Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/04/2004 R November 4,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 4, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Paul Midney ( absent) Lindy Adelstein Mark Strain Donna Reed Caron Robert Vigliotti (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning 1 ~. _~__··___V'___W"_·"'__· AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2004, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NOTE: The public should be advised that a member of the Collier County Planning Commission (Bob Murray) is also a member of the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee. In this regard, matters coming before the Collier County Planning Commission may come before the Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee from time to time. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 22, 2004, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 4, 2004, LDC MEETING; OCTOBER 7, 2004, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - Not available at this time. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: V A-2004-AR-5878, Michael J. Needham and Wendy B. Needham, property owners, represented by Michael A. Durant of Conróy, Coleman and Hazzard, P.A., requesting a 7-foot variance in the PUD zoning district from the required 15-foot rear setback, to allow an eight-foot (8) setback, within which the petitioner wants to extend an existing screen enclosure. The property, consisting of 17,077 square feet, is located at 720 Bay Tree Court; further described as Site 7, Block A, Pelican Bay Unit One, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 9/16/04 B. Petition: V A-2004-AR-6140, Pine Ridge Investors of Naples, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a variance to reduce the 15-foot external PUD setback for the western PUD boundary of the Pine Ridge Center PUD; and the eastern PUD boundary of the Pine Ridge Center West PUD to permit a O-foot setback from the common PUD boundaries. Due to the now common ownership of both Planned Unit Developments, it is the intent of the property owner to develop a unified project. The variance is necessitated by the presence of a jurisdictional wetland area that was detected on the Pine Ridge Center West PUD, which was not represented on the approved conceptual PUD master plan. Coupled with local requirements for setbacks from wetland areas, and the 15-foot PUD boundary setback, the development envelope is altered to the point that it leaves an area of approximately 100 feet in width to construct the proposed office building use. The properties are located on Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.73± acres (Pine Ridge Center PUD); and 8.87± acres (Pine Ridge Center West PUD). (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) C. Petition: CU-2004-AR-5770. Office Depot represented by Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. requesting Conditional Use 11 ofthe C-3 zoning district for an Office Depot located at 10419 Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41). The property is located approximately II2 mile south of Immokalee Road on Tamiami Trail N (U.S. 41) between 104th Avenue North and 105th Avenue North, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.85± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) CONTINUED FROM 10/21!04 D. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-5220, Land Development Group, LLC, represented by Ronald Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, LLP, requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) zoning to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) for a project to be known as the Buckley Mixed Use PUD to allow for mixed-use commercial and residential development. The PUD is proposed for a maximum of 251 residential dwelling units, a maximum of 74,230 square feet of retail commercial, and a maximum of97,070 square feet of office commercial uses. The property is located at 7501 Airport-Pulling Road, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, north of the Collier County Regional Library, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of22.84± acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 11I4/04/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 November 4, 2004 (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. We'll start with our roll call. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney will be absent. Captain Bly -- I mean Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. We are all-- we have a quorum. Addenda to the agenda. I believe we're going to have a very much-modified agenda today. We have three items that I believe are going to be continued. It would be Item A, petition V A-2004-AR-5878. That is a seven-foot variance in -- what community is that -- Pelican Bay Unit 1. Also to be continued would be petition V A-2004-AR-6140. That's the Pine Ridge Center West. And also to be continued would be petition PUDZ-2004-AR-5220. That is the rezone from rural agricultural to mixed use at the Buckley PUD. Yes, sir. 2 November 4,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to continue the three items that you just enumerated, I think that's all until the 18th of November, is that not right? Until 18th of November. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion and second. I am interested, though, do we have any idea what this volume is going to be on the 18th and are we stacking ourselves up for a heck of a day or two? MR. BELLOWS: There will be four currently on the agenda. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would it be prudent for us to continue not to a date certain, but to continue to allow you some leeway so that you don't overload us on that day, because I don't -- I have no idea what we're stacking ourselves up for. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to make an amendment to the motion on that case that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Would that -- does that work for staff? Does that make sense, or you're quite comfortable? MR. SCHMITT: W e'lllook at it. What the issue is, what we had planned for the December Board of County Commissioners meeting. So it's December 14th. Anyway, we'll look at the timing of it so -- and what projects may be able to slip. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to amend the motion to make it state that it should not go -- there should not be more than six on our agenda for that next meeting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I won't accept that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. Why would we -- I don't -- what's the issue about the timing? We just -- we take whatever is on and we stay here until it's done. I don't understand where -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, sometimes we have -- agendas are a day long or a day and a half to start with, and we throw another day on top, at some point I will have had enough. I don't know about the 3 November 4,2004 other planning commissioners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we could deal with that when it happens. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. Mr. Abernathy, you want to stick with your motion or just amend it to a continuance, not a date certain? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm going to stick with my motion -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- if the 18th -- ifit hasn't worked out we'll continue them again. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. Ms. Student, did you have something? I thought -- MS. STUDENT: No. I was just listening. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Is there any other discussion on the motion? There is none. We'll call the question. All those in favor of continuing these three items to November 18th signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. That will leave us with one regularly scheduled advertised public hearing for the Office Depot in Naples Park today. Moving on in our agenda, are there any planning commission absences in our near future? There are none announced. We then have the approval of minutes of September 22nd, 2004. Anyone have a motion to approve? 4 November 4,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of -- of the 24th? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Twenty-second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The cover page says that we met at 5:05 up at the top and then it says called to order at 5:00 p.m. at the bottom. Is it supposed to be 5:05 as a matter of law? MS. STUDENT: The law just says anytime after 5 :00, as I recall. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is 5:00 after 5:00? MS. STUDENT: Anytime -- that the hearing shall be had after 5:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Is 5:00 after 5:00? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I remember we started a couple seconds late. MS. STUDENT: Well, I think if it's a few seconds after, I think we're okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: She said up at the top it started at 5:05. Why don't we just modify the bottom to say 5:05? MS. STUDENT: Makes sense. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anything else, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, sir. I'm trying to find it. The meeting we had over across the way. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is this -- are we still on September 22nd? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, no. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll take your comments as a motion to approve September 22nd as amended. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein seconds. Any discussion? There is none. All those for approving September 22nd minutes as amended say aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. 5 November 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy, you had another-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Not on October 4th, so -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: October 7th? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: October 7th, yes, sir. On Page 53, I'm quoted there a couple times on a problem that Mr. Schiffer was having with the motion, but then on 55 when the roll was called, I had left -- that's that meeting where I had to leave at noon and there's no indication in between that I left. So something needs to be plugged in somewhere to show that I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: In other words, the critical point is you were not there for the vote. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was not there for the vote but it doesn't show why not. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We'll amend them accordingly. Any other corrections to that? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Abernathy. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second By Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? There is none. All those in favor of the motion to approve as amended the October 7th minutes say aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. 6 November 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. And last, our October 4th minutes. Do we have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion be made they be approved as written. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Abernathy. Discussion? There is none. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Motion approves. Board of County Commissioners reports. We didn't have a written report, but do you have any verbal comments? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land use items at the last board meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. We have no Chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearing and -- advertised public hearings, that's an interesting redundancy. Petition CU-2004-AR-5770, Office Depot requesting a Use 11 of 7 November 4, 2004 the C- 3 zoning district. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I have a whole slew of E-mail so far, as best as I can remember, I've -- not all names are provided. I had E-mails from two people George and Cindy, from Janet Ross, Sandy Vanzo (phonetic), J.M. Ignemi (phonetic), Loretta Lalou (phonetic). Those five E-mails were all against, strongly, the Office Depot. I had numerous cell phone calls. Unfortunately I was driving, I couldn't make notes. I mean, I probably could have but it may not have been safe. Two of those, though, were received when I wasn't driving. One was from Rita Moderese (phonetic) and Rosanna Weaver. And both of those were equally opposed to the Office Depot. And I also had discussions with the applicant's attorney, and I may have had a discussion with his agent as well, Wayne Arnold -- oh, no, Wayne isn't the agent, is he. MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: For my own part, I'm not nearly as popular. I only spoke with the applicant's attorney's office. Other disclosures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I had an E-mail from a Janet Ross, George and Cindy, Jeanne-Marie Reardon, Loretta Lalou (phonetic), Mary Rand; and I had a fax and a phone conversation with Chris Carpenter. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had the same E-mails but I had no conversations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Same, E-mails.no 8 November 4, 2004 conversations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had those E-mails.In accordance with my practice I filed them without reading them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same E-mails.andinadditionI.ve spoken to the petitioners, Mr. Y ovanovich, and also to Chris Carpenter and Barbara Bateman and Marie Sourbeer (phonetic), who are in the audience. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Very good. With that we will hear from the petitioner's representative. MR. YO V ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. I also have other members of the team that can answer any questions you may have, but they are not planning on making a specific presentation. Tim Dearman with Newton, Oldacre, who's the developer of the project, is here. Don Murray with Coastal Engineering, the planner on the project, is here. Clayton Miller with Coastal Engineering, the civil engineer on the project, is here; and our landscape architect, Jeff Moore, is also here if you have any questions regarding our landscape plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one right off the bat, Rich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Who is the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The property is actually owned by -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This is Mr. Hearth (phonetic) ? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. He owns the property. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He's not the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The applicant is actually Newton, Oldacre and McDonald. They have it under contract to purchase the 9 November 4,2004 property . COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, the staff mentioned Arco Finance as the owner, so we got three people vying for that honors: Arco, subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield, they're going to finance this thing or how do they get into it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know how -- to be honest with you, I don't know how that name came about. That must be Mr. Hearth's entity. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But he owns it 100 percent, okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So is there a contract to purchase? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That isn't listed on the appropriate page of the application. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's -- we'll correct the record on that, Mr. Abernathy. But yes, yes-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Would save me all these questions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. No problem. Any other questions regarding the application before I get into the details? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if you need more details, Mr. Dearman can get into those things for you. Okay. What we're here today for is a conditional use No. 11, as Mr. Budd pointed out. The property is already zoned C-3, which you all know is probably one of the -- it's not -- it's commercial uses that are intended to be the more intensive commercial uses and be the attractors of retail trips. We're going through the conditional use process because in the last couple of years there was a change to the code that required, if 10 November 4,2004 you had a user of greater than 5,000 square feet, you had to go through the conditional use process versus it being a permitted use as it used to be. So we're going through the conditional use process now because Office Depot wants to put in a retail establishment on that property, and they are obviously greater than 5,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are they going to be a tenant or are they the eventual purchaser? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They will be the tenant, right? They'll be the tenant. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The building itself is approximately 19,000 square feet. Of that 19,000 square feet, a little over 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the retail uses, and over 3,000 square feet will be dedicated to office space and storage. So the actual -- even though we did a traffic study showing the full use of the building of being full retail, in reality, you know, over 3,000 square feet really is going to be space that's not going to be servicing the customers. I'll take you through our site plan real quickly to show you how this will work. I know you all have one but I don't know if it's -- if you can read it on the visualizer, so I put the bigger copy up. Access to our property will be through 105th Avenue and also through 104th Avenue off of U.S. 41. There are no level of service issues with U.S. 41 with our project as far as the traffic goes. We have oriented the building in a way that our loading and unloading will be away from the residential uses over here. So our loading and unloading will be on the south side of the building and will be screened so it's not seen from the roadway. We will also have an 8- foot wall along the rear of our property line that will be landscaped both sides as a buffer for the residential use immediately adjacent to us to the west. That will be a 15-foot-wide Type B landscape buffer. 11 November 4, 2004 The architectural -- architecture of the building -- if you all can see that -- it will be a very attractive building. It will meet the architectural requirements of Collier County. And I also have the -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No deviations? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're not asking for any deviations. I heard that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which architectural standards, the old ones or the new ones that will be approved effective November 10th? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The ones that exist today. We're in for our site development plan as we speak -- effective what day was that, Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I believe November 10. It was Section 2.8 that we've already reviewed is going before the BCC, and I thought it was November 10th. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We're -- I don't know the differences between the two but we are in under the existing code, I believe. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Quite a few differences. That's why I'm wondering which one you come under. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're under the old ones, I believe. This is the planting for the wall and along the -- this is the west rear portion of the building. COMMISSIONER CARON: What's the height of that building, Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thirty-four feet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thirty-four. Is that true height or is that -- that truth in advertising height or is that your height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: My height is five-six. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Stretching it a little bit, isn't it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: On a good day I can get to five-seven. It's 34 feet as you measure under the code. I don't believe that's 12 November 4, 2004 to the tippy top but I can -- I'll have -- in the break I'll ask -- I'll confirm that. COMMISSIONER CARON: We need to have the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The truth in advertising height, you would like to know. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. We have met with the neighbors on two occasions. One was the required neighborhood information meeting, and we held a follow-up meeting because they had concerns about water management issues, what was the landscaping plan going to be like along the wall. So we had a follow-up meeting with the neighbors to let them know what was going on, and I think we've alleviated their concerns. One of their concerns was truck traffic for our delivery trucks. And our delivery trucks will be coming from the north and heading to the south because there is another Office Depot further south on 41. So when the trucks enter our property there will be no reason for them to go into the residential neighborhood. They will just come back out onto U. S. 41, head south to go to the store to the south. So there will be -- none of our delivery trucks will be going through the neighborhood. N ow there are -- and this is a little confusing. There are some Office Depot delivery trucks for delivery to businesses and delivery to homes. We do not do any home delivery or business delivery out of our operation. That is all done out of another warehouse. So those trucks will not be trucks that will be coming from our store. So we have -- we are making sure that our trucks will not be going through the residential neighborhood to our west, which was one of the concerns that we addressed in the neighborhood information meeting. The traffic analysis that is in your packet shows that we do not have any traffic issues on 41 or create any problems on the two side streets that we will be gaining access from. 13 _u____ November 4,2004 We -- if you've reviewed your staff report and our application, I believe we meet all the criteria for the approval of the conditional use. Weare compatible with our residential neighbor to the west. There was one concern raised regarding the actual size of the building. The size of the building, really, it could be the same size regardless. What the problem is, is that we would then have four 5,000-square-feet or less users within the same 20000-square-foot building, we would have a strip -- little strip center up there. So the footprint of the building is not going to be any bigger because of what we're doing. In reality, if you looked at the transportation analysis, we'll have less traffic generated by going with this approach than having four businesses located within a strip center. I believe that in general the meetings we had with the neighbors were positive. There were a couple of people that were nay-sayers. One of the comments was size of the building, and I think we've addressed that. The size of the building is going to be the same regardless. The other person was concerned about competition, which I don't believe is one of the criteria that you evaluate for a conditional use. But we tried to assure him that we have -- Office Depot has existed with other, you know, mom and pop pack and ship places throughout the country and does not put them out of business. As a matter of fact, I didn't know Office Depot did any pack and ship, that's how little they call it to anybody's attention. So we believe that we're not going to be an impact to the businesses in the area. I think we'll actually help the businesses in the area, as the restaurant owner to our south pointed out that he's looking forward to us coming there. It was in today's paper. He's also made positive statements at the neighborhood information meeting. So generally, I believe we've been well received by the neighborhood, other than those two concerns that I think we've 14 November 4,2004 addressed through our petition. We will also have sidewalks along 104th and 105th that will connect to U.S. 41, so we're not asking for any deviations from any code requirements. I don't want to belabor what's in front of you already in writing. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have regarding the petition. And if I can't answer the questions, somebody from the team will be able to answer the question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for Mr. Yovanovich? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, maybe you could do it. Could you pan up -- and let me ask Rich what the height of the building is at the rear. I know -- MR. SCHMIDT: Before you move that, Ray, we need to point out that the height is shown on there, and that is the highest point of the building. It's 34 feet 8 inches. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Eight inches, right. And then the rear is smaller. MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-five, four. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The rear is 25-4. MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-five feet four inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the site plan it shows the request that you may have a road cut coming in right off of 41. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a dream. It's a hope with FDOT, but COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the dream comes true, it will really cut into your parking. Would the building be smaller then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would have to accommodate if we lose the parking, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No more questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Following up with Brad's last 15 November 4, 2004 comment, you currently have curb cuts on 41. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they are not going to allow those to continue? Couldn't you build around them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've met with FDOT, who controls 41 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and we were having no luck in keeping any of those curb cuts. So the curb cuts on 41 are, you know, more than likely going away. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you were to build but leave-- but not touch those curb cuts, they still would make your close them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I guess you said you were in for an SDP? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I guess maybe Ray could answer this question then. How can they be in for an SDP if they're here today looking for zoning approval? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The county will allow a petitioner to submit an SDP in conjunction with a conditional use application. The conditional use is not changing the zoning development standards. Those are the same as the C-3. We're only looking at the use. The site development plan will not be approved until the conditional use is approved, though. But the development standards and everything else remain the same as the C-3, so the staff has a legitimate zoning district to work from in analyzing the SDP. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On this case they didn't remain the same because you've got new architectural standards coming in that normally would have been looked at after they were actually submitted, which would have been after this date, so -- and maybe -- 16 November 4, 2004 MR. BELLOWS: That's a point. But the fact is the zoning district development standards are there and we've previously set a policy to set the site development plans in conjunction with the conditional use. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is Section 2.8 part of the zoning development standards? MR. BELLOWS: Previously to the adoption of the ULDC, which has a new section number regarding -- but those are the same standards. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they are changing. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has anybody at staff evaluated the difference in how that would affect this study? MR. BELLOWS: This petition was sent to Carolina Valera, our county architect. And in the summary staff report that was attached, she -- that's her recommendation, that it's found consistent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The rear landscaping. I notice the diagram you have up there, the trees along the rear look to be a specific spacing. You showed a different diagram a little -- in the beginning of your presentation, and the spacing of the trees look closer together. That's the one. Which is it? It's that one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The original elevations were just to show, really, the elevation of the building. This is the landscape plan that we're proposing to actually construct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I saw a reference to a wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. It's there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. It's a screen, is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. The wall is the -- did you say green or screen? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. I see it, it's that -- I see what it is but it -- where -- it's going to go behind the landscaping then? 17 November 4,2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. So you won't -- you are not going to see a stark wall. COMMISSIONER CARON: So is there -- are there both trees and some sort of a berm there in green and then that pink is the wall? MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a hed -- there's a hedge -- yes, there is going to have to be a hedge in front of the wall to hide the wall. It will grow up and hide the wall. What you see as the very pink strip across the top, Ms. Caron, that's -- that's the wall. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the top of the wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the top of the wall. COMMISSIONER CARON: And is that facing your building or is that facing residential? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the side facing the residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to be clear. The wall is -- the trees are between the -- I mean, where's the prop -- I can't see that drawing from here. I couldn't see it if I was next to it, probably. But I can't see that drawing at the lower right. So maybe the camera could pan on it or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This one right here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where's the prop -- put your finger on the property line. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Here's the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The wall is set back 8 feet from the property line, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And landscaping -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then landscaping and trees are on the 8 towards the residential property owner. And this was a plan that we nego -- not -- I don't want to use the word "negotiate" but we worked with the property, the residential property owner to come up with this type of buffer. 18 November 4,2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have a follow-up question. I'm very concerned for the CVS property that exists down on East Naples. And I know you used the term "it will grow into it." What size are we talking about there, because I'm extremely disheartened by what was put down by CVS. MR. MOORE: I'm Jeff Moore, the landscape architect. Right now the plan is designed to meet code, but the Type B buffer, the shrubs have to be at least 5 feet high. And all of the trees we're proposing will be above minimum, at least 10- foot plus. And so that's what the code requires and that's what we are proposing right this minute. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That may be what the code requires but it -- if we're going to treat the neighbors properly we want to give them something, I think, hopefully a little bit better than that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich, I'm not sure it's going to make a difference in my disposition of this matter, but it seems to me it's a little bit facile to say that one 19,000-square-foot building is the same as four 5000-square-feet. I mean, forget about the thousand difference, if you had four buildings, each would have setbacks, side setbacks, wouldn't they? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Mr. Abernathy, I could come in and compartmentalize -- the footprint would still be 2,000 -- I mean, 20,000 square feet, I just couldn't have an individual user exceed 5,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not buildings, okay. So the footprint still would be the same. 19 ---- November 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I misread it then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It'd be a -- think of any typical strip center you see out there, how they are compartmentalized with users. And I think, cumulatively, the traffic impact would be worse. If you were to put a restaurant in there and other uses that you actually could put in as a matter of right, I think the traffic impact probably would be worse than what we're -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I jumped too far. It says retail uses be limited to 5,000 square feet. So you are right. I'm sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, we'll get back on your line of question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your building is 19,000 square feet but 15,250, according to the report I have, is going to be used for retail and sales, and the remaining 3,184 is storage, non-retail. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your analysis for the traffic impacts, I found a couple -- and it was Metro that did it, references the 19,000 square feet, and I'm wondering did they do the traffic impacts on the full 19,000 as being retail or did they take off and do it on 15,000? How did that come out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: They actually did the analysis on the full 19, which is a worst-case scenario -- a more worst-case scenario for traffic than if we had just eliminated the 3,000 or so square feet of storage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has anybody since taken a look to do it at 15 so they can determine how -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've asked our traffic consultant to do that. I don't have the report back from him yet. I'm assuming, intellectually, it's got to come down. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the -- in your traffic report on 105th Avenue, you talk about the length west of U.S. 41. Level of 20 November 4,2004 service standard impact is supposed to be 3 percent or less and it says the project traffic impact level of service standard is 3.7 percent. You broke that 3 percent threshold and I'm just trying to understand what that means in regards to what you have to do to mitigate it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe we -- that's a measure of significance, and if there is a -- if it's significant and then it somehow degrades the level of service, then we have to do something about it. I mean, Don Scott can answer that question better than I can. But we don't degrade the level of service to the point of having to do mitigation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, maybe when we -- I'll finish talking with you and ask Don some of those questions. I have a document that was sent to me the first time you came or tried to come before us. You've been continued twice. I'm not sure if some of these documents have cleaned up. Table lA of your traffic analysis references Santa Barbara Boulevard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That has been directed to be cleaned up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had pointed that out to you as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, you have. And I pointed that out to my consultant. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You have an attachment to your traffic reports called the Art Plan 4.0 Level of Service Spreadsheets U.S. 41, and on the first sheet of that plan the number lanes were calculated for 99th Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach and Banyan Road. Someone crossed the numbers out with a pen and put in different numerical lane references. The only thing I'm asking is what is it that was used to develop a standard, and I don't -- is it the numerical one that was written in or the numerical one that was typed in? I don't know why they give it to us in this manner unless -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: To be honest with you, my copy doesn't 21 -",--- November 4,2004 have any handwritten changes. Can you tell me the page number? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. But you can put it on the screen if you'd like. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Art Plan -- it starts this way? Is this the page before it? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, the first-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then the first page immediately after it? MR. SCHMITT: Here is mine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was down at the bottom, the last -- there you go. See those scratch-outs? What is the significance of those in regards to the analysis that was done? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm told that that's our changes and that we need to just clean -- we need to make the -- it's analyzed with those numbers but we need to go ahead and make the change to the official submittal. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's analyzed with the number three -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- instead of number two? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And does the clean copy that you have use the reference three instead of two? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm having those changes corrected for the record. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So yours isn't corrected either. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In making those changes, what was the tabulations of the traffic impact statement done on; was it based on the three or the two? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The three. 22 November 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So even though the computer or whoever typed this had two in there, the machine knew not to use that and use the handwritten three. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what my consultant tells me, is the numbers were based on the proper analysis. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I can't dispute it because I don't know the difference, but I just hope you are right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That answer -- we'll make sure that the board has the clean copy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And you'll verify that whatever the board has is what was used in all computations? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Towards the -- a couple pages back from that, it's called Trip Generation Equations U.S. 41 Office Depot, and it talks about a land use, of course it says office supply superstore, then it says weekday PM peak hour, and it's a T = 3.4X at 53 percent entering. I've seen a lot of these and I don't always understand everything in them. This one seemed interesting but I didn't understand it. And I was wondering -- I know probably -- you're an attorney so you're not going to be able to explain it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to guarantee you I can't explain it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there someone from your side or do you know anybody in this room, like Don -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Scott, I believe, can help answer that question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So when everybody finishes with you we'll ask Mr. Scott. The last thing, is there any left turn lanes on 41 that you could use going out of 105 or 104th Avenue? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We cannot go left leaving 104th or 23 November 4, 2004 1 05th. You head north, you mean, on 41, is that the question? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, that's it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We can't get there from here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And as far as water runoff, , you re -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's all going to be addressed at sjte planning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: These are issues that were sent to me by -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wanted to make sure that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we -- and again, those issues were raised with us and we had our engineer there to explain to them that we're not allowed to let the water flow off our property at a rate -- and, actually, we're going to make it better because it sheet flows right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have of Rich. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions ofMr. Yovanovich? There are none at this time. Anyone else from your team to present any testimony? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not unless -- no, not unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Ifwe could hear from staff, please. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. This petition has been reviewed by all of the various county departments. The transportation department has recommended approval. It meets the traffic element of the comprehensive plan. The turn lanes will be subject to all of the county codes and requirements. The environmental staff has recommended approval. Our county architect has looked at this plan and has recommended approval. Staff has conducted a compatibility analysis, and with the 24 November 4, 2004 additional landscaping treatment as presented today, staff is recommending approval of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for Mr. Bellows? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, you said the county architect looked at it. So you mean Carolina's reviewed it and she has no problems with the plan as submitted? MR. BELLOWS: She reviewed the conditional use, which is not a full site development plan. The information shown to her on the conditional use is acceptable. She is also reviewing the site development plan which has been submitted, and that will be brought up to code as required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't know what the SDP review is yet. There may be comments. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Schiffer, I would comment, I know that Carolina has reviewed this, and in fact Office Depot has made several changes in regards to the architectural design. And I think probably I'm not in any way supporting or saying that -- that the proj ect will be approved, but in fact -- but if you want to question the applicant, because I know they made some significant changes to the architectural design in order to meet the county code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But anything we approve today really has nothing to do with the design. It has to meet 2.8 or whatever version we -- MR. SCHMITT: The old administrative process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be the old 2.8, though, from what I understand. She reviewed it under the existing LDC. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I personally, I think I'm 25 November 4,2004 sharing with you the need to put it into the future. The question, the sidewalks that are up on 41, why do we take sidewalks off the property line and put them right on the traffic edge on a high-speed road like that? Is that a requirement or-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that a staff question or my question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, anybody can answer. It ust seems, you know -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, it's an existing sidewalk that was constructed at the time they made the changes to 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't that a dangerous place to have children and people playing and walking, and -- can't you fix that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Who -- you know, who am I to question the government? (Laughter.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: This time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just remember he said that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: A little tongue in cheek. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that is not something you're building? I mean, it looks like it's a new sidewalk but I guess -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It's there and it exists. We're building the sidewalks that will actually physically connect to it along 104th and 105th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ray, the site map goes -- that we have in front of us indicates that between 104th and 105th there are what look like about ten lots that have an east-west orientation to them, long and thin, that face on 41. Are you with me? MR. BELLOWS: These? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now immediately west of 26 November 4,2004 those -- I'm talking about this site map. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The original plan you had on the overhead, Ray, would probably be more useful for what Ken is trying to do. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, there we are. Those are my -- I didn't count them but it looks like about ten of those lots that face on 41. N ow immediately behind there to the west of that there are four ranks of two lots between 104th and 105th. I take it those are also zoned C-3? MR. BELLOWS: These lots are all zoned C-3. Over here is RS-6 -- or RMF-6. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, how well are --let's take between 103rd and 104th, between 105th and 106th, are those first four ranks of -- MR. BELLOWS: This might be better. This is the zoning map. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can draw a straight line down. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I see that. So these things, these lots have been C-3 for some time. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm a little put off by people complaining that this is going to be a commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood when these things have been commercial C-3 for some time. I mean, it's not -- MR. SCHMITT: I would hate to bring up the dreaded subj ect called the Naples Redevelopment Plan but -- Naples Park Redevelopment Plan, but that was one of the purposes of the plan, to address specifically the zoning in this area which, certainly you know the results of that, so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was it just west of those four ranks that 8 1/2 Street was going to go? 27 November 4, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: That was -- 8 1/2 Street was going nowhere. That was just simply a proposal to help promote a sense of community. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: But there was nothing ever codified -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll put the lid back on that. MR. SCHMITT: Put the lid back on that one. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: But the initial -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But the point is those have been commercial for some period of time anyway. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: So do you know how long they have been C- 3? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, they have been zoned C-3 since as long as I've been here, 16 years, and I assume they were about the time it was platted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have been here 26, 27 years and I used to live right over near them and they were C-3 then. COMMISSIONER CARON: C-3 then. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or whatever the zoning category was for commercial then. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions on the staff presentation? There are none. Do we have registered speakers from the public? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Strain did you still have -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don Scott's got a lot of questions 28 November 4,2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, but we'll not go to the public yet. We'll finish up with Mr. Strain's questions relative to transportation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: While he's coming down, do all of us have the conditional use form? It didn't come out on the second issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have the chairman's form in the latest. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. We have it -- that you can cross the name off. Does everybody have a form? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got to wrestle Budd for them. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He's crossing his name out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Scott. MR. SCOTT: Hi. Don Scott, transportation planning. As for your first question, 105th and-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- let me ask the questions. MR. SCOTT: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then I can get them in order, if you don't mind. I know you probably remembered them all. MR. SCOTT: No, I don't remember all of them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We had a little -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to take a ten-minute break while we fix a coffee spill. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Scott, you were responding to Mr. Strain's questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They did their traffic calculations on 19,000 square feet of retail and they actually have 15,000, with 3,000 square feet of storage. When you do traffic count studies for departments like they were required to do, could they have separately broken that apart and put different calculations for parking? 29 November 4, 2004 MR. SCOTT: No. We would look at the worst-case scenario because someone saying they are using that for storage or whatever, doesn't mean later on it would be storage. So we would look at the worst-case. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you still would look at 19,000? MR. SCOTT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's where I was getting. The level of service impact of 3 percent is exceeded on one of their connections to 3.7. Can you explain the significance of .7, if any? MR. SCOTT: The concurrency is on the collector and arterial system, so when you are talking about the side street impact we only look at that from an aspect of is it going to be, you know, a substantial amount of trips over what we think a two lane capacity is going to be. And that's kind of what they are showing, is the two lane capacity and what their -- what traffic is on that street. But from a concurrency aspect, and that's the 335, that's just on the arterial collector road system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But why then are they using a 3 percent? What does it mean if they have a 3 percent there for a reference, what does it mean when they go above it? I mean, why do it if it isn't useful? MR. SCOTT: I don't really know. I think they were just, you know, looking at a standard table and saying, this is this impact, this is this impact. I don't know why they put that in there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Were they required to submit that kind of information? MR. SCOTT: No, they weren't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Too much data sometimes comes back to bite you. MR. SCOTT: That's right. Makes questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The formula that I asked to have 30 November 4, 2004 explained, did you understand what I was asking? MR. SCOTT: That was -- that was trips. It's multiplied per thousand square feet. And the 53 percent entering is, during PM peak hour it's assumed that 53 percent enter, 47 percent leave. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So whatever their business is each day, 53 percent of it is going to be entering at the peak hour. MR. SCOTT: Well, you look at different -- different -- it depends on what different types and everything, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOTT: -- within there they have, you know, for certain PM peak, AM peak. That was for PM peak. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And lastly, this plan that I questioned with the scratch-offs on it, it's indicating number of lanes on Vanderbilt Beach Road -- from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Banyan Road. I'm just wondering, you know, I notice they've crossed off and put something on here. Do we have three lanes on some of these roads? Do you know which numbers are -- MR. SCOTT: Can I see that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCOTT: I got it. This is on 41 so, yes, we do have six lanes in there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that is consistent with reality, then? MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all the traffic issues I had to discuss, so thank you, Don. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Russ, can I ask a traffic -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don, during the break, Rich told me that the sidewalk isn't in. 31 November 4,2004 Are we able to put the sidewalk on the property line rather than the edge the road? MR. SCOTT: I was talking to him about that. I guess the ones-- it kind of matches up with what happened to the south. We could look at whether it could go a little bit further back. They try to put it within the right-of-way. The right-of-way is 200 feet out there. With the six lanes and everything they are close to the edge of the right-of-way, but we could look and see if it could go a little further back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because what it could be is right on the property line, which is right on the right-of-way. MR. SCOTT: Right. And I'm not sure how that's going to match up with what might be out there already but we'll look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't believe people are crossing sidewalk to sidewalk right along the edge of that traffic lane anyway, that would be -- you would bring people further into the side street before you cross. MR. SCOTT: And it's better if you do it, you know, organized, it's back -- I mean, we have some cases where you put the sidewalk in there, people are going to go over, take the sidewalk and back out. But we can look and see what the difference is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Scott? Does that include the -- conclude the staff presentation? MR. BELLOWS: Just one -- make one other note. I've received three letters in opposition, basically concerned about the size of the building and additional traffic resulting from the larger-sized building. Received several phone calls in opposition and one in support. Of those I talked to on the phone I explained that the project size of the building would still remain, it's just the size of the stores within it are part of the conditional use. They still objected. That's all I wanted to put on the record, and now we can go to -- 32 November 4,2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, have the neighbors on Lot 48 or Lot 15, have you talked to them? Do you know what their feelings are? MR. BELLOWS: They didn't tell me what lot they were on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, what you are saying is this 19,000, or let's say 20,000 is the maximum, a 20,000-square-foot building would be built here as big and the same footprint as this, except inside it would have to be partitioned off into 5,000-square-foot increments? MR. BELLOWS: The land development code says uses not to exceed 5,000 square feet. That's been interpreted that you can have a building. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And those other 5,000-square-foot increments could be mixed uses of any type allowed under C-3? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would they have any different ramifications for their rear access for -- well, if they did that they wouldn't need to be here today. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would they be -- would anybody coming in be forced to have deliveries then only towards the front like they are proposing today or could another building who wouldn't have to come here today have delivery applications down an alleyway, say, between the residential and them and do whatever they want to do in the rear of the building? MR. BELLOWS: Depending on site constraints. There's no code that forces them to put the loading dock in a specific area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because I did notice the loading dock is orientated towards the front of this building, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BELLOWS: The south side. 33 >'"-- November 4,2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, south side. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? We move to the registered speakers, please. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker is B.J. Savard-Boyer, followed by Marie Sourbeer. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good morning. My name is B.J. Savard-Boyer. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. And our Board of Directors did discuss the Office Depot. We, basically we don't have a problem with Office Depot building there. What our problem is, is the size of the building and the amount of parking in the lot, the coverage of the lot. We would like to see a smaller building, of course, and we would like to see more green space. We look to the Granada shopping center to the north and we see retention ponds and we see fountains and it looks quite lovely. We've been trying for awhile to improve or beautify Naples Park and we haven't gotten anywhere, and if we go along the commercial road and we have all parking lot and we have very large boxes sitting on blacktop, that isn't going to be very beautiful either. So, aside from that, this building, 3,000 square feet of warehouse, you are going to have very large delivery trucks. You are not going to have small trucks that would be delivering to smaller stores, not that I'm saying that we need to have a strip mall. I'm not saying that at all. So I guess, in conclusion, we would just like to see maybe more green space in the front. As Brad was saying, maybe we could have a fountain in the front, maybe we could have a bench or two for the people that are walking along there, maybe move the sidewalk in there. Make it look pretty. I mean, what's the matter with pretty? We don't have to be practical all the time, we can be pretty. The other thing is this detention area, is it all concrete, is it just a deep concrete hole? I don't understand what a detention thing is. I did go up to Wal-Mart and I checked their detention area and it's full of 34 November 4, 2004 trash. Sometimes it has shopping carts in it or it has weeds. So I don't know that that's very good looking and I don't know how safe it is. If you are going to have that right along 105th, alongside the building, you are going to have a deep hole. So why can't we just put water in the front with a fountain and why do we have to have over 60 -- excuse me -- parking spaces? I don't know that 60 people are going to be shopping in Office Depot at anyone time. N ow I understand that we have to have so many parking spaces for so much square footage of shopping, so I don't know where you can go with that. But maybe the building could be smaller and we could have more green space. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have some responses to your questions, if we could -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The first thing is the -- I would like the applicant to address the dry retention pond. How is it being constructed, what is it being supplemented with, how is it going to be replanted? If someone could address that. MR. MILLER: I'm Clayton Miller, the engineer on the project, Coastal Engineering. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sir, will you spell your name, please, for the court reporter. MR. MILLER: M-I-L-L-E-R. The dry detention behind the structure there will be all grass. There is a retaining wall there, but the bottom of the detention area itself will be grass and it will be dry except during large storms. So it will normally be a grassed area that will be maintained. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: The photograph I saw was on the north side of the building. Is it now behind the building? 35 November 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, B.J., it's not an opportunity for direct dialogue. You need to address your questions to us and we'll question the staff. Thank you. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was going to follow up on a question with you. The plain grass dry retention area does nothing to take away the negative impacts of the solid wall on the north side of that building. And detention is a nice -- usually a wet area. Cypress and other native trees grow real well in those areas. Has any -- do you have a landscape architect that's looked at supplemental plantings in that area to improve its appearance from the roadside? MR. MILLER: Yes. We're working with staff on this issue right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you're not proposing anything, at least you're not voluntarily proposing anything here today, which means we can suggest that you voluntarily propose something. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would second that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer to that question is we'll be happy to do it as long as staff allows us to do it. Staff doesn't always agree with our putting plantings in the retention areas. So if they will allow us we have no problem with doing it. We're committed -- we're committed to doing that, if staff will allow us to do it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They may not agree with the type of plantings you want to put in, but generally there are plantings that are more native and wet tolerant than ficus trees that are not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll put in water tolerant plants. We don't have an issue with that, Mr. Strain. It just is I don't want to commit to it and have staff tell me I can't do it. We're committed to doing it as long as staff will allow us to do it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So if we were to stipulate that should -- staff and you will work together to produce a plan subject to staffs abilities to do so. 36 November 4,2004 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And, B.J., the parking spaces. I understand your concern about that, there is a lot of asphalt. On a 20000-square- foot building used for something different I think you would actually see more parking than you will with this one. Their parking spaces are reduced by almost 3200 square feet of storage that they applied for. So they actually may end up having less parking than if you had the other uses. And I'm not saying that is good, I'm just saying there may be reason to at least be pleased. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, I question that because I have looked at furniture stores along 41, and I don't know the size of them, like the one that is next to the Driftwood, ARHaus, I think, they don't have -- they don't have 60 parking spaces there. And if you go down to Matter Brothers, I don't know how large their store is, they don't have over 60 parking spaces there. I just don't understand. Is that because further down it's the City of Naples and we're not in the City of Naples? I just -- I have been to Office Depot. I'm not opposed to the store. I'm opposed to this large blacktop and large building, and that is the feeling of our board. So if there is some way that we could put more grass, more flowers, more trees and make it look nice from the street instead of looking at a large parking lot and then -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, since this is wrapped with dry retention, by stipulating today that to the extent staff will allow that these facilities be augmented with additional landscaping, that's going to go a long way to help, at least that parking lot, so. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: That's our concern. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Rose Palumbo. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Marie Sourbeer followed by Rose Palumbo. 37 November 4, 2004 MS. SOURBEER: Good morning. I am Marie Sourbeer. I live in -- on 1 OOth Avenue in Naples Park, so I'm very concerned about what else you are going to build or allow to be built along 41 between 91 st Avenue and 111 tho You have really some monstrosities along there right now. Take a ride up there some day. So I'm here to ask you for your support regarding the request for the conditional use approval for the Office Depot, which will be the only tenant in that 19000-square- foot building. It's not such a large building for the amount of land that you are going to put it on if you'd really look at it, because there is a lot of green space around it, some parking area around it, and its going to be beautifully landscaped. I have attended their meetings. I'm very pleased with what they are proposing. It's not the neighbor -- the neighborhood -- let me see. The present plans provide a one-story building with landscaping, parking and buffered separation -- separating the rear of the -- from the residential dwellings. And the neighbors living in Naples Park, with little exception, have been happy to see a nice development go into there for primary use for North Collier as a neighbor of Naples Park. We do not need another gas station, a motel, a storage shed, a boutique shop or a mini-mall selling T-shirts or any more doctors' offices, fast food shops or another bank. So this is -- I'm asking you to please help us support this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Rose Palumbo, followed by Barbara Bateman. MS. PALUMBO: Good morning. My name is Rose Palumbo. I am in favor of this Office Depot. I think it would be a great improvement to the area. Traffic will be coming off of 41 and would not impact the park, except for the people living in the park. I've seen the drawings, it's a beautiful-shaped building and they 38 November 4,2004 are going to put in greenery. I think it's a great asset to the park. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Bateman, followed by Chris Carpenter. MS. BATEMAN: Good morning. My name is Barbara Bateman, and I'm going to be speaking as the civic chairman for the Naples Park Area Association, as well as speaking for myself. We held a meeting on October the 21 st where we placed this issue of the Office Depot to a vote, and the majority of the membership was in agreement they are very favorable of having the Office Depot located at 41/104th/105th. Now, according -- they had the opportunity to have previous meetings. They reviewed the design, and according to the architectural designs, I have no -- speaking personally for myself -- I have no problem with the design. The membership had no problem with the design. The Naples Park residents and homeowners that I have spoken with do not seem to have any objections to the building regarding size or the overall landscaping and design. In fact, they find it very attractive. They would prefer this kind of business and its design rather than another strip mall with its variety of businesses, which would only increase traffic flow in the area. A number of people were concerned about traffic. No matter what would go in there we're going to have traffic. We're growing and it's going to be there. Many of these people look forward to having this conveniently located establishment in our neighborhood. And I certainly hope that you will go ahead and move forward with this project. The landscaping. We had a number of meetings. They are going to have beautiful landscape in the parking area, and as that grows and matures I think it will offset, if some people are concerned about the size of that building, I believe it will make it very attractive. Thank 39 November 4,2004 you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Chris Carpenter, and that's the final speaker. MS. CARPENTER: My name is Chris Carpenter and I live in Vanderbilt Beach, but I own a duplex on 105th in Naples Park so I consider myself among those most affected by this. I think the building is just too big for where they want to put it. There -- in Naples Park there is no other single occupant building that takes up an entire commercial block. The biggest one you're going to find will take up half a block. And if they wanted to do half a block I would go along with it. Most of the office stores in town are part of large shopping centers. The Office Depot across from the mall is part of a large shopping center. The Office Max up at Airport and Pine Ridge, part of a large shopping center. I just don't think that this belongs in Naples Park. I think it belongs, like, across the street in the Granada shopping center. As I said, if they wanted to do a smaller store taking up half the block, I could go along with that, I think it's a much gentler transition to residential, which is right up against it. Office Depot can and has done smaller stores. According to -- hang on, let me grab this. Oh, gosh, according to their SEC filings for -- this would be filings for their 10K on 3/13/2003, it says, "In 2003 we plan to add approximately 40 new retail stores in North America, with almost half of these additions expected to be 13,000 square feet or less." According to their 1 OK annual report for -- filed on February 26th, 2004, "In 2003 we continued growing our business by opening a total of 36 new stores at an average of 14,000 square feet per store." In 2004, they were going to add some more stores approximately 16,000 square feet. So they can and have done smaller stores. One other thing that I noticed in this SEC filing is that they -- in 40 November 4,2004 2001 they closed 73 stores. In 2002 they closed 13 stores. In 2003 they closed three stores. That kind of concerns me. I would hate for them to have a big store that failed to meet their expectations. One other thing in support of a smaller store, Collier County hired a consultant, Dover, Kohl, to do a study of Naples Park, and it was a hotly debated issue. But one thing that wasn't widely discussed was that part of this study included market research or market -- retail market analysis. And -- hang on a second -- it was done by -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Are you going to be getting into the economics of the viability of the store? MS. CARPENTER: I would like to bring that up, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Because I believe, Ms. Student, is that not relevant to our land -- the economic viability. MS. STUDENT: There are four criteria that are set forth in the staff report that are in the code, and those are only things the planning commission considers. Economic viability is not one of those. MS. CARPENTER: Well, also what I wanted to address was square footage. And I just want to point out that according to this study, in the year 2007, this J. Eppink Partners felt that -- let me turn the page -- that in the year 2007 the total suggested supportable retail for office supply stores would be 5500 square feet in Naples Park, not 19,000. And I do question where they came up with the 19,000. That's all I wanted to say on that. Just a couple other things. I did run a flyer through the neighborhood trying to encourage people to make comments. Two people gave me letters, let me just grab them. Okay. This first one -- actually a little bit of background on this. This comes from Stony Brooks of Stony's Barber Shop. He had seen the public notice sign on 41 blow down on Saturday, October 16th, and it wasn't back up again until Thursday, October 21 st, which is the day after it was supposed to be up. I questioned Marjorie on whether that would be a defect in the 41 November 4, 2004 public notice and she felt that they had met the public notice requirements. But that's just background from what he writes. MS. STUDENT: We can't guarantee that an act of God mayor may not blow down a sign, and if reasonable, the applicant reasonably puts it back up, we don't think that's a problem. Furthermore, there are other means of advertising where individual notice is sent as well as the ad in the paper. MS. CARPENTER: The reason I mentioned it is because he mentions it in his letter, and it's very short, and it's actually addressed to Ray Bellows. "Mr. Bellows, I saw the sign blow off October 16th and I saw it back up on October 21 st. I totally disagree with Office Depot coming in this neighborhood and on this property. Stony Brooks." The next one is from Antonietta and Guiseppe Filetto (phonetic) of655 104th Avenue North in Naples Park to the Collier County Planning Commission. "We can't make it to your meeting tomorrow. We don't want the Office Depot at the top of our street. There will be much too -- it will be too much traffic and too many people coming to the neighborhood, and this is not good for our community. It's too big too. " Can I submit those to someone? And I have copies of any of this if you want it. One other thing I would like to add. With all due respect to Barbara Bateman and Naples Park Area Association, although it is true that at their October 21st meeting the majority voted in favor of this, the vote was something like 16 to three, so there really weren't very many people at the meeting. When I ran this flyer I got a chance to talk to a lot of people, and I found that the majority don't want this because of the size. I'm hoping that they will make it smaller. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Strain, you had some questions? 42 November 4,2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A couple. You're with the Vanderbilt Beach Civic Asso -- whatever the name is, Vanderbilt Beach -- MS. CARPENTER: Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. And I own a duplex on 105th. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But your association members are from generally what area? MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What area is your membership comprised of; is it along the Vanderbilt Beach area? MS. CARPENTER: Well, the cutoff would be Vanderbilt Drive. It doesn't include Naples Park. I'm not here representing VBPOA. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know. I understand. The Naples Park group, I would assume represents Naples Park. MS. CARPENTER: Okay. I'm also on that civic committee. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we have both civic groups; one that is not from the immediate area or the neighborhood surrounding that area in regards to their representation, but the other civic group is from the Naples Park area; is that fair to say? MS. CARPENTER: I think -- okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The other question I have of you is, are you against the building or are you against the company? MS. CARPENTER: Oh, I'm not against the company at all. I'm against the size of the building for the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You realize, though, that they could build a 20,000-square-foot building without being here today. MS. CARPENTER: I understand that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. MS. CARPENTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. 43 November 4, 2004 Any other speakers? I believe there's no other speakers; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any -- sir, did you want to speak? Okay. If you would come forward. Have you been sworn in? Come on in, we can handle that. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please state your name for the court reporter. MR. ROURKE: My name is Gary Rourke. I've lived on 105th Avenue in Naples Park for 31 years. I'm speaking out against this, basically on the size of the building. I think it's too big, not in character with Naples Park. Mainly, my biggest concern is traffic. Northbound 41, the turn lane into Naples Park on 105th is the last turn lane into Naples Park northbound. The traffic already, since they did that on the 41 improvement several years ago, was already heavy. 105th, especially in the 800 block gets really saturated with traffic coming into Naples Park going north-south. I think this is going to just compound that problem. And I want to know has this been looked at, I mean, as far as the traffic going into Naples Park on 105th, because you got -- the next place you can go westbound into Naples Park is 111 tho And I just think it's going to compound the traffic problem. And that's all I got to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. There being no other speakers, are there any final comments on the part of the petitioner? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to address, you know, B.J.'s comments regarding the number of parking. I can assure you we have not overparked the site. We've done the minimum code requirements for the parking, so we cannot eliminate any parking spaces. 44 ..,_".__"____~.'_.'"m ._ November 4,2004 I think you've heard from Mrs. Sourbeer, Mrs. Palumbo and Mrs. Bateman. They have been involved from day one with us in the project and have asked important questions to protect the neighborhood, and I think we've addressed all of those questions. The comments have been regarding size of the building and traffic, and our traffic analysis shows that we're not going to affect the traffic. And the size of the building is -- whether it's our use or another use it's going to be just as big a building. So we think that -- well, we don't think, we know we have met the criteria for the conditional use. We think we have neighborhood support we request that you follow your staffs recommendation of making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners of approval of our proj ect. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Correction to one of your statements. I don't think it is that you're not going to affect the traffic. No matter what you do you're going to affect the traffic. You're just not going to affect it in a way that exceeds the threshold established by the county. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. Any user that goes on that site is going to impact traffic, but we're not going to negatively impact traffic. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think B.J. Savard-Boyer, her recommendations for additional landscaping, is certainly not a bad idea. Maybe we can make it look like the Northern Trust building and a little more attractive around that area. But as you know from my prior question, I'm concerned for the level of maturity of the plants that are being put in. I'm concerned that 45 November 4,2004 although the buffer will ultimately provide a good looking sod, it doesn't satisfy in the initial plantings. And so I would ask that, encourage that you would arrange to put in more mature plants to bring it up to a nice look initially. That is an important matter to me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? There are not. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-5770 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subj ect to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have the right issue, this is a CU-2000 -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm behind you. You are correct. We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, do we have a second? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Mr. Abernathy. Discussion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I couldn't support it without a series of stipulations if the motion maker would like me to provide those. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I have comments to make also. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The first one is that the sidewalk along U.S. 41 be moved back as far as possible but still be retained within the right-of-way. The second one would be that the landscape plan for the rear buffer is as presented by the applicant today as a minimum standard. And the third is that additional landscaping will be added to the retention areas, and I'm talking about all of them, to the extent authorized by staff. And those are the three stipulations. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can accept those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein is comfortable, and the second? 46 November 4,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think Mr. Abernathy is also comfortable? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what do you think? I have concerns about the architectural standards. Can we make a stipulation that they meet the current standards? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think -- I would have thought about that but there's an issue that Joe is going to tell us after the meeting that may negate that whole point. So, apparently through some architectural discussions with your group, the architectural standards have the flexibility of in -- of 2.8 of being used any time between now and February 5th regards of the adoption on November 10th. So based on that I think it's -- I understand what you are saying but I don't think -- I think it's a moot point now. MR. SCHMITT: Actually, what will happen, Brad, they will have the option between November 10th up to January 2nd to come under either the new or the old standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: By choice. MR. SCHMITT: By choice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is the height. If you look at the thing that's on the screen, you can see that a lot of the height in the front of the parapet is really just -- you know, I mean, you might want to consider it billboard height. Do we want to discuss maybe limiting that? I mean, look at the lower image that is on our monitor, the roof height is -- the parapet height in the back is around 22 feet and it goes up to about 34 feet, and it's really just -- I mean, obviously you need some height to hide the air conditioning equipment, but this thing just keeps going up and up for, I would say, billboard potential. I mean, I don't think it needs to be that high. Do you want to discuss limiting the height? 47 November 4,2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. You can put it on the floor and see if the motion and second would entertain it. For myself, I'm comfortable with it as is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So am I. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad, I mean, I -- you wrote the architectural standards. If this meets them, I don't know how we can come back and redo them now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. It would meet -- I think probably the district height is 35 feet, so it would meet that. It's a matter of us putting a -- you know, they are asking us for something, maybe we could ask them for something back. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Here's your motion and second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The motion won't be -- never mind. MR. SCHMITT: I would caution, Mr. Chairman, we're getting into the area of designing buildings from this board and -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And we're not. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, the motion is not entertaining it, so we'll see if this flies. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I would just like to say that I'm concerned about the traffic impacts also to 104th and 105th. And while this and might not affect some modeled LOS standard, the impact to the neighborhood is going to be significant. These are narrow two-lane streets with no sidewalks and it is all residential. However, I have to say that this lays solely at the feet of Naples Park. They do not have a master plan in place and they should have had one. They should have had one years ago. They have fought it every step of the way. And this building, there is nothing wrong with this building as it's been presented. I do, however, agree that the landscaping is minimal at best and I think that the petitioner can do a lot better on that score on buffering those retention ponds and -- they are not even ponds, they are just dry 48 November 4,2004 retention areas -- and I would certainly go along with Mr. Strain on that level, it needs to be significantly better than it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any further discussion? There is none. We will call the question. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye.. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Please pass your findings of fact down to Mr. Adelstein. With that, is there any old business? MR. SCHMITT: I would like to bring up, basically, what Commissioner Strain spoke about. We have a final product we're bringing to the board, and I know this was an important issue in regards to the planning commission that had to do with the architectural standards. We did come to a consensus in regards to the deviation process for commercial buildings. As you recall you were all forwarded it. Based on staff recommendations there would be no deviation process for commercial. We have since gotten guidance from the Board of County Commissioners there will be a deviation process presented to the board for all commercial buildings under 10,000 square feet. And that's a 10,000-foot-square -- or a 10,000-square-foot footprint. Ifit's a multi-story building, any story -- any building with 20,000 square feet or greater would then be prohibited from seeking a deviation. 49 November 4,2004 Also, we will put in a guideline that will, as we discussed, set a window of opportunity, basically, for the applicant to either come in under the existing rules or the new rules so that we do not cause an applicant to suddenly face a redesign dilemma to meet the new codes. So, basically, during the period November 10th to January 2, the applicant will have an option of coming in under either code so we don't, we do not cause an applicant to redesign to meet the new code. Even though I suspect the new code will probably in most cases be more favorable, the applicant can choose which code they want to come in and apply for or go through the review process. So I think, based on that, we have a strong support from the AlA, specifically the -- well, the folks that were involved in this at the committee meetings, and I think, I think this is going to be a good proposal and a, frankly, a good solution to help solve some of the unintended consequences we had in the existing land development code. (Ms. Caron has left the meeting.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to thank you and staff, Joe, for the new formatted version of the UDC. And, Brad, I-- you notice it's got our little note reference points on the top. That is just going to make life so much easier, so I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, though -- Paul is not here, you may want to take his back. MR. BELLOWS: I will. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any new business? Apparently no public comment. We are adjourned. ***** 50 November 4,2004 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER. 51