area. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about the building itself?. It's said to be, what? 3,000 square feet somewhere. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: 3,000 something? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is around 3,000-square-feet building. Page 27 June 21,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the building now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now the building itself is really small, but it's sitting in the middle of that roofed area, but it's just a small building. I don't know the exact square footage of it. MR. LINCOLN: It's about 2500 square feet. My name is Scott Lincoln. I'm with L.A. Civil. We're the civil engineers on the project and representing Marathon National Petroleum. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is there -- is it anything beyond just talk or speculation that Thomasson Drive is going to be straightened out to the southeast to make it connect with Rattlesnake Hammock? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't have more information than you do. I hear that when they develop the commercial tract with Publix, I believe, they will realign the road and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Perhaps transportation? MS. MURRAY: We have a representative that could perhaps answer that question for you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That would moot all of this discussion, it would seem like. I mean, we wouldn't be talking about setbacks anymore. MR. MULLER: Good morning. Russ Muller for the record. Publix is coming in on the comer of Rattlesnake Hammock and 41. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Which comer? MR. MULLER: It will be the south -- southeast comer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The southeast? MR. MULLER: Right. And so Rattlesnake Hammock will go straight -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Across. MR. MULLER: Straight across, and then it will S-curve back into Thomasson. That's the intent. And we had some discussions with the petitioner. They're -- they're -- we may or may not close Page 28 June 21,2001 the one entrance off of their road or off of their site onto Thomasson and vacate that portion of -- of Thomasson. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How soon will this happen? MR. MULLER: When Publix gets developer commitment, when Publix wants to put in their -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you have a time frame? MR. MULLER: No. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, in any event MR. BADAMTCHIAN: IfI may, when that happens, one of the variances will go away. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I was trying to say, you know, and they're diminimous anyway so -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. You say you're tearing down a 2500-square-foot building, and you're putting in a thirty-eight hundred and fifty square foot and -- 3830 square foot? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is this question of staff or of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Whomever. I mean, that's what the intent is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why don't we have the petitioner present come up and state your name and trip over the chairs. MR. LINCOLN: My name is Scott Lincoln with L.A. Civil representing the petitioner. Basically we're in agreement with staffs recommendation on this request for variance. The existing site right now is a center convenience store in the middle of a very large canopy. Marathon doesn't build those types of stores anymore. What they do want to build here is on the reverse, is their current prototype store which is a C-3800 building, 3830 square feet. They've slightly Page 29 June 21,2001 expanded their prototype buildings recently to accommodate better storage and cooler space. It really hasn't created additional internal space for the customers, but due to the -- the shape of the lot, we've got a minor overhang of a comer of the building and an overhang of the rear of the building in order to meet all front and side setbacks on the -- the north and east boundaries. We're trying to get the building and the canopy affixed to their most recent image criteria. And, of course, this encroaches slightly into the -- the two setbacks. One thing to know, this property here is vacant, so it doesn't appear that we're going to have any crucial effect on this property. But we are going to buffer and provide a stormwater pond to buffer the back of the building. Encroachment on Thomasson, again, if some realignment occurs with Rattlesnake and Thomasson goes away, the side setback would then go down to, I think, 40 feet. And we would not be within that setback. So we're -- we're hoping the board can see those situations. We're hoping the board can see the situation that we're encountering here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Questions. Mr. Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. If -- if this S-curved road comes in and ties back into Tomlinson (sic), it will do so at the vacant lot behind you or further to the south. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Further to the south. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Further to the south. MR. MULLER: Or west. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Or west? MR. LINCOLN: It's my understanding that Rattlesnake is approximately 800 feet south of us, and then it will curve and meet Thomasson very far up beyond us to the west, so Thomasson would then be connected -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The east. MR. LINCOLN: -- to the west. Page 30 June 21,2001 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To the west. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excuse me. Would the transportation person please come this way so that we can get you on the record and feel comfortable with your responsibilities? MR. MULLER: Certainly. The alignment for this S-curve hasn't been determined. There was some consideration of going as far as Outer Drive and having it be a T -- a full intersection. However, that hasn't been determined. We'll be well beyond the first roadway, and quite possibly the vacation would start from that first roadway which is -- I believe that's Outer Drive also. MR. LINCOLN: Page 2 has a site map that shows Rattlesnake and Outer Drive, so kind of connect the two with an S-curve, you should be able to get a visualization there. MR. MULLER: Yeah. It will lead well to the west of Outer Drive, and it may connect where Outer Drive connects, again, to -- it's parallel with and south of Tamiami Trail. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This thing here (indicating)? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Uh-huh. MS. MURRAY: It's on the north -- northwest portion of your map. It parallels Tamiami Trail on the left-hand side of the map. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy, another question. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rattlesnake Hammock's intersection with 41 is east of this site; right? MR. MULLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And you say that the reconfigured intersection of Rattlesnake is going to connect to Thomasson west of this site? MR. MULLER: I think -- since we don't have an overhead here, let me -- let me show you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's east of it. Page 31 June 21,2001 MR. MULLER: This is -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's east. MR. MULLER: No. That's north, so that we would be west of the site. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. West. And that's -- all right. West, in that sense. I thought you meant come around here (indicating) somewhere. MR. MULLER: No. It's going to come around -- S-curve. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. Fine. MR. MULLER: I'm not sure if it comes back here or not. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Put that here for just a second so we can all see. MS. YOUNG: Oh, thank you. This is better. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got it. I had a question of Mr. Lincoln. In this whole reconfiguration, you're taking out the tanks and whatever. How many pumps are you going from and to? MR. LINCOLN: We currently have 12 fueling positions. We're going to 12. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Same number? MR. LINCOLN: Same number. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Will those be moved or -- MR. LINCOLN: Yes. The whole site will be demolished and rebuilt. Everything will be brought up to code, and these are the only items that do not quite meet code, the two setbacks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So in many ways, it would appear that what you're going to do is going to increase the area, the ambiance of it. MR. LINCOLN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Eliminate at least one setback? Page 32 June 21,2001 MR. LINCOLN: Absolutely. MS. MURRAY: I don't know if you've had the opportunity to see the effect of these new gas station regulations, but it's really phenomenal in some of these new gas stations. If you're out driving around, you kind of pay attention to know where the new ones are, look at the landscaping, the berming, the separation distance between the various uses. It's pretty impressive. It's turned out to be a pretty decent regulation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you know how many we've had in Collier County since we passed that regulation? MS. MURRAY: Oh, boy. I don't do a lot of site planning. Chahram, do you have any idea? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I know three or four of them. MS. MURRAY: At least, I was going to say -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I know two 7-1 ls, one on the East Trail, one on the comer of Davis and Santa Barbara. There's a Shell station under construction on Immokalee Road and -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Pine Ridge has had one. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Pine Ridge had one, and we just approved another gas station on Davis Boulevard almost, like, a thousand feet west of 951 intersection. MS. MURRAY: Racetrac on Pine Ridge, do not look at that one because that one was exempt from certain -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That Racetrac we had to change our regulations. MS. MURRAY: That was actually approved prior to the regulations being amended, so it just wasn't built until recently. MS. YOUNG: So, in effect, what you're saying is that this would be an improvement in that area. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Great improvement, I would say, yes. MR. LINCOLN: One thing I was going to demonstrate to that Page 33 June 21,2001 fact is if you look along Tamiami Trail, I think we've got a 5-foot landscape buffer. We do have a pond over in here (indicating) currently. When we go to the proposed condition, again, we're going to have our pond over here (indicating), but we're increasing the buffer to 20 -- 25 feet, actually 26 feet. Twenty-five is required. But it's basically due to the -- the skew in property line. But you're going to have a large landscaped green area that's going to look a lot better than what's currently there. It's pretty wide open, easy to see what's in the middle of the site. But it's going to be a lot more closely designed to code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Do we have any further questions of staff or the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there any registered public speakers? MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: With no registered public speakers, I close the public hearing. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we forward Petition VA-01-AR-858 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy and a second by -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Wolfley. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- Mr. Wolfley, okay. He got in there. Do we have any discussion? All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) Page 34 June 21, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I'd point out that the first meeting in September I'll no longer be here. So those of you who are left might think about making motions in the future. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And, of course, Mr. Priddy, you get the Russell Budd award for this meeting for having made all the motions. Thank you. Okay. Let's see, Item F has been continued. So that brings us to Item 8, old business. Perhaps we should have a slight discussion about our training, planning, legal issues workshop which was not going to take place today, once again. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have a motion that we schedule that meeting for the first meeting in September. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, there's -- there's -- there's logic. There will be three new members at that meeting which would be included. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: That may not -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They can't be there that quick. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: They may not be there that quick. I would recommend we schedule it for October. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: September. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: quick yet. I thought they took -- came in I haven't seen them come in that COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They've got to advertise and appoint them. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: By October we should be off. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I thought our term was up in Page 35 June 21,2001 September. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: It is, but they -- you -- they can ask you to stay on until someone -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No, I don't believe so. MS. MURRAY: I'm not overly familiar with that. I apologize. Marjorie, are you? MS. STUDENT: I think -- I thought the terms ran through September. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They run through September, and I believe that the last time when Mr. Bmet was coming off, his term expired. And we thought he could stay and serve -- MR. PRIDDY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- until someone was appointed. And I was told by, I believe, the county manager's office that, no, he could not. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Then let me rephrase my motion to state that -- that this workshop should take place the first meeting of October. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: May you state it, perhaps, the earliest opportunity in October? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When the new members are seated? MS. YOUNG: Yes. That's the important thing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Unless turn it over and do it all over again. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The process has always appointed those people, if there was someone available, at that meeting in October. But the first available meeting in October will be fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second. Page 36 June 21,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All these lame ducks setting us up in October. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Priddy, a second by Mr. Pedone to schedule this training workshop planning issue item for October, the most recent opportunity. And please start planning now. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Any new business, No. 9? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No public comment. No discussion of addenda. Move for adjournment. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Motion and second to adjourn. All those in favor? (Unanimous response.) COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I broke it. I made the last motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are adjourned. We have a -- okay. I call the question. Page 37 June 21,2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:35 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 38 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION July 11, 2001 Scofield Marine Consulting Mr. Miles L. Scofield 3584-B Exchange Ave Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-45, James O' Connell PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34104 Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, June 21, 2001, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-45. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 01-12 is enclosed approving this use. ff you have any questions, please contact me at 403-2400. Sincere~ Ross Gochenaur Planner BD-2000-45/RC~Io Enclosure Mr. James O' Connell 490 14~ Ave. South Naples, FL 34102 Customer Service Addressing (Peggy Jarrell) Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDD File PHONE 1941 ) 403-2400 FAX ( 941 ) 643-6968 www. co.collier, fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 01- 12 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-45 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 26-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 46-foot boat dock facility 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 Miles L. Scofield of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing James O' Connell, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 88, Port of the Islands (The Cays) Phase 2, as described in Plat Book 21, Pages 1-4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 26-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 46-foot boat docking facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: o 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 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-2000-45 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 21st day of JUIqE ,2001. ATTEST: J M. ExO~utive DUNNUCK, III Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Interim Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~t~na~ ~ _~_~'COLLIER COUNTY, F ORIDA, CHAII~MAN ' -' Ma~)~M[ Student' Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-45/RG/cw