Loading...
Exhibit BBB BCC Minutes 2-10-98REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #12Bl ORDINANCE 98-10 RE PETITION PUD-97-12, WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE REPRESENTING FRANK CLESEN AND SONS, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR 896) AND I-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER LOCATED ON TRACT 92, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 35 -ADOPTED We are now to the public hearing section of our agenda. And the first one is petition PUD 97-12, regarding a rezone from Estates to PUD. All individuals who are planning to speak to this issue, please rise and I will have the court reporter swear you in. (Witnesses were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. MILK: For record, my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition PUD 97-12. Mr. Hoover is representing Frank Clesen in a request to rezone properties from Estates to PUD. The subject property is 4.33 acres in size and is located at the northwest quadrant of the I-75/Pine Ridge Road interchange activity center. Mr. Hoover has presented a project which has three land use parcels, A, B and C. Parcel A is contiguous to the Livingston Road right-of-way. It is approximately .55 acres in size and will be used for open space and water management. Area B is located internal to the project. It is approximately 1.88 acres in size and will be utilized for hotels, motels, professional offices, business offices, medical offices, sit-down restaurants and miscellaneous retail businesses. Area C is located contiguous to Pine Ridge Road. It is 1.67 acres in size and will be utilized for fast-food restaurants, auto supply stores and all of the permitted uses in area B. The project allows for a maximum building height of thirty-five feet. It provides for a setback from Livingston Woods Lane of eighty-two and a half feet. It is set up very similar to the Naples Gateway PUD and the Angileri PUD recently approved, with the exception that this PUD does not provide for gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores. It is all architecturally integrated and unified from signage, landscaping and parcels B and C have to be consistent in architectural design guidelines with signage, also. The project is serviced by bisecting and perimeter ingress ingress/egress easements which actually move westwardly towards through Tract 77 and eventually south to the Pine Ridge Road corridor, which intersects with the median opening at the Sutherland PUD. These bisecting and perimeter easements were for the purposes of ingress and egress to these Golden Gate Estates tracts. There is legislature (sic) on the records to delete a majority of these bisecting easements by December 31st of 1999. Those who want to secure those easements have to go to the clerk of court's office and secure the necessary means of ingress and egress to their properties. From a transportation standpoint, we have looked at this project and looked at the access through Tract 77, which is the abutting four and a half acres. This meets the county's access management plan for interchanges, and, therefore, we recommend this access to this property. What's also important about the property is the bisecting easement runs east and west, which will eventually link the property to the east, the property to the west, Angileri, Naples Gateway, so there will be a frontage road aspect, east-west corridor, if I may, throughout that entirety of the project. If I can answer any questions, I would like to do so at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. with the petitioner on this or my decision on all information whatever I have read. I might add that I have had no contact any other information, but I am basing that I have in this hearing today or COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I will base my decision as required by state law. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I also have no communication to disclose. I will base my decision on the information presented. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No disclosure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will base my decision on what I hear in this hearing today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, maybe it's just an omission from my packet, but I noticed last night, I don't have the PUD document. MR. MILK: You should have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I need a PUD document. MR. MILK: What if I have one right here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I don't think it's in anybody's. Well, it's not in mine either. I was having that same trouble, trying to get a mental image of what exactly we're --the end result will be here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I was unable as I went through it last night to really do any review on this. MR. MILK: I will tell you from a planning standpoint that it's exactly the same as Naples Gateway. It's a step up from Angileri, because when we did Angileri, we were very specific in office related uses and limited commercial uses. What we did in Gateway was we opened the door for medical related offices, professional offices and business offices and some service convenience retail outlets, but we did not --we eliminated the convenience commercial aspect, the car wash aspect, and the gasoline service station aspect of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while this is going on, Mr. Cautero, could maybe somebody make copies? I'd like to look at the PUD, too. I could probably do that while we're talking, but --thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're going to have to give me time to go through this. If the petitioner has a presentation, maybe we can do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We can do that. Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioner. The property is four point three three acres in size and is located within the Pine Ridge Road, I-75 interstate activity center. The handout you're receiving includes key portions of a marketing study from Quinby Appraisal and Research, whose analyses indicate that there's a need for the commercial land uses proposed. We're proposing highway commercial and convenience commercial land uses, except the gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps are not being requested. If you look at the aerial photo in the packet, you can see that the nearest home is about eight hundred fifty feet to the northwest from the nearest boundary of our property. We have employed basically the same strategies planning wise that are in the Gateway PUD and Angileri PUD inasmuch as we have proposed three land use tracts within the PUD. The one with the most intensive land uses would be right along Pine Ridge Road. And the land uses would drop as we went to the most northern parcel, which would only be a green area and water management area. That would be seventy-two and a half feet in depth. I think most importantly we have carried on an architectural theme similar to the Gateway and the Angileri PUD, and is all since there is no land developed on the north side of Pine Ridge Road in the commercial activity center, we can carry on the same theme all the way on that whole side, all the length of the interstate activity. And this would include a masonry wall along Livingston Woods Lane that would match --every place, the walls would match in colors and architecturally. It would have --along this wall would have double the required landscaping of the land development code. Additionally, we would be planting red maple trees in the stormwater management area, which would be the most northern tract, to provide an additional buffer as time went on. All buildings are going to be finished in peaked roofs. They will have a tile or metal roof. And all the buildings will be finished in light, subdued colors except for decorative trim. I think maybe a good example of having this in there is maybe going beyond what we have in architectural controls. If anybody has drove Taylor Road, there was a real nice building put up about three years ago, however, recently I think the guy painted it purple and orange. So -- and I mean bright. The -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll be taking care of that in the next round of architectural standards. MR. HOOVER: Okay. But I think it's good to have something with light, subdued colors in a PUD that's coming in so that we can have a little bit more protection, especially when it's the first impression coming into Naples. But I think everything in our PUD, planning wise, I can go on the record as a professional planner saying this, it's going to be an asset for somebody coming off of 75 coming into town that we're carrying on the same theme. We have got a nice looking project with the standards we have in here. The only thing that can be built is something of what you expect to be built in North Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we --that's exactly the issue, because I --the first question that I had had to do with Area C and then, of course, A. It sounds like you have done a good job about the buffering from the residential neighborhood. But I am --I'm concerned about the same things we talked about before, about, you know, gasoline alley and, you know, what impression we're making for people. Because this is the entrance, you know, to Collier County coming off the interstate. So I hear you that what we're proposing architecturally is going to be pretty, but I have trouble always with those standard industrial codes, trying to know --everything that's in Bis also permitted in C --I'll give mine to the court reporter, because since, I have gotten one --but like auto supply store, eating places, you know, the group fifty-five, thirty-one, fifty-eight, twelve, paint and wallpaper stores, hotels and motels. MR. MILK: The biggest difference between B and C is Area C, which is contiguous to Pine Ridge Road, it would allow a fast-food restaurant. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like, can they have a McDonald's with arches in Area C? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If those arches comply with the architectural standards, but, yes. MR. MILK: For the sign itself -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it would have to be sign height and whatnot. MR. MILK: I will tell you this, there's no pole signs allowed in this corridor, so you won't have that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the idea of, you know, continuity of development, having, you know, some inter-connectedness in architectural themes and some of that stuff? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is we don't have an anchor out there. We don't have the one that is actually physically built yet that we say that's a good theme, let's perpetuate that. And what's going to happen is these are going to come on line and they're trying to use similar standards, but, you know, they're going to vary. If we had one building there --and I have thought the same thing. If we had a building there that we said this is a good theme as a Gateway theme, let's perpetuate it, we could hold other developers of adjacent developments to it. We don't have that one yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know this little section is either going to be something that we're really proud of that got approved while we were on the board or really embarrassed that we let it slip through. I mean, I think this is, you know, one of those highly visible areas of town -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's going to be a lot better than it would have been if we hadn't taken the action we have in the last two or three years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No question. No question. MR. MILK: What I will say, though, for the record, is, for example, the pole signs. There are no pole signs allowed. There are only ground signs allowed. There is a wall that's going to be constructed along the entire property perimeter of the boundary contiguous to Livingston Woods Lane. It's going to be in a twenty-foot buffer with an eight-foot architecturally designed masonry wall. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Talk about what's going to be on Pine Ridge. MR. MILK: Pine Ridge Road is basically going to be --and because of the transition now --we set this up as a transition from the neighborhood of Livingston to the north to the more intensified uses or convenience type uses, fast-food restaurants, perhaps a gasoline service station, your banks and your restaurants. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happened to the discussion two PUDs ago that we asked staff to go back and research what we could do because we have already approved seven, or something, gas stations in this --and we never heard a word back. And I don't think by the time we got done with that discussion, I don't think it was just limited to gas stations. I think we talked about a number of different issues like fast food, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Convenience kinds of uses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: --what happened to that discussion? MR. MILK: I think the discussion was that of is there enough gasoline service stations in this corridor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we probably felt like there probably was, and we wanted to know if we could use that as a criteria for voting yes or no on a petition. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, and he said this one isn't going to allow for that. MR. MILK: It's not going to allow for any gas COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that was just one example, the gas stations. There's also, you know, a long string of Seven-Elevens or McDonalds. MR. MILK: To answer the question, I think we have looked at that through long-range planning and the EAR process. I'm not so sure if that was being --if that's a conclusive response. If we actually looked at the gasoline service stations, for example, in the corridor in that intersection, I mean, I just can't answer that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember, because it was --it was --I think it was initially my suggestion that through the growth management plan amendment process, we look at limiting the number of gas stations in either activity center or that was the train of --or at least the line of discussion and -- MR. MILK: On a broader scale. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On a broader scale, but to say that this is an area that we want to look at. If I am not mistaken, the very next cycle for growth management plan amendments came too quickly with too many amendments in it initially for us to have the staff time, and we were going to try to hit that down the road. That's my recollection. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So should we expect to see that in March? Or is that one more thing that's just going to get lost somewhere in the general direction that the board gives? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. We did have this discussion sometime last year, and at that time we were in the middle of the EAR based amendments to our comprehensive plan, and we brought back to you some information on location, number of gas stations, convenience commercial uses, et cetera, and at that time, and what we're intending to do, is come back and rather than prohibit certain land uses, because we think that may be problematic legally to just prohibit certain land uses, but to go ahead and make sure that we look at market conditions as part of our rezoning. We also set up Gateway standards for these activity centers, which that language does appear in your --your base amendments to the plan where we treat these as gateways to our community and we will -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, talk about that. If we had Gateway standards in place today, what kinds of things would we be considering? Because, you know, this is --you know, as we got real concerned about Angileri, and now we're moving --we've got three tracts of land left between Angileri and the intersection of Pine Ridge and I-75. This is the center one, you know. There are two estate zoned parcels on either side of this parcel. If we don't have Gateway standards, you know, we're going to lose our shot at Gateway here. What kinds of things are Gateway standards, and do you know if anything like that's included in this PUD? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think certain elements of that certainly are in this PUD, because they talk about complimentary architectural standards. They talk about some unifying themes throughout not only this parcel but some adjacent ones as well that are going to develop with sort of similar uses. But again, given the corridor and the location with I-75 and our plan supporting that these are for sort of commercial, your motoring public type uses, I think we have set out the standard to become more than just a neighborhood activity center, for instance. But I think what we would be looking for are unifying themes, and in the best world, we would take a vacant activity center and have you build a plan and look at unifying themes. And what we really want is a landscape feature. Do we need a public feature? Do we need a water management feature to highlight that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the answer to all three of those questions is yes, yes, yes. We need all three of those things. don't know how we get it in a piecemeal fashion. I MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's the difficult part. We see these things piece --piecemeal and we try to do the best in looking at these individually to pull them all together. But until we take a look at each quadrant of an activity center and try to come up with a master plan --and we found that to be very difficult given the diverse ownerships that we have. And some are local people, others are not. Others don't have a near-term desire to develop their property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, we are doing exactly what you're talking about. But on those activity centers that as of yet the property is predominantly unzoned or not zoned or parcels ag. --in a parcel such as this where we already have little segments that are zoned, I think it's up to us to look at each one individually and determine whether the uses permitted by that zoning are appropriate, are overkill or not what we want, but we are going to be forced to do this particular interchange activity center piecemeal because we're kind of late in the game. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: though, is require as much sort of a landscape theme. Right. And the thing that we can do, interconnection of architecture and some So could you tell us what's in this PUD as far as the interconnection with the adjacent parcels, because Wayne mentioned something about that. MR. MILK: There's a couple of things that are going to be unified along this entire corridor and that's maximum building heights of thirty-five feet, ground signs, pole signs are prohibited. What's important is the limited access to Pine Ridge Road which complies with the access management plan. What's very important is that frontage road, that east/west corridor from Gateway all the way through to the eastern-most property, currently is zoned Estates. That is that bisecting easement that we have seen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a frontage road easement along all of those parcels. MR. MILK: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. MR. MILK: From Naples Gateway through Angileri and through Clesen. What's very important about that is each of these cross sections are identical in each of the PUDs proposed so far. There are twenty-four feet of pavements, they are valley-guttered, they are landscaped on both the north and south sides. There is a twenty-foot buffer along the entirety of Pine Ridge Road in each of the three PUDs that we have looked at thus far. Double hedge rows, trees, lamp posts, street lights, lighting at the interchanges there for ingress and egress, turn lanes, and design guidelines that geometricaly are uniform throughout the entire project. So as we look at these, we're looking at maximum heights of thirty-five feet. We're looking at very limited commercial uses, businesses uses, medical office uses. We're looking at the transition from Livingston neighborhood to the Pine Ridge Road corridor. The internal access intersects and the architectural design for each of the projects with very specific roofing types, pitch types and color schemes throughout each of the projects, and that's been coordinated commonly throughout all three of these projects. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. MR. MILK: So, you know, to answer your question I think from a staff standpoint and the applicants' standpoint, they have been willing to do that uniformly with all of these projects. And we intend to carry that forward throughout the remainder. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for the petitioner. Do you have Mr. Hoover, are you aware of any end users that you are working with right now or is this rezone fairly speculative in the sense that you don't really have anyone on contract for the property or under contract? MR. HOOVER: Awhile back Mr. Clesen's reps. --they were talking with Shoney's about buying the entire site, and I don't believe that came about. What COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no contract purchasers for the site right now? MR. HOOVER: No. They do have another person that's looking at it for a motel that would like to take the back half of the site and go either to the east or the west, which would make it a little bit larger site. From what I understand, the motel people like to have about a hundred rooms, and they would have to take either the whole parcel or the back of two --of one of these to make it work. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask that is there are two things under uses that concern me. The first is a verbiage --what I think is a verbiage change from what we have used in the past. Under item eighteen on page seven of the PUD, it says any other commercial use or professional service which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses. Mr. Milk, correct me if I am wrong. I have got an extra copy of the PUD if you don't --I didn't have any and now I have two. It's feast or famine today. It's says any professional service which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses. What I remember PUDs reading is comparable in nature, not compatible. MR. MILK: There's three words. There's comparable, comparable and compatible, okay? And I will throw this to the attorney's office. When we looked at these PUD documents, the attorney's office tweaked those words consistently. Some are comparable, some are compatible, some are comparable. So this change was the result of the attorney's office in that review of the language. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I need to know, because the word compatible -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to ask a question. difference between comparable and comparable other than pronounciation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same word. What's the MR. MILK: I will say that historically the word comparable, incidental and accessory to are the words we typically use in the document. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason compatible concerns me is that there are uses that may be compatible with a paint and wallpaper store that are not desirous. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's a very good point. I don't know, Marjorie, what the case law says. MS. STUDENT: Quite frankly, I don't remember doing this, but I don't have any problem with comparable. It's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's --let's switch it to comparable -- MS. STUDENT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: wallpaper stores. --because then I can leave paint and COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's also in C-4, just while you're making that change. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the same thing goes for, you know, auto supply stores in Area C. I don't necessarily want an auto supply store here, but, you know, again, with the commercial architectural standards, I don't think it would be that big of a problem, but the word compatible in item four under C opens up a whole new area that I don't want to go to. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman and the board, the --again, I don't remember putting that word compatible in there, because in my opinion, it should be comparable. That's what we see in our zoning code and you're right, it does have a different meaning. So for the record, in my opinion, it should be comparable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless the petitioner has a problem with that, I think the word compatible and under item eighteen under B on page seven and item four under C on page seven should be changed to comparable. MR. HOOVER: I agree with you, Commissioner. As a planner, I think you're a hundred percent correct on that. We absolutely have no problem with that at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The next question I have under SIC codes is regarding drinking places under accessory uses. It says group fifty-eight thirteen only in conjunction with eating places. I am fairly sure I know what that means, but, Bryan, can you help me out with that? Are we talking about, in essence, a lounge in accessory to a restaurant only? In other words -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there some percentage of sales tied to food? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: inside or a Bennigan's with know that that's -- Right. Like having a Friday's with a bar a bar inside? But, you know, I need to COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shoney's with a bar inside? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Denny's with a beer tap? MR. MILK: It's usually a place where fifty-one percent of the sales and revenue generated are from food and not beverage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't want to, you know --there are places like, you know, Ridgeport Pub and they do fifty-one percent food, but that place is a bar on the weekends, I mean. And I don't want COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A nice bar that we like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have been there, seen that, done that. But I'm just saying it's a bar, and I don't think we want to do that this close to a neighborhood. MR. MILK: I agree. When they come in for their occupational licenses and zoning certificates, they give us affidavits that they are, from the state, a restaurant, slash, and they serve alcohol. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those are the questions I had. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's fine. That meets the legal hurdle, but it still doesn't address Commissioner Hancock's --I am sure the folks at Ridgeport could get affidavits that say they meet the legal criteria for restaurant, slash, and they --and I --I don't think you have answered his question there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're in the right place for what they're doing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. --but if you take what Ridgeport or what what is it, Captain's Table down the road or, I mean, those kinds that are in shopping centers and put them as a stand-alone use backing up to a residential area, now I have got a problem with compatibility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Milk's response sounds to me like we can't prohibit that the way it's in here. They can bring in an affidavit, but all that's doing is saying they're fifty-one percent food. MR. MILK: As far as the zoning department looks at it, that could happen, Commissioner, you're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have any suggestion as to how we could limit that, Mr. Hoover? MR. HOOVER: Yes. I think I disagree with that, because when you apply for an occupational license, you come down to the county staff and they're going to look it up in their SIC codes. So if we're -- what we want here is what you're talking about, the Bennigan's and the restaurants that have alcoholic beverages with it. But we don't want a lounge, and that's definitely not our intention here. If we need to put some additional language in here, we don't have a problem. If we were coming in here and it was a lounge or a bar, that would --when it was looked up in the SIC code, your primary use would be lounge. If somebody came in and said hey, it's a restaurant and it's actually a beer joint, that's when it would go to code enforcement, just like any other use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, I am not in any way disparaging Ridgeport, but they do a heavy lunch business and do a lot of their food sales in lunch. But when it comes past eight o'clock, nine o'clock at night, it operates very similar to a stand-alone bar. They still serve food, but, I mean, you're talking the majority of the sales at that point are alcohol related. And it's that relationship. If we can limit it to a Friday's type situation, fine. But I need to have a way -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us how to draft that. MR. MILK: Well, we can just strike it, strike the language. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but I don't want them to be able to serve beer with their chili, you know. MR. MILK: Oh, I can understand that. But there's four --four or five different licenses out there issued by the state. There's beer, there's wine, there's alcohol, and it's all based on the size of the restaurant, number of seats and that sort of thing. So if a real restaurant like a Bennigan's or Friday's comes in and they have a hundred and fifty seats which requires seventy-five parking places, they're going to have their alcohol license anyway. They're going to be in the food business but have their accessory bar and that sort of thing. So that's really accomplished with the number of the seats per the state, okay? So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In other words, if Ridgeport wants to go in there, the way it's written right now, there's nothing to prohibit that. Mr. Hoover, would you object to upping instead of it has to be a majority, fifty percent, fifty point one percent food, to upping that to sixty-five percent or seventy percent or something that still makes a fair balance there so it's clear? MR. HOOVER: I was thinking something a little bit along your lines there, too, where --yeah, we can --we can increase that ratio. The fifty-one percent is like off those four COP state licenses and things. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. HOOVER: And those are pretty lenient, and when I worked in Hillsborough County, I did see a few places that the county was fighting back and forth a little bit and, yeah, we don't have a problem if you want to make that seventy percent of the sales would have to be food. And we can also say, like on the eating places, that throughout the time that the place is open, that it would need to be operating as a restaurant, if there's a way of stating that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem here we're going to find is enforceability, because we are seeking a category that's not identified specifically by state licensing nor by any other code that we have. Is that where you're going, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: That was the point I was going to make. I'm sorry, my name is Bob Mulhere, current planning manager. The intent is that the alcohol sales be accessory to food sales. I'm stating the obvious. We have already discussed that. To up that percentage, about the only way that I --that I think that we might be able to have a --some legitimate feeling that the eventual business owner is complying with that would be also to require some sort of reporting on an annual basis, and that is what the state does. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what they would give to the state, they would just have to give us? In other words, we're not creating an additional requirement? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me if the petitioner doesn't object and if they already have to do a report like that anyway and all it is is a matter of making a photocopy, that's a no-brainer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course, the difference will be that instead of reporting fifty point one, they have to report seventy percent. MR. MILK: And what we could do for this is tie it to the annual monitoring report for the PUD, for Clesen PUD, so that report in conjunction with the applicant's annual monitoring report. could look at that sales revenue. comes in So we There's one other thing I wanted to put on the record. And just --I'm not sure that that was pointed out, is that building height in this PUD is a maximum of thirty-five feet, which includes offices, hotel, motels, and any other building that's permitted. That language is also very similar in the Naples Gateway PUD at thirty-five feet. Where it's not is in the Angileri PUD. At that hearing, hotels and motels were limited to two stories, and I wasn't sure why that happened, but that was a gasoline and convenience store related PUD. So from a consistency standpoint, thirty-five feet is the maximum height in any of the PUDs. Gateway is at thirty-five at ninety foot setback for the thirty-five foot building. This PUD, the setback is eighty-two and a half feet from the right-of-way at thirty-five feet, is the differences here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's consistent enough for me. The only restaurant experience I have is waiting tables at Bennigan's in college. I'm not sure if seventy percent --I don't know what the food/alcohol mix is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's his number. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: in a regular restaurant, so I guess we'll stick with seventy percent for now. We may find that that moves one way or the other. Probably the best thing we can do is ask our staff to check with the restaurant association in town and to find out what a true restaurant with an ancillary bar, what their mix actually is, so that we are operating from an informed --a more informed basis in the future. That would be helpful, because I would like two categories for restaurants, slash, bar. One is the ones like Ridgeport or like McCabe's down on Fifth. You know, it's not just in shopping centers, but places that at nighttime operate as a bar. There are correct places for those and incorrect places. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What, are you making the rounds every weekend? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every stinking weekend. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You seem to be very knowledgeable about this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I don't have all the beer on tap memorized, but I am working on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just supporting that downtown redevelopment, and we appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am a pro-city guy, you know, particularly when it comes to Friday night. So anyway, I would like to ask our staff for future use if the board agrees. I would like to kind of see two categories in the PUDs, one for, you know, a family --you know, a Bennigan's type of restaurant, if you will, and one for a Ridgeport type of restaurant, you know, and a separation between the two so we can identify them in the future, because they are very different uses. MR. MILK: Sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to be --I like that idea so much that I hope that I hear --I see Vince nodding --that that's something we'll see in the LDC amendments or, you know, that that's a real request, that a majority of the board is, you know, supporting that request, because I'd really like to see that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's two of us. I see heads nodding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in the next cycle of amendments, that would be a good place. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, any comment, questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think all my questions have been answered in the ensuing discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very insightful debate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. If not, I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I would like to move approval of PUD 97-12 with the following changes. On page seven of the PUD, item eighteen, the word compatible be changed to comparable. On the same page seven of the PUD under item four, the word compatible be changed to comparable. On page eight of the PUD, under Item D-2, drinking places, from fifty-eight thirteen, only in conjunction with eating places, the additional requirement of a food, a minimum food-to-alcohol sales ratio be seventy to thirty percent. And I believe -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said alcohol to food and then you said seventy to thirty. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Food to alcohol. Seventy percent food for a minimum. Go the other way with it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Potato chips. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And those are all the things that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, you can't have any more pretzels unless you buy another beer. MR. HOOVER: I have a question. You're referring to dollar amount on your sales? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I said --I believe I said dollar sales. MR. HOOVER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: trouble. If we did it by volume, we might be in Item #12Cl ORDINANCE 98-11 AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-79 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO THE PELICAN MARSH PUD DOCUMENT RESULTING FROM A TRANSMITTAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF A DOCUMENT IN WHICH CERTAIN PAGES WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED -ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on then to Item 12-C-1. This is a scrivener's error. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you will close the public hearing, I will be glad to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the correcting of a scrivener's error. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #13Al RESOLUTION 98-37 RE PETITION V-97-14, JOHN HOBART REPRESENTING FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES REQUESTING A 40 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM