Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/02/2004 R December 2,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 2, 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 Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Murray (Absent) Brad Schiffer Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Mike Bosi, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 ----- AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2,2004, 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HA VE 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 4,2004 REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 16,2004 REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 A. Petition: SV-2004-AR-6501, Fidelity Building, Ltd., represented by Ryan White, of Site Enhancement Services, applying for a sign variance to allow Fidelity Investments to retain their one existing non- conforming ground sign. Section 5.06.06.C only allows one ground or pole sign. Fidelity has two, the second of which is non-conforming. Fidelity is undertaking a national re-imaging face change to all of their signage. Once changes are made to a non-conforming sign, the signs are required to be in compliance with current Land Development Code standards. Fidelity is therefore requesting a variance to allow them to have two 6- foot by 2-foot ground signs, rather than the one sign allowed by code. The property is located at 8880 Tamiami Trail North, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Robin Meyer) B. Petition: DOA-2004-AR-6469, Lucky Strike MK, Inc. & Lucky MK Inc., represented by R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., requesting a change to the previously approved Green Heron Development of Regional Impact (DRI) by amending the termination date of the Development Order fÌom February 7, 1999 to January 1,2009. No other changes are proposed. The Green Heron DRI is located on the north side of Radio Road (CR-856) and one-half mile east of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 12/02/04 eepe AgendalRB/ld 2 "~'''''''''"'''''''''''"'.'I''''_'_',i,'''''___"""".~",."",~"""..o;"."",,,;·""..,., December 2,2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's 8:30. I'd like to call the meeting to order. If you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The chairman is not here yet. He lives closer than Paul Midney, and if Paul Midney can make it, he should be able to make it, so we'll start without him. Next time he'll be able to make it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: He's probably on the stairs. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We'll do a roll call. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Present. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain is here. Mr. Budd is coming late. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Murray is not here. Addenda to the agenda. (At which time, Chairman Budd enters the room.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to talk about the lateness of our chairman. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No respect. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're on the addenda to the agenda, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, good. I apologize for being late. Page 2 December 2,2004 Are there any addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Planning commission absences? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: None anticipated? Okay, approval of minutes of November 4th regular meeting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Once again, whatever the court reporters have against me, I'll try to rectify, but I'm left off the cover page again, and I was here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that correction, do you have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Abernathy, second by Mr. Adelstein. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Being none, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Board of County Commission recaps. Ray, any special information or comments? MR. BELLOWS: The board didn't hear any language other than Page 3 December 2, 2004 the Hardy conditional use was continued, at the request of the petitioner, to February 22nd. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I noticed that the Office Depot was -- item was approved. Is that not right? MR. BELLOWS: That was approved at the previous meeting, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm looking at the November 16th. Isn't that the one we're doing? COMMISSIONER CARON: And Orangetree? MR. BELLOWS: That was the meeting previously to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, this is the one we got. And I thought this is the one your comments normally -- MR. BELLOWS: I thought I made that during the last planning commission meeting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me? MR. BELLOWS: I thought those issues were discussed at the last planning commission -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, they were? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I notice that in this, Office Depot is referred to once again as the Arco Finance petition. And at our hearing on that matter, nobody could understand or explain why it was called Arco Finance. I guess you couldn't change it between that and the BCC meeting without screwing up the advertising in some way; is that right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And also, Arco is part of the corporate name. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, not according to their counsel. Page 4 December 2,2004 MR. BELLOWS: I thought that was still part of their name. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments, questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: His testimony's right in these minutes to the effect that nobody has any idea why Arco was in there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we do not have a chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings. First hearing today is Petition SV-2004-AR-6501, Fidelity Building, represented by Ryan White (sic), requesting a sign variance. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn). CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. Are there any disclosures on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are not. MR. KRING: Well, good morning to everybody. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'd like to thank you for hearing our proposal today. My name is Ryan Kring, I'm with Site Enhancement Services. And I have with me an associate of mine, Peter Hauser, he's with Site Enhancement Services as well. And we are on assignment from Fidelity Investments. The property we're talking about today is located at 8880 Tamiami Trail North. This branch is located on a hard corner on Tamiami Trail/Vanderbilt Beach Road. I do have some additional copies of the art renderings, if you need any. We have those available. In March of 2004, Fidelity Investments really began to experience a tremendous growth. And this growth changed their business from a type of company where you just called in once a year to find out about your investments or your portfolios to a type of Page 5 December 2,2004 branch where you come and visit maybe twice a year, maybe at the most once a month. As a result of this, a nationwide rebranding initiative was born to create a consistent logo. That way, if you're traveling the country you could find a Fidelity Investments, whether you were in New York or in Los Angeles. The current existing ground signs address motorists traveling on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Tamiami Trail. The face change we are proposing will result in no additional square footage or additional signs to this branch. It's simply a face swap, which will keep our logo consistent with our nationwide rebranding initiative. Recently we have re- imaged the walls -- the signs on the walls of this property. This resulted in a decrease of square footage of this site. Our old sitage was 79.33 square feet. The new re-imaged sign totaled 59.43 square feet. This resulted in a reduction of signage on this property . This branch is located on a hard corner, and in order to be successful we need to have proper exposure for motorists who are traveling on these arterial roadways. That way they can stay at a proper reaction time to make safe vehicular maneuvers to access the property . This morning we respectfully ask -- request to allow Fidelity Investments to retain the existing sign and allow a face swap with -- in keeping with its nationwide rebranding initiative. Approval of this proposal will result in a net reduction of total signage for this property. Now, I realize the commission must make their decision based on set criteria, the first being what are the special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved. As I previously mentioned, this business is located on a very Page 6 December 2,2004 busy corridor. This corridor has several high traffic roadways that allow motorists to safely locate, view the signs and make a safe maneuver to access the property. Through the positioning of the investment firm and the immense size of the property, these signs are needed to give the proper reaction time for the motorists who are traveling along these corridors. Another special condition of the property is the fact that we've currently enjoyed the two signs that are already existing for some time now. These signs are not intrusive to the public, nor are they aesthetically unpleasing to this corridor. They blend well with the surrounding foliage and landscaping. When I spoke with staff, I was informed that if Fidelity simply left the sign with its old logo, they would be allowed to retain their sign. Well, unfortunately -- fortunately for Fidelity, we've experienced growth, and this growth has led to our nationwide rebranding program. And we don't believe that it would be fair for Fidelity to lose an entire sign, simply by proposing a face swap to keep with their current logo. As I mentioned before, we are not adding any additional square footage to this sign or height. The second criteria are the special conditions and circumstances existing which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as preexisting conditions relative to the property, which is the subj ect of the variance request. As I mentioned before, Fidelity Investments has enjoyed the luxury of these two ground sides -- two ground signs at these locations for a long time. Allowing a national re-imaging would allow us to really keep this property consistent with our program across the country. The current ground sign would allow for proper visibility to nearby roadways. Criteria number three is will a literal interpretation of the provision of the zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on Page 7 December 2,2004 the applicant or create practical difficulties on the applicant. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship with regards to Fidelity Investments' ability to adequately identify this property to the public. The size of the pylon sign decreases -- the size of the mounting (sic) sign decreases the risk of internal trafficking, as well as preventing accidents. The placement of this building, location of signs at an extremely busy corridor and the visual environment of the surrounding property really create a unique hardship. Another unique hardship of this property is our customer base. We do have an older customer base, and as a result of that, we need exposure to allow these motorists to safely identify the property and make the successful maneuvers to enter it. This is not a property like a pharmacy or a grocery store that our customers are always familiar with and go to on a weekly base. These are properties that they come to maybe at the most, and extreme most, once a month, more like once or twice a year. As a result, we need the proper identification for our customers to reach our property. Criteria number four is will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure, and which promote standards of health, safety and morale. This variance, if granted, is the necessary minimum variance possible to make reasonable use of this building and to promote the standards of safety and welfare. As I previously mentioned, these signs are crucial, since Fidelity's ability to promote safe trafficking for their customers to find and safely locate the stores. Criteria number five is will granting the variance request or defer the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other land, building or structure in the same zoning Page 8 December 2,2004 district. The proposed size modifications that are being requested will allow Fidelity Investments the opportunity to replace their existing sign. As I mentioned before, no square footage will be added, no height will be added. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That doesn't answer the question, though. Are you getting a special privilege that nobody else gets? And the answer is yes. MR. KRING: No, currently, no. Because the south adjacent parcel, which is Bank One, has two monument signs exactly in the same -- almost exactly the same size and same orientation as the Fidelity Investments currently has. We're simply asking for the same opportunity that they have been allowed. The staff report states that, and I'm going to quote them, the applicant has not demonstrated that the removal of this would have any detrimental effects, end quote. A study conducted by the California Sign Association, as well as the University of San Diego, entitled The Economic Value of On- Premise Signage resulted that the addition of a new freestanding sign on average results in 8.5 percent increase in revenue to the business. Now, the same correlation could be made if the sign is removed, thus resulting in an 8.5 decrease in revenue for this property. As you can see, the removal of this sign will have a tremendous effect on this site. Criteria number .six is will granting the variance be in harmony of the intent and purpose of this zoning code and not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The purpose of the zoning code is to keep aesthetics and the size of the site consistent with the trade area. Now, I'm going to go back to the staff report when I say this quote: The limitation of signage is a major factor in the county's effort to create a positive image for this Page 9 December 2, 2004 applicant. The applicant has not demonstrated the second ground site is critical to his business, end quote. Previously above we just mentioned that the loss of our sign will on average result in an eight and a half percent loss in revenue. After speaking with staff, we were told that we would currently be allowed to put one sign up with an overall height of 15 feet and a face of 80 square feet. Our two-face signs that we currently have are 24 square feet each. So our two signs total 48 square feet, whether -- and if you add the two-sign height, it's only 12 feet. So we are -- our current proposal would reduce the amount of signage on this property from an 80 square foot, 15- foot high sign that we could install to a two 24-square feet, five-foot -- six-foot high overall signs. Fidelity feels that our proposal will allow motorists to find the property and use adequate visibility and reaction time to make safe maneuvers to exit it. This is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code by reducing the signage, while providing aesthetically pleasing signs to this corridor. And it's also consistent with the thoughts conveyed by staff. These signs are already existing, and the proposal is simply to swap a face-out or to do a content change. And even within our content change, nothing's going to change; it's still going to say Fidelity Investments, it's just the logo and the size of the "Fidelity" is going to be altered. Criteria number seven is, are the natural conditions or physically induced conditions with the goals and the objectives of the regulations, such as national preserves, lakes or golf course? There are several beautiful trees and foliages around this property. Fidelity Investments understands the importance of trees, landscaping, with regards to the city and the corridor and what it means to this city. Because of the height of the existing signs, they blend well with the natural conditions of the property. A code compliant sign, based on the height and square footage, would be of such that it would be Page 10 -~_.,--. " _'''-''-'''~''.^.''--->,.,,_.'''-- December 2,2004 impaired by visibility by the current foliage, and Fidelity Investments does not want to replace two signs and add a 15- foot high, 80-square foot sign. They want to keep what they have because it works well for the property and the aesthetics of this corridor. Number eight is, will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? We feel that our proposal will allow this parcel to reach its maximum zoning potential. It will also ensure its place in this community as a successful business. In the staff report, staff commented that the Growth Management Plan, quote, generally supports limitations on signage, end quote. Approval-- approving our proposal will result in a reduction of signage on this property in both square foot and height. Along with reducing the total square foot in height approval will also maintain the aesthetics of the landscaping around this property. This proposal is consistent with the philosophy that the Collier County Growth Management Plan is trying to implement. Today we have demonstrated justifications and satisfied every criteria for approval of our proposal. The uniqueness of this branch, its hard corner location, requires adequate exposure so motorists can make safe vehicular maneuvers traveling on Tamiami Trail or Vanderbilt Beach Road. Our proposal will not add additional square footage or additional signage to this branch. Actually, our entire rebranding, if approved, will result in a net loss of 52 square feet for the whole entire property. And I think this is very consistent with what the Growth Management Plan is trying to accomplish. Fidelity does not want to replace the two signs and put in a 15-foot high, 80-square foot sign. And I hope that the commission does not want this either. Weare simply asking to retain the existing sign and take out a face panel and put the new face panel in, which is consistent with our nationwide logo. Today we've expressed unique hardships with this location and Page 11 December 2, 2004 we respectfully ask approval for the minimum amount of relief necessary for this business to operate its potential and ensure its place in this community. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sir, have you been to this site? MR. KRING: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Have you tried to approach Fidelity Investments from the east coming west on Vanderbilt Beach Road? MR. KRING: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do you do that? MR. HAUSER: I believe you have to turn -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir, would you identify yourself for the court reporter, please. MR. HAUSER: Peter Hauser. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. HAUSER: I believe you have to turn 41, come down 41 and enter through the access road and come back. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think that's right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: You go -- yes, you go past it. You can go past it, then turn right into the back access road and turn up the side driveway. There's a frontage access road that parallels 41, and then behind it, parallel to the east, behind this property there's another road and then there's an interconnect. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's called Pine Ridge Road, I think. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, Pine Ridge Boulevard. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pine Ridge Boulevard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. Page 12 December 2,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, you can reach that from Vanderbilt Beach Road. There is an exit there. That's my point, that you can reach it from Vanderbilt Beach Road, but Vanderbilt Beach Road westbound along there is a two-lane road. The speed limit is supposed to have -- well, the speed limit has dropped to 35 along there, but the traffic is still going 55, as it has been further up the road. And all of a sudden that two-lane road flares into four lanes, one of which is the turn lane to get into the road that accesses Fidelity Investments, the other is a left turn lane onto 41. Well, anybody who doesn't know that and doesn't see Fidelity Investments is going to miss that left turn. It's just a short lane. And they're going to end up out on 41 making a left, going south and having to double back. So I think your strongest argument for your sign is the fact that particularly anybody who -- and we have a lot of people that live north and west of that location nowadays, that anybody looking for Fidelity Investments, and even knowing roughly where it is on that corner, if they don't see the sign in time to get over in that left-most lane, they're going to go through a wasted motion of out onto 41 south and then back. So I think G is your strongest -- your strong suit in asking for approval of your variance. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments or questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this -- yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you say that staff told you that the second sign would stay and would be okay, as long as you didn't change the logo? MR. KRING: Yeah, that's correct. We were informed that if we did not change out the panel, we could allowed us (sic) to retain that sign. But like I said earlier, fortunately Fidelity, we've experienced some growth. And as that result, we've come through with a Page 13 December 2,2004 nationwide rebranding program. And we just simply can't have an old sign with our old logo. MR. HAUSER: The Bank One currently has two signs: One back on the Pelican Ridge Boulevard, and then one on 41 also. They're right next to us. In fact, they're one -- MR. KRING: It's almost identical in orientation. And they're small ground signs. MR. HAUSER: Just like these are. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe just one quick. The road to the south of you, is that a private drive on your property or -- it's where Trail Boulevard -- that Trail road comes up and turns east. In other words, essentially your project is surrounded by roads. I mean, I live in that neighborhood. MR. HAUSER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that a private drive that runs along south of -- MR. HAUSER: I believe the north/south in between Fidelity's property and Bank One's property-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. HAUSER: It would probably be a road to the development, a private road to the development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially this is a project with four roads surrounding it. And our code, Ray, only allows one sign for a building with four roads? They have probably 1,000 feet of roadway around them. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the sign code basically says you get one on the road frontage and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he's got four frontages. MR. BELLOWS: But if there are other signs within a proximity COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we'll wait for the staff. Page 14 December 2,2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could hear from staff, please. MR. MEYER: Thank you again. Commissioners, Robin Meyer, department of zoning and land development review. Let me start off by saying that the representation that the sign could be retained was made based on the understanding that that was a legal permitted sign. If you read the staff report carefully, you will see that that sign is not permitted; therefore, it is not a legal sign and, therefore, at this point in time it would have to be removed, unless this variance is granted. We didn't -- it was their representation that they had legally permitted this sign, and we went with that. The sign inspector went out when I was writing the staff report to check, there's no sign permit number on the sign. All signs have sign permit numbers on them. And so unless they can provide information, it was put up without the county's knowledge. So just to clarify that issue. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does that mean they're guilty until proven innocent? MR. MEYER: Yeah. Because all the other signs on the property have permits on them, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I mean, isn't that a reversal of our bureaucratic system that you're innocent until proven guilty? MR. HAUSER: You just permitted-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir, you're not at the microphone. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's not so much that as we keep track of properly permitted signs. We have no record of it. They cannot produce any evidence of it. We did a site inspection, there was no evidence of properly going through the process. It's not so much that they're -- Page 15 December 2,2004 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they're guilty in regards to the cost to them because they can't prove they're innocent. Another question: If that sign is supposed to have a number on it, that ordinance that required the signs be numbered is not the ordinance that's been in effect ever since we started having signs in Collier County. I know that because I was here I think when we had instituted that change that required the numbering. So what if this sign was put in without that requirement so when you go look at the sign, you certainly couldn't see a number on it because it wasn't required to have one at the time. MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarify: Are we talking about -- the address number was what the change in code was. The number of the permit has been on signs for many years. It's a small little decal, or little attachment to the sign that is the permit number for that sign. It's on most signs in Collier County. So are we talking about the same number? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, we apparently aren't then. MR. MEYER: Yeah, in the history of Fidelity, it only goes back to 1998, so it's well within the area where it should have had the decal and been properly permitted. And our records have been very accurate. And so there is absolutely no record of it within the county. They may be able to prove it and that would be fine, but right now we have no record of it and it doesn't have the proper decal, so I just wanted to make that clear. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's -- so I mean, someone could have just put the sign up and it appeared one day and then no one -- MR. MEYER: That does happen. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- questioned it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, they put in the one sign, they went ahead and put the second so nobody -- MR. SCHMITT: That's something through code enforcement, if Page 16 December 2, 2004 code enforcement -- I have two code enforcement investigators who do sign -- or investigate improper signage. This is one where certainly there has not been a code case. If there -- if we would do the due diligence in regards to doing a further investigation as to the records. Unfortunately some of our records prior to '95 are not in the greatest shape, so -- but in most cases, what we find when we find that they are not properly or they're not -- at least they're not identified as being properly permitted, we'll go back even to the sign company and normally the sign company will have records. I don't know who did that in this case, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did someone at least check the property appraiser's notation of a permit on the tax assessor's card? Because that's where -- any time you get a permit, it gets recorded on the tax assessor's office, and that's how they increase your taxes. MR. MEYER: No, I haven't done that. We'll-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, so there is a chance that-- MR. MEYER: There is a chance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- someone looked at that tax assessor's card, they might see a permit reference that might reference a sign. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Robin, did you check the blueprints for the building? It's really common for the architect to show the sign, show the design of the sign. These signs definitely are blended in with the building, so there might be where they were billed as part of that permit. Whether they got the appropriate decal licensed, I don't know, but what -- MR. MEYER: Well, it's unusual that the other three do have the sign -- have the permits and are all taken care of and were all done at the same time and this one wasn't, so -- that is possible, but we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But before you give up, look at the construction documents, because these are obviously architecturally designed signs. Page 1 7 December 2,2004 MR. MEYER: That does happen. And we have a stamp on our site development plans that says specifically that this does not warrant you for a sign, but they still show up. Let me go over the criteria very quickly. Obviously staff has a different position than the applicant. And I'll try and keep this short and brief. As far as this site, our position is it is a commercial enterprise that sits on the corner of two principal arterial streets. High visibility, high volume. It's easy to see. There's really nothing as far -- with regards to circumstances of location that we see that warrants a second sign. No special conditions or circumstances. Again, this is a -- probably a premium site within Collier County, as far as a commercial site. And to warrant a variance here really opens up the question why wouldn't you be able to warrant a variance almost anywhere within Collier County. Literal interpretation, again, our feeling is that if you look at this site, there's just nothing here special that should grant or warrant a vanance. The sign is the minimum. We agree with that. And yes, they could put up a single sign 15 feet tall, 80 square feet. That is permitted under the code. But that certainly isn't a reason to start granting a second variance or a second sign for uses. We'd get in a lot of trouble if we start doing that. Special privilege? Yes. Second sign? To answer your question, Mr. Schiffer, the code's very clear, you need 1,000 feet of frontage before you get a second sign. And that's really the issue here is that if we start doing this, we're really changing the rules. The code's very clear on trying to limit the number of freestanding signs in Collier County . Which really runs into the next two criteria: There's been a conscience effort by this commission and by the board to limit signage, and what we're simply doing is being consistent with that. Page 18 December 2, 2004 And that rolls right into there's no physical limitations, it's flat, high visibility. Again, fantastic location. And it's simply not consistent with the Growth Management Plan for the reasons stated before. With that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in a parcel of land that is surrounded by four roads, they would never be allowed a second sign unless those four roads add up to 1,000 feet. MR. MEYER: More than 1,000 feet. And that's simply to limit the proliferation of freestanding signs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, with four roads around, you're an island. MR. MEYER: Well, if four roads -- I mean, the code really only looks at the dedicated right-of-way that belongs to the county. It doesn't look at private roads. They have some other signs within the site that aren't even on this discussion that are for internal circulation that address those other roads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. MEYER: And so those -- there's a whole separate section of the code that deals with that and allows additional signage for that. Very small signs and -- you know, as need be. Because you're talking at a very low speed and you can get away with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there -- anybody who had a parcel of land, there's no way they could get more signs on that? MR. MEYER: Not unless you had a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it sounds like a problem with the sign code. I can understand you don't want signs closer than 1,000 feet, but if you're going around corners and through -- you know, I mean, I don't understand -- MR. MEYER: Well, normally what a property owner would do on a corner is put the sign on a corner and then you cover both your Page 19 December 2,2004 frontages. In this case, they wanted to have a sign on one side and a sign on the other side. There's a reason our code's written the way it is, it's to limit the freestanding signs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Don't you agree, though, what they're offering to do is rather than build one large one on the corner, which, you know, I think-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, I think he'll never agree, so we need to take his testimony and we'll make our own judgment. MR. MEYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This statement here again throughout is that it would be -- it's no hardship to them to lose this sIgn. MR. MEYER: Not in staffs opinion. They've got adequate signage. They've got three signs that remain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. I don't want this to be a personal situation. We walk on two legs. If one of them's gone, it's not a hardship to them. It's the same thing with this. And we're talking about a situation where if we take -- get rid of that thing, it's got to be a hardship. If we turn around and say yes, it is a hardship, they already have that situation, then I can see no reason why they should be able to continue. MR. MEYER: Well, I'm going to make my presentation -- MR. SCHMITT: I think the debate is between the members of the commission -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And staff, yes. MR. MEYER: I respect whatever decision you guys come up with. I just have to make my best shot. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're not going to convince Mr. Meyer whether it is or is not a hardship. He's presented his testimony and is honest and sincere about it. We're left to make sure own judgment. Page 20 December 2, 2004 Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't disagree with the analysis you did, Robin. I may disagree with your outcome. But I have an example I want to understand. They have a lot of -- I mean, I go to this facility, and I'm one of those people that now have to go about once a month, so I'm very familiar with it. And it has a lot of very nice landscaping that has matured for a long period of time; the same kind of mature landscaping that we had across the street at Courthouse Shadows. Well, Courthouse Shadows was limited to their signage, and they realized that it was blocking the signs to their businesses over there and they couldn't see. So if you go over there now, you'll see they've systematically taken out all of their mature trees and replaced them with little spindly trees every 30 feet that the code requires. It's atrocious. And I'm looking at this as maybe a deference to that in regards that they probably could go in and take out a lot of their landscaping, replace it with code minimum and give themselves better exposure. So on that basis, I -- at this point -- and this isn't the front of the building, it's off that side road. The entrance on the -- is off 41. But anyway, that's my thoughts on it, Robin. MR. MEYER: I respect that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Are there any public speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. They spoke already. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion on this item? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to move that Petition SV-2004-AR-6501 be forwarded to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Board of zoning appeals. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- to the BZA with a Page 21 December 2, 2004 recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Abernathy, second by Mr. Adelstein. Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I'd like to ask one thing, one thought, and that is, what happened -- what's happening across the street should not happen, if we can prevent it. And if they're getting a variance here for a second sign, could we somehow stipulate that the sign is -- we're recommending approval, subj ect to the fact they won't be removing their mature landscaping and replace it with the kind of landscaping that's been done across the street? Because part of their argument is they haven't got good visibility. And part of that is because they have the mature landscaping that looks so nice that we all want. And would the motion-maker or the second entertain something like that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would accept it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We need an indication from the petitioners whether they're agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: They're agreeable. And I'm in support of the recommendation. Do we have any legal advices that are a permissible tag that we can add on? MR. WHITE: Even though -- excuse me, Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. Even though this is Jennifer Belpedio's case, and this is her first appearance before you in this body, I'd just like to take the opportunity to suggest that if there is an unpermitted sign, that that sign come into compliance as a condition of this recommendation of approval. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. WHITE: We should not allow an existing nonconformity or even worse yet, unlawful sign to exist and then grant some additional Page 22 December 2, 2004 development approval, unless that compliance is obtained. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I didn't know that it was nonconforming. It just never did it. MR. WHITE: It may be nonconforming. I don't know. But the point is that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It looks just like the other one. MR. WHITE: Well, it may be the fact that it exists makes it nonconforming in the sense that you can only have one and there's two. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. WHITE: So my point is if there's going to be some consideration and recommendation of approval, it seems that you ought to rectify any illegality or authorize any nonconformity in a lawful manner as a condition of your recommendation of approval. MR. SCHMITT: If in fact that we verify that it exists. That is not -- MR. WHITE: Well, we know the sign exists. MR. SCHMITT: No, that it was not properly permitted. MR. WHITE: I think the testimony on the record is that that is the case. We of course have not had a code enforcement prosecution. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. WHITE: But suffice it to say that all facts appear on the record and the opportunity provided to the applicant. We do not have before us any evidence that suggests that it's been properly permitted. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, what language do you want added to my motion that will move us along? MR. WHITE: That all other signs on the property be properly permitted as a condition of granting this approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right, I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And where does that leave us with our landscaping request that Mr. Strain made? Page 23 December 2,2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That should be there, too. MR. WHITE: My comment wasn't related to that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. I mean, could we put something into notes that those two signs in the future -- because somebody could buy this property and interpret that to be he's allowed two full post signs, which would be two 180- foot signs. Is there a way that we could limit it and never can those two signs add up to the 180 feet? Here's my concern: It's 10 years down the road, a guy buys a building and turns it into a pizza jamboree and he realizes he's allowed two signs. MR. SCHMITT: The variance stays with the property, but I'll defer to the county attorney. MR. WHITE: That is correct. And if you want to more specifically condition it so that it cannot be increased, assuming that the Land Development Code otherwise would change to allow some greater square foot area, that's appropriate as well. So it's not to say that you can't condition it, because -- or shouldn't condition it, because the LDC today sets these limits. If you want to put that as a specific area limit, you're within your discretion to do so. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's going to have its own weight here in a few minutes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: The provision in the codes, if they do change, you don't want to restrict a person from meeting future code requirements. The variance runs with the land and it's for the signs as they currently exist. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Which is the way we want to keep it. So Page 24 December 2, 2004 that's good, we're on track. We not further rec -- Mr. Meyers? MR. MEYER: Just to add to the whole discussion, one thought that you might want to consider is limiting the permitted sign from being increased in size, based on this grant of variance. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, I understood from Mr. Bellows that it was the signs as is, with no -- MR. MEYER: Well, but the existing permitted sign could be increased to the 15 foot -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We don't want that. MR. MEYER: -- 80 square feet. There's nothing to -- it's only their word right now that would prohibit that from happening. So I just think, you know, it might be prudent to add a condition to limit the permitted sign to what it is now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We could -- I mean, to try to simplify, we could just simply say that the variance is being granted on the condition that the signs, as presented today, would be as they are, period. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, there we go. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Acceptable, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The motion is clarified. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. I just want to think out loud for a second. It seems to me it's arguable that when a property is on the corner of two arterial roads, that perhaps there ought to be an option of one sign right on the corner or one on each arterial road. I'm -- we ought to look at that sometime down the road. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Page 25 December 2, 2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But other than that, I'm ready to move forward. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. No other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Couple of comments for the petitioner. One, I might be mistaken, but I did notice your name listed in the clerk of courts -- clerk of board lobbyist account master list as a registered lobbyist. You may be, you may not be. If you're not, get registered, give them $25. If you are, great. Second comment is, just a bit of personal advice. As you go before the Board of Zoning Appeals, you had several good points in your presentation. I got them the first time, I got them the second time, I got them the third time. I quit counting how many times I got them. And it became a little bit redundant. Make your presentation a little more succinct. MR. KRING: I understand. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. KRING: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moving on to our next agenda item. That Page 26 December 2,2004 is Petition DOA-2004-AR-6469. That is a request to amend the termination date of the development order for the Green Heron development of regional impact. All those wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Are there any disclosures on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are not. Ifwe could hear-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry, I had one discussion with a gentleman by the name of Floyd Chapin, and he was talking about an issue that I have also asked the county attorney about in regards to wetland and preservation areas. And it may not be a matter that is open for discussion today, as this is an insufficient -- insubstantial request. And that may have triggered a more substantial request, pursuant to my discussions with county attorney. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. No further disclosures? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bruce Anderson, from the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. I represent the applicant. And this is a simple request to extend the termination date of the original D RI development order for this property that was approved originally in 1984. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bruce, nothing is simple. MR. ANDERSON: I can hope, can't I? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, yes. MR. ANDERSON: A PUD for this property was also approved at the same time. The PUD was amended in 1995, and the PUD Page 27 December 2, 2004 master plan was amended in 1989, and again in 2001. However, the development order has never previously been amended, and no amendment of the PUD is proposed here today. On October 29,2004, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council considered and unanimously approved the notice of proposed change to extend the termination date to January 1, 2009. The Regional Planning Council staff report requested, quote, the transportation section needs to be changed to incorporate the new county adopted level of service, unquote. Those changes were made in the development order that the Regional Planning Council approved, and are contained in the proposed development order in your agenda packet. As I said, this should be a non-controversial amendment, a housekeeping measure, and we respectfully request a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for the petitioner? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, I'm going to try to keep this simple. When you guys came back in 2001, there was a series of discussions with the transportation department, Dawn Wolff at the time, about things that had been permitted to by your applicant. And Dawn at that time indicated that those agreements were -- she expected them to be honored and everything to transpire. And my only question is since you're looking for something today is did you meet the intent of those agreements, whatever they happen to be, with transportation? Is transpor -- and I'll ask Don Scott before the meeting's over, were the commitments made in '01 completed? That is -- and I've got the minutes of the meeting. It says ongoing coordination with the property developers in regards to providing stormwater attenuation for the entire four-Ianing of Radio Road. That was an issue that Dawn brought up to us in '01 that was supposed to be taken care of. And I just want to make sure that was Page 28 December 2, 2004 finalized or somebody knows that it's okay. So that was my question. MR. ANDERSON: I have no idea. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This could get very complicated. MR. ANDERSON: But I'll let Mr. Scott speak for himself, but I have never known the transportation department to pass up an opportunity -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I agree with you there. MR. ANDERSON: -- to put their hooks in people. MR. WHITE: I don't know if Mr. Anderson is suggesting that those people are fish or not, but I think he's indicating that it's appropriate, where the law allows, for exactions to be made. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll wait, and then when we get to staff reports, I'll ask Don the same question. I mean, he's heard it, so he'll be prepared, hopefully. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that the full PUD site? MR. ANDERSON: It is the full DRI site. The DRI has been split into two separate PUD's. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And this is -- both PUD's are depicted on that master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where is Sapphire Lakes? And one is Blue Heron, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that you mention that it's -- they're not interconnected, but they really appear to be interconnected. In other words, interconnected, I assume you could -- you mean by the ability to drive through them, or what do you mean Page 29 December 2,2004 by interconnected? MR. ANDERSON: They have separate entrances and they are not -- you can't drive -- it's my understanding you can't drive from one into the other without coming back onto Radio Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this site plan allows you to do that. I mean, I think -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. This is the second access point into the development, which I guess is called Blue Heron. This is the Sapphire Lakes entrance. They did an insubstantial change to the master plan, as noted in the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, if you go up just a little bit, take your arrow up a hair, right there, can't you drive through there and interconnect, or is that not the way it's being built? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure I understand your question. Are they -- you're saying are they developing consistent with the master plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, but the road systems -- right where that arrow was, before there's a driveway that you can go from one development to the other. MR. BELLOWS: During the public hearing for the insubstantial change, there was several residents that did not want a through connection. However, staff and transportation, as I recall, wanted to have some kind of emergency access at a minimum. And I believe that's what the board approved. So there is a connection, but it is emergency access. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none at this time. If we could hear from staff, please. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows I have been Page 30 December 2, 2004 working in conjunction with the applicant and with the Regional Planning Council on this matter. And as I mentioned, during the other extension of a DRI for the Pioneer Lakes, county's initiated a new process of monitoring DRI's. And we caught this one, along with Pioneer Lakes, of exceeding their development build-out time period. This is a matter of importance to the county to track DRI's and to ensure that they also meet other development commitments. The issue Mr. Strain has raised will be covered as part of our PUD monitoring process, an approved PUD monitoring process that would -- caught this project exceeding its termination date. But the region has supported the extension and staff is also supporting it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Bellows? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, everybody says that the only change is the date. But in the proposed resolution, it's also requesting a change to drop the traffic from a C to a D on Davis; is that right? I mean, the last page of what I've been given shows a cross-out of a level of service C to a level of service D. MR. BELLOWS: That's just a correction to the tables that the county prepares. It's really not a request that the applicant's making. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that would be an equivalent? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, that is it the responsibility -- it says here that the Regional Planning Council failed to notify the developer to renew it, or to -- the deadline. Is that the requirement? I mean, is that sort of like a driver's license where they send you a courtesy notice, but the responsibility is still the person to update the driver's license. Page 31 December 2, 2004 It's pointed out here that the reason it isn't updated is that they failed to be notified? MR. BELLOWS: Well, in discussions with the region, they do send out notification. And I think you're right, that there is a responsibility of the developer or property owner to file the proper extension forms. The county also feels that we have a duty to keep track of the termination date, even though it's basically document initiated by the regIon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how much permit work has been done since this thing has expired? MR. BELLOWS: We had put a stop -- or were in the process of doing so. We've worked out a deal -- or not a deal, but we've been in discussions with the petitioner that if they filed their extension, we would not put a hold on all development orders that are currently under review. Now, we could have stopped future ones that they did not file. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I mean, in the original thing, it stated that the commissioners made a deal with this developer that they had 15 years to either build it or get it permitted before that date. Why do you think they did that? I mean, what did they have in mind? The ability to review the project again after that if they hadn't built it out, or -- MR. BELLOWS: Typically all DRI's have some kind of termination date or build-out date. And the reason for those being in there is because there's generally large projects that have a lot of regional impact concerns, and over the time period, as you know, the surrounding development and roadways, to water and sewer, to everything else, changes during those intervening years, and it would behoove the county and the region to require a reanalysis if they exceed those time frames. Page 32 December 2,2004 The staff, both on the region level and the local level, review the traffic impacts for the state at build-out time, and if they go beyond that, it's possible that traffic may be different than projected 15 years earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. So your answer, that what they intend is that if they don't build it out by that time, they'd like this to be reevaluated. Then how come we're not reevaluating, and how come we're just extending the time? MR. BELLOWS: We do an evaluation of the request for an extension, and if there are significant concerns, we could require them to come in and do some other form of reanalysis or re-review of the traffic impacts, or any other condition that we felt was problematic or not meeting levels of service. But staff is not of the opinion that this extension would hurt any adopted level of service standard and, therefore, we're recommending approval of extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is staff has done that. The thing has expired, staff has reevaluated and determined that it appears that nothing's really changed, so there's no reason not to just grant an extension. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And if there were concerns, we could -- like we have required of Pioneer Lakes, to come back in and submit a full traffic analysis and go through more of a regional review agaIn. But no, staff is not aware of any impacts that would require us to -- for them to resubmit another traffic analysis or some other analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or to recommend the re-public hearing of the project? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ray, is the -- they have a PUD Page 33 ,-- _._,_ _It .._, ~_.,"',·,_o.·. ._~..".,.~_.."__,_.___·_w__..' December 2, 2004 that's valid, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and all development activities have to be consistent with that currently approved PUD, which is active. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. And that PUD's what basically Collier County puts in place. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just to Don Scott. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Scott, you're on. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. I hadn't realized that she had asked that previously. But what I did as part of this review is I did talk to the Regional Planning Council and our design staff. The -- this section is Radio Road is included in the Santa Barbara widening, which is that 60 percent design. Made sure that we had enough right-of-way, which was previously given on the north side and the south side. And I checked to make sure that we didn't need anything. And as far as I can tell from those conversations, that storm water's being treated in other locations, and we didn't need additional. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because at the time Ms. Wolff said there was agreements being worked out with the county attorney's office and the applicant in '01 to get the additional attenuation area you needed within that proj ect. I just wanted to make sure you got it. Because if you didn't, then that's just something we could stipulate. But if you feel it's not needed, then-- MR. SCOTT: I will check one more time specifically about the storm water, but my understanding from talking with design is we have what we need for right-of-way and we have what we need for Page 34 December 2, 2004 stormwater. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if we pass this, you've missed the golden opportunity. We want to make sure Norm and everybody knows it was your fault. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: I just wanted to add to the record that there was also a completion of the sidewalk system with the adj acent property to the east that was done. It wasn't certainly a condition of this approval, but just in terms of letting the CCPC know the favorable working relationship we've had with the applicant on this. And as to Mr. Strain's and Mr. Schiffer's comments about what the scope of application is here and the level of inquiry, this is indeed something that's an insubstantial change. And because of that, those other matters that are somewhat beyond the scope of that, that could be considered in some other substantial change request by the applicant is the reason why you arguably cannot consider or condition this particular recommendation of approval, if that's your choice, with those types of matters. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other questions on the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: If not, we'll move to our registered public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: Floyd Chapin. MR. CHAPIN: For the record, Floyd Chapin, 228 Belina Drive. Sapphire Lakes vice president, master association. I did not intend to speak this morning; however, I believe Mr. Bellows made a statement about an interconnecting road between Sapphire Lakes and the new Blue Heron development. There are no interconnecting roads. Weare completely separated from the development that Mr. Anderson represents. So I wanted to make that Page 35 December 2, 2004 clear. I did hear some dialogue between Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Strain to the staff about other questions you raised, that obviously legally you can't talk about today. But there are concerns that we and Sapphire Lakes have about what's happening in that development. And we don't know how to address it at this time, but we're going to pursue it. So with that, I just want to make that clarification. Any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. There are no questions. MR. CHAPIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd just like to say, it does bring up a point, Ray. This thing has expired, and the staff has determined it doesn't need to go through the public process again, but he's pointing out that, I mean, isn't it policy that maybe we should reopen these things at that time? I mean, administratively you're happy, but the public might not be happy. MR. BELLOWS: The PUD is also the controlling land development document. The DR! is kind of an additional regional review document that goes hand-in-hand with the PUD document. But all the development commitments are contained in the PUD document. That's still a valid and active PUD. It has not sunsetted. The requirements for open space and everything else is part of that PUD document; it's still an active document. It's not an issue associated with the DRI. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that any public issues would not be associated with the DRI. MR. BELLOWS: I didn't say that. The DRI is not affecting any regional -- the extension of this DR! is not affecting any regional issues. And therefore, we're recommending the extension be approved. And this is a public hearing and Mr. Chapin has his opportunity to speak. But there are no regional impacts that need to be reanalyzed, Page 36 December 2, 2004 in staffs opinion. And given the fact that we have an approved PUD document that is active and all development approvals are consistent with that existing PUD, and the PUD is also consistent with our Growth Management Plan, there is no hook or tool or legal document or procedure that we can do to open that PUD up, just because the termination date has expired. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Y .? es, Slf. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, are the roads interconnected or are they not? Where are we with that? What's the result? MR. BELLOWS: It's my recollection that the -- during the public hearing process for the insubstantial change to the master plan, that the interconnection was originally placed in there. As you see, there's opportunity for interconnection here. But the residents, as Mr. Chapin is indicating, was opposed to that. But I believe it's my recollection that the board approved an emergency access. It's not a physical connection, but it's an emergency access easement that was permitted. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAPIN: If you would, please, that's not correct. There are no emergency entrances to either one of the properties. It's fenced, there's no curb, gutter, it's landscaped, so that's not correct. MR. BELLOWS: I'll check into it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: But just to try and move things along, regardless of the termination on that question, is that relevant to the extension of this development of regional impact? MR. BELLOWS: No, it isn't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then there's no problem. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other questions? Page 37 December 2,2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Summary comments by the petitioner? Mr. Anderson, anything? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. Just if there are any other questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a recommendation to approve DOA-2004-AR-6469 with a recommendation of approval to the BCC as -- with any stipulations staff added. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Strain, a second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Is there any old business? Page 38 December 2, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, probably two or three meetings ago, the issue was brought up by Mr. Midney to raise -- at the December 17th workshop, raise the issue regarding the ten versus 12-month criteria for evaluating roads in Collier County. Myself and Mr. Feder brought that recommendation to the county manager. The county manager recommended we not bring that issue up, since it's been debated in great detail in regards to the staff and the Board of County Commissioners. So based on his decision, it is not scheduled. Now, that does not preclude this body, the chairman, sending a letter to the Board of County Commissioners or this body bringing it up at the December 17th meeting, which both County Manager Mudd, administrative Feder and myself know that you certainly can do that. But I wanted to make sure you understood that from his position, as county manager, he controls the agenda, that he feels that this issue has been certainly sufficiently debated, and that it isn't worth bringing up again at the AUIR. So I leave it at that. It is certainly within your prerogative of this body to send a letter to the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners or in fact bring the issue up. I assume Mr. Scott would be prepared to discuss that, but it's not on the agenda item. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, to recap, while we may not agree, we respect the county manager's authority and his role. And similarly, while he may not agree, he would respect the ability that when we're in the room, probably in this room with the table as we traditionally meet, that we'd simply bring it up and start talking about it. And it's as simple as that. MR. SCHMITT: It's certainly within your prerogative. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. MR. SCHMITT: I just wanted to make sure you knew from our, staffs, perspective -- Page 39 December 2, 2004 CHAIRMAN BUDD: I understand. MR. SCHMITT: -- where we are with this. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any new business? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's really following up what Ken Abernathy said earlier. Ray, could you look at a way or a circumstance in which someone could take the corner pole sign and split it into two signs not to exceed the one sign, and what kind of road conditions where that would be available? Because I do think in a situation where you have two major roads like this, that would be more appropriate, just because -- and this site was an excellent example, is that it would give people notice to turn in prior to going into the intersection. Where, if the sign was as we require by code, they would go into a major intersection and have to do a rather convoluted way to get around. So just, you know, as you're studying the revisions to the LDC, just check and see if that might be appropriate. MR. BELLOWS: I will. I'll bring that issue up to the people who are looking at LDC revisions to the sign ordinance. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There is none. We are adjourned. ***** Page 40 December 2,2004 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:31 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 41 -".....'''...-....,.--.'''.--.-,,-- -