The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/22-23/2008 Item #12A Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S Page 1 of 52 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals reject the recommendations of the Special Magistrate pursuant to the alternate dispute resolution process resulting from the denial of the conditional use for the expansion of a church (Petition CU-2004-AR-6384 - Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc.) OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) reject the recommendations of the Special Magistrate resulting from the mediation process authorized by Section 70.51, Florida Statutes known as the "Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (FLUEDRA). CONSIDERA nONS: Proceeding Before the Board of Zoning Appeals. On June 26, 2007, the BCC sitting as the BZA heard the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. (Congregation) request for a conditional use. This request was for a church building in addition to the church building already on the site. The motion to approve failed by a vote of 2 to 3 and was thus denied. The reasons set forth by the BZA for the denial were: 1. Inconsistency with Policies 5.] and 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (relating to transportation impacts of the project). 2. Noise impacts on adjacent property owners. 3. Incompatibility with adjacent properties (day and night use by multiple congregations). 4. Inconsistency with Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Transitional Conditional Use standard as to lot size) FLUEDRA Proceedings. Subsequently, the Congregation filed its Request for Relief with the County on or about August 9,2007. The County filed its Response on or about August 10,2007. A Special Magistrate was selected by the parties and a hearing on the matter was held before the Special Magistrate on October 5, 2007. Present and participating at the hearing were the Congregation pastor and members as well as Congregation planning, engineering and legal representatives; planning and legal representatives of the County; and neighboring property owners, specifically Mr. Jeff Raimer and Mr. Patrick Purnell. The participants were unable to reach an acceptable solution that could be recommended to the Board at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Special Magistrate directed that a revised site plan be prepared that would do the following: 1. 2. Remove the proposed berm. Relocate the parking area to the side of the site nearest the County park property. Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S Page 2 of 52 3. Locate a wall around the parking lot and church building and building area as shown on the attached site plan. 4. Locatc buffering and preserve areas between the wall and the property line as shown on the attached site plan. The Special Magistrate continued the proceeding to allow time for the revisions to be made to the site plan and for review by County planning staff and also for review by the Special Magistrate. The hearing was reconvened on February 28, 2008 to allow for any additional questions the Special Magistrate may have had as a rcsult of his review of the amended site plan. Subsequently, the Special Magistrate issued his Rccommendation on March 15, 2008. Specifically he recommends that: I. County purchase of the church site from the Congregation, or 2. Congregation purchase of the Raimer property at fair market value, or 3. ]f none of the above solutions could result in a timely resolution of the matter, then that the County grant thc conditional use as depicted on thc amcnded site plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Should the matter be litigated, there will be costs associated with the litigation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the Special Magistrate's findings (attach cd to this Executive Summary), the BCC sitting as the BZA may accept, accept with modifications or reject the recommendation of the Special Magistrate. If the BZA approves the conditional use aspect of the recommendation or approves the conditional use with modifications, it will be brought back to the BZA in the form of a resolution on the consent agenda. If the recommendation is rejected, the local government must provide a written decision within 30 days that describes as specifically as possible the use or uses available to the subject real property. It is believed that the BZA's denial of the petition for conditional use is legally defensible. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals reject the recommendation of the Special Magistrate in the mediation proceeding for Petition CU-2004-AR-6384 - Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. PREPARED BY: M81jorie M. Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney 2 Page I of ] Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S Page 3 of 52 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 12A Meeting Date: This item to be heard at 11 :15 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals reject the recommendations of the Special Magistrate pursuant to the alternate dispute resolution process resulting from the denial of the conditional use for the expansion of a church. (Petition CU~2004MAR-6384 - Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses, Inc.) 4/22/20089:00:00 AM Prepared By Marjorie M. Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 4/9/20087:59:53 AM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 4/9/20083:29 PM Approved By OMS Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 4/9/20084:27 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 4/10/20088:55 AM Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Board of County Commissioners Deputy County Manager Date County Manager's Office 4/11/20082:45 PM file://C :\AgendaTest\Export\] 05 -April%2022, %202008\ 12. %20COUNTY%20A TTORNEY... 4/16/2008 --,._----~.__._---~- Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S Agenda Ite'fTi'~.4rlBi52 June 26, 2007 Page 1 o~ 76 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CU-2004-AR-6384 Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, represented hy Mike Landy, of Landy Engineering, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates zoning district for an additional church building punuant to Table 2 of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The proposed Conditional Use will replace the existing CU-96-12 (E) Ordinance Number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square feet. The property, consisting of 5.15 acres, is localed at 3480 Golden Gate Boulevard S.W., Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Naples, Florida OBJECTIVE: Staff is requesting that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) review staffs fmdings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) regarding the above referenced Conditional Use petition and render a decision regarding the petition. CONSIDERATIONS: On October 22, 1996, the BZA approved a Conditional Use (See Resolution 97-440, Exhibit 2) for the subject 5. I 5-acre site, which comprises an existing 4,] 36 square-foot church and attached pastor's quarters, paved parking area, native vegetation, and storm water management areas. The Petitioner now seeks a Conditional Use for an additional church building having an area of 4,400 square feet at this current location of3480 Golden Gate Boulevard. The new church huilding will be located twenty feet south of the existing House of Worship and attached existing Pastor's Quarters. A total of 153 parking spaces are proposed to meet the minimum requirement of ] 53 spaces for the proposed 356 seats. Access to the church buildings and parking area will continue from the Max Hasse County Park entrance drive, and a secondary entrance from I" Avenue S. W. will be restricted for emergency vehicles only (See Conditional Use Master Plan, Exhibit 3). Nineteen percent (.97 acres) is proposed for natural vegetation preserve area Fifteen-foot Type "B" landscape buffers are proposed along the west side property line, and a ten- foot Type "D" buffer is proposed to be provided along the adjoining I st Avenue S. W. street frontage. It should be noted that the County has taken the north 65 feet of this property as part of the Golden Gate Boulevard road-widening project I. I On July ]9, 2005, Mike Landy, engineer and owner of Landy Engineering, Inc., and representative of Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc., requested a continuance from the July 26, 2005 BZA meeting to September I], 2005 meeting. Tbe County Manager's Office requested that the applicant agree to schedule their petition for October II, 2005. Mr. Landy agreed to schedule the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Conditional Use petition to the October 26, 2005 BCC meeting. On October 13, 2005, Mike Landy, fonnally requested an indefinite continuance for the above referenced petition (AR- 6384). Tbe owners have hired an attorney to help represent them (Ms. Deborah Stewart) and have met with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association on Wednesday, May 16,2007. The Golden Gate Estates Civic Association met with Ms. Stewart and did not express any objections about the proposed conditional use request, but did recommend that they meet again about this Page 1 of3 _ ~~~~unu~ SummA~V eo UbmMJIJ.L US.e ~/1""OA,) POr?. _ r.:,1-u,(oT Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S Agenda ltelmgCl. 0' All 52 June 26, 2007 Page 2 of 76 request and have the adjoining residential property owner, which was out of town for this meeting, meet to review the proposed request. Staff will update the BCC of the outcome of this meeting at the June 26, 2007 BCC meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The new additional church building, by and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the Conditional Use is approved, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund identified projects in the Growth Management Plan Capital Improvement Element as needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of Section 1O.02.07(C) of the Land Development Code, fifty percent (50%) of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be paid simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees collected before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of this Conditional Use will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The Environmental Service Department staWs analysis indicates that the subject property consists of no significant environmental conditions. There are no environmental issues associated with the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL lEACl RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) did not review this petition because the subject property did not exceed the minimum area requirement (ten-acres) and/or the environmental sensitivity of requiring review by EAC. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) reviewed this petition at their regular meeting of July 7, 2005. By a vote of 5 to I, the CCPC recommended to forward petition CU-2004-AR- 6384 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to staff stipulations and the following conditions: 1. A Type "BOO buffer, which includes a six-fuot tall wall on top of a three-foot tall berm, shall be provided along the western property line consistent with the Land Development Code requirements, which includes irrigation and maintenance. 2. A Type "D" buffer shall be provided along the southern property line. 3. The access to I" Ave. S.W. shall be restricted by a gate to emergency vehicles only. 4. The southern most parking stalls shall be constructed with grass pavers. Page2of3 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S Agenda IlGIlgt>l6. ci'f162 June 26, 2007 Page 3 of 76 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination by the BZA must be based. The legal considerations are reflected in the CCPC evaluation of the listed criteria in Chapters 10.03.05 and 10.02.13.B.5 of the LDC. These evaluations are completed as separate documents that have been incorporated into the attached staff report. A summary of the legal considerations and findings are noted below: . The proposed change has been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). . The proposed land uses are compatible with the existing land use pattern. . The proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. This project has also been deemed consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 oftbe Traffic Element of the GMP. . The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private, shall be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve Petition CU-2004-AR-6384, subject to the CCPC recommended conditions of approval, as noted above, along with the following staff stipulations: I. The Director of the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review may approve minor changes in the location, siting or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this Conditional Use. Expansion of the uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use application or major changes to the Site Plan, submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new Conditional Use application and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 10.02.03, Site Development Review and Approval of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 2004-41). 2. The Conditional Use approval to allow a church building is limited to the Site Plan identified as "Golden Gate Boulevard House of Worship," prepared by Landy Engineering, stamped "Receiyed 7/12/05". 3. A six-foot-wide sidewalk shall be constructed from the sidewalk along Max Hasse Park Drive to the existing church building prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new church building. PREPARED BY: Michael J. DeRuntz, C.F.M., Principal Planner Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Page 3 of 3 $.5'5 , .- -"""'.. ..,.uw.~>LI'II'"":'=~'_ -~~"":"'>>f.."''''''''''' ......--- MlIilIiiOOiiilJi" AGI9<ln ;:: S 0 NY1d li31SVIf 35n 7YNOl1fONO:J p.I....ernoa V1t1l) uapl~ Oliltt 1I'_....~at..~ IIIJIJ.",.. I'm' AL..1.nr. 'lIOi ----......- -".. > - '" ~- ..-........, (--it'-- Z""O> E=E; ~ 0> 0.0.. "'.0: <1l '0 C " OJ <l; ~_~~~__ N *,/ ~ , E' I' '" I S ~ ~ .oe...\ -',"...... - - ~ - - - ~ - ~ ! . ~ . ~ ~ ~ i ~ -----=-======================= !--- GtJ'lfA37noe .llVt) N30?Q!) II . II . .I ill. U if P i;-t~i illl!:ll., Ilqr,IY I I;i I I!lii "'lllllil "l'::l:l;., 1,1 i:!ll.llrll !",'j;l'" .1101"11: :1:IIHliil.lil '11 i,II. d .~lIh.. - ~~~~. - . .. .l ~ tl 'oil .. II" '<', I II ,u. ! r' I.. ~ 1"1 \.' " I" .. ; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) \- I I IIi II . . . I ,I ,..~ II I II :,,, .. i: I:! ::::; 1111 - I'll .--.. 11'1 I.... , , -- --r-- ______ .1 ." I ii~ -.-~'- "11 JC'3\otUJnos :JnN3II1r' jSl =. ..... II ~=~====~-= ===--=-== n~ . ===-':C_:C_:C_:C=f~-=:C-"':C' -- >>,,1111 i "".,,. I ~'i .~..:t:.1fi;~:-- -..... ------ ------ s 'TE' fJ'-/t1V - USE: jJ6:-nTl ON ---~&---u----ii-------- ======= , I'" i ~u. Ii i Ii ~ . ~ . i I hll i n n '~ II: II , ," ~ I W. P. I II , ~ Ii -"t: i i " - illll ': I' 'l!dl.: Ii 1!~1,,1! iI, !illilill! Iii',"': !ll !I! III i!ii I~ ill !~ 1,1 11!1 1:\ '1'11,1~ .ii ,p' 'Ii 'II 'I ,j'il'i' !II~ 1"11 III~ I! !ill"ll i I ahr t t rn .~ tt iI ~ .i1 ~ 0; _ ~ ~ _ ... Fo~ COIJi)t1l0A/ttt.. (p{U~ Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-2'7;'2t6" MR. MUDD: -- and you're approving the DCA with the added stipulations that we've put on the record, 10E. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, okay. And you agree? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, in the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the second agrees. Okay. And with that, all those in favor of the motion as amended so many times, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Congratulations, you're the proud parent of a mining operation. Item #7 A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2007-170: CU-2004-AR-6384 GOLDEN GATE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, REPRESENTED BY MIKE LANDY, OF LANDY ENGINEERING, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR AN ADDITIONAL CHURCH BUILDING PURSUANT TO TABLE 2 OF SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING CU-96-12 (E) RESOLUTION NUMBER 97-440. THE NEW CHURCH BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 4,400 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 5.15 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 3480 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD S.W., TRACT 81, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO.4, IN J.-t(lViJ~ OF <e.fU-/Or &4 Page 149 - 1tb7M.nVG ON &~?7.AJI1L USE' Agenda Item No. 12A Aprii 22, 200S June 26-21;7001" SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA - MOTION TO DENY - MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF MAJORITY; MOTION FOR APPROVAL W/STIPULATIONS TO 4 NIGHTS A WEEK - DENIED MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to board of zoning appeals. This item is 7 A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's conditional use 2004-AR-6384, Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses represented by Mike Landy of Landy Engineering, Inc., requesting a conditional use in the Estates zoning district for an additional church building pursuant to table II of section 2.04.03 ofthe Collier County Land Development Code. The proposed conditional use will replace the existing conditional use 96-12, parens E. And I want to make this correction. It says, ordinance number 97-440. It's resolution number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square feet. The property consisting of 5.15 acres is located at 4380 Golden Gate Boulevard Southwest, Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates, unit number four, in Section 11, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. All those wishing to participate in this particular agenda item, stand at this time to be sworn in by the court stenographer. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And for-- MR. MUDD: Ex parte. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- ex parte disclosure on the part of the commissioners, let's start with Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have received a number of emails and telephone calls in support of this petition, and I Page 150 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26!-rr :fo'Of , have not spoken with any of the petitioners directly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have had a lot of correspondence, I've had also a lot of email in regards to this item, and everything that was presented -- I believe I got tons of emails in here, people that are parishioners there, and they're all here for anybody to look at. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I, myself, have had correspondence, numerous emails, I met with Mike Landy, Mike Cassady, Jeff Raimer, Joe Schmitt, Mark Strain, and Mark Teeters in the past on this particular subject. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have many emails and correspondence, and I have them all on file for anybody's viewing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I received some emails, several emails, and written correspondence on this topic, and that's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, please continue. MS. STEWART: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. Obviously let me clarify first, I am not Mike Landy. Mike Landy is sitting behind me. My name is Deborah Stewart and I'm an attorney, and I'm representing the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. And first we want to thank you for allowing us to appear here before you today. As was read into the record, we're here on a petition for a conditional use of property that is already owned by the congregation. They own approximately five acres. The address is on 3480 Golden Gate Boulevard. They currently have one house of worship constructed. It has been there for several years. The petition today involves permission to construct a second house of worship on the five acres that they have Page 151 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-21; 1tm12 there. They have -- the petition complies with all the local county land use plans, including the Collier County code, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as well. The application meets the criteria for a conditional use. It's currently zoned Estates, and religious facility, church facility, is allowable as a conditional use in an Estates zone. Of course we'd like to think that it's going to promote the public health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. And they have also complied with all of the other legal requirements as far as notice, neighborhood information meeting. They have received approval for this site plan by the Collier County Planning Commission, as we're going to show in a few minutes. This site plan has actually been enhanced somewhat since it has been approved by the Collier County Planning Commission. As far as I know the staff has also approved the petition, and we've had no suggestions or requirements come back to us for the staff prior to this, or if they did make a decision, we followed it and, therefore, we believe that the evidence will show that this petitioner has complied with all the conditions set forth in the zoning code and, therefore, that -- we respectfully request that you approve their petition. Obviously we have many members of the congregation here. Not all of them, I do not believe, will be speaking, but several of the members of the congregation are here to show their support. And with that, unless you have any particular questions, Mr. Landy, the drawer of the site plan, will probably address the more technical questions regarding landscaping and the buffers and those things that the congregation has agreed to implement to appease the immediate neighbors, especially concerns regarding noise, traffic, and other things I'm sure you'll hear about. Page 152 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26':tf, 2d6:r CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you tell me your meeting that you held a couple weeks ago with the neighbors, one that was requested at the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association meeting, what happened at that meeting? MS. STEWART: There was a meeting back in May, the meeting May 16th in front of the homeowners association, or the secondary neighborhood -- informal neighborhood association meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This was the second -- this was the latest one. It was an informal meeting. One that you agreed to after -- MS. STEWART: Informal meeting? Oh, the one that we agreed to at the association. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. MS. STEWART: If! may back up for the other commissioners, at one point sometime early this year, we made contact with the new board of the Golden Gate Estates Homeowners Association and we made a presentation in front of them. At that meeting, as the chairman is referring to, it was suggested that we conduct yet another informal neighborhood association meeting, sent out invitations to the immediately surrounding neighbors, which we did. And that meeting was held, I believe, June 7th. And at that meeting, there was agreement on the part of our client to increase the berm, landscape buffering. And you'll see that as a matter of fact, instead of just building a berm, wall, and landscaping on the east side of the property that's directly between their property and their next-door neighbor, they further agreed at this meeting in question to also put up a wall and I believe a berm and vegetation landscaping on their border that borders 1 st A venue Southwest. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, did this satisfY all the neighbors, your immediate neighbors? MS. STEWART: Well, I'll let them speak for themselves, but as far as I know, the answer is yes, obviously short of withdrawing the Page 153 Agenda item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26!i:7: 2D'<W petition altogether. I mean, everything was listened to. As far as I know everything was agreed to that evening, yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Because the reason you're here now and we couldn't proceed the last time is because we made -- ran into a major obstacle with your immediate neighbors objecting to what's taking place. So rather than get a possible denial, you asked for a continuance. I believe that's how it all worked. MS. STEWART: That is correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're here today, two years later, is it? MS. STEWART: It's about a year and a halflater, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. And quite frankly, in the year and a half, we have done many things. In addition to the two meetings that we just discussed, there was another informal neighborhood information meeting. I believe that was somewhere in the fall, late winter of2005. That would have been directly after the Planning Commission gave its approval with the understanding that there would still be some concerns with the neighbors. Invitations were sent out by my clients, and no one appeared. No one from the neighborhood appeared at that particular meeting. This was late fall, early winter, 2005. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I understand that some of them had some conflicts with their own schedules -- MS. STEWART: Oh, absolutely, of course. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and couldn't make it. I mean, it's not a -- I don't want to give anybody -- it was the idea of a lack of interest. It wasn't. MS. STEWART: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The year 2006, quite frankly, was spent -- I had contacted a couple other companies in town quite honestly. I had a conversation with a past board director of the Golden Gate Estates area's homeowners association. It was rather discouraging, quite honestly. And so we just waited. Seemed like the time was right earlier this year, and here we are. Page 154 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-2'~ 20572 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. No, I'm glad you're going through the process and I'm glad everybody's participating in it. I'm going to want to -- very specially will be listening very carefully to the immediate property owners around there to see if we've -- if you had met their concerns. And if you have, I think you'll find my support will be there for you. MS. STEWART: Thank you. Appreciate that. I have no objection if you wanted to call them up at this point. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it -- I think we could do that -- MS. STEWART: If that's not out of order. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner-- MS. STEWART: Unless anyone has any questions, the commISSIoners -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. MS. STEWART: -- that personally visited the project themselves -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you agree with the Planning Commission's stipulations? MS. STEWART: I'm sorry. As a matter of fact -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. Yes, we did, and as I mentioned earlier, we've even enhanced the recommendations that they required. The site plan today -- and I think that Mr. Landy can show you a progression of what the Planning Commission approved and what we stand here today asking you to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard is you enhanced it, so that doesn't necessarily agree that -- mean that you agree with them, but -- MS. STEWART: We agree with them, and later -- subsequent to that, the immediate neighbors requested even additional protections against noise, traffic, and lights, all of which we agreed to. Page 155 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-~~ 20072 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you -- do you have another petition coming up shortly? MS. STEWART: No, I don't, Mr. Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. STEWART: If! may, sometimes I'm confused with another attorney in town, Pamela Stewart. I'm Deborah Stewart. I get that a lot, so I don't know ifthat's what you're thinking, but I have -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and call the speakers up. MS. FILSON: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I have-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll get to staff, but we might be able to get there a little bit quicker. With your permission, I'd like to proceed with the speakers. MS. FILSON: I have nine speakers. The first one Pat Humphries. She'll be followed by Rolando Diaz. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And it would help a lot, too, that if you are an immediate neighbor, if you would so identify yourself when you get up -- when you get up. Ms. Humphries, please continue. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I am a resident of the Estates and a former director of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association for 10 years. When this project was originally proposed to the Board of County Commissioners, it was opposed by the members of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and a resident who lived across the street from the proposed project. The resident's objections stemmed from the knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses' characteristic to have multiple meetings in their church that take place every night of the week as well as weekends. With this in mind, the Board of County Commissioners approved the petition with the stipulation that only two congregations meet in the 178-seat building. Page 156 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22. 200S June 26-~:2n'612 At last count, there are five congregations meeting five nights a week and twice on Sunday, a far cry from the original stipulations dictated by the Board of County Commissioners. The environment is filled with traffic, traffic noise, loud talking, and a general disruption of the neighbors' peace and quiet. Now we have a petition before you for an expansion which was also turned down in 2005 by the members of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. I understand there is some question as to whether this property was even eligible for conditional use in the first place since it's over five acres. Instead of spending so much money on a three-foot berm and a six-foot fence, I suggest the Jehovah Witness buy property in the newly released northeast section of North Belle Meade and raise the money for a new Kingdom Hall. There is a new school planned for that area, so it would be ideal. I feel compelled to add that one of the problems that civic associations face is when a special interest group joins for the express purpose of promoting their own personal project. Unfortunately, once their mission is accomplished, they aren't likely to be seen again. So I would respectfully request that you do not approve this expansion. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rolando Diaz. He'll be followed by Jeff Raimer. MR. DIAZ: Hello, my name is Rolando Diaz. I'm a member of the Jehovah Witnesses' Congregation at Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you can tilt the mike up a little bit MR. DIAZ: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so you don't have to bend over to it. MR. DIAZ: All right. I'm just going to clarify a few things about the words spoken in the last meetings that happened, and one of them was about community service, what do Jehovah Witnesses Page 157 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-21,eioefj2 provide to the community? Well, one of them, we've been known historically to help out during critical times, during Hugo in 1989, during Andrew in 1992. We were actually one of the first to be in response to the community to help them out. And also during Katrina, during Wilma here in Naples, and helping all of the coast. We're known to help out our community and -- special times and special needs. And an extra Kingdom Hall there doesn't mean more people. It actually means more people to help the community in the way -- not only when a natural disaster occurs, but also in helping how to learn if -- how to read if they don't know how to read or write, if they don't know how to write, and these are things that we don't charge money for, we do actually these things from our heart. We do these things freely to the community, and these are just things that will actually benefit everybody in the community, not just us. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Thank you. Jeff Raimer. He'll be followed by Ralph Case. MR. RAIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing the neighborhood to voice their opinions on this proposed expansion. My name is Jeff Raimer. I live at 3521 1st Avenue Southwest, the house immediately adjacent to the west of the Jehovah Witness hall. For years our neighborhood has had to listen to noise at night from horns, the car alarms going off, loud social activities, and activities associated with what, in essence, is a commercial form of use. I could be off a day, but I do believe the folks meet six nights a week, until 9:30 or 10 o'clock each evening, which may not always be the same congregation, but someone is meeting in that church each night, six nights a week. My wife and I are 100 percent against the expansion of the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall, regardless of what you're going to Page 158 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-TJ!;11{)'f512 hear today . We want to keep what views we have and not have our lives further disrupted by parking lots and lights. When we bought our -- when we purchased our home, we had Exhibit A, and now they want to add Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which we didn't sign up for when we bought that. We knew the church was there at the beginning. We realize that you as county commissioners, you hold the fate or our neighborhood in your hands, and I ask that you do not grant this expansion. In 1997, when this property was before the county commissioners to build the current building, the applicants stated that they would have two congregations along with sharing their hall with a Spanish congregation. In fact, Commissioner Matthews made a note of pointing out that there would only be two congregations at this hall and one would be Spanish. The Jehovahs agreed. In 2005 they have five congregations. Each congregation has approximately 100 parishioners with a hall that seats 187 people. How many congregations could they have if this application were to pass? If this is a conditional use request for a use that is not something provided by right, this request is inconsistent with the Golden Gate Master Area Plan due to its size. It is incompatible with the neighborhood noise, safety concerns for our residents and our children, and is certainly not a use that in any way is complementary to the very neighborhood in which it is being requested. The Planning Commission by a majority vote voted to recommend the approval of this application; however, it should be noted that the planning -- only Planning Commissioner who lives in Golden Gate Estates, Mark Strain, did vote against the application. He was also the chairman of the most recent Golden Gate Area Master Plan Committee. By majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the west side of your pro -- of our -- your property from property line Page 159 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-2'fJ,ezG(tf2 to property line, must have a three-foot berm and a six-foot masonry wall, which is to be landscaped on both sides, and the south end of the property, which is on 1 st Avenue Southwest. They have now added a wall to the south at the request of the neighborhood meeting recent meeting that she had spoke about; however, if this is -- this conditional use is destined to pass with your vote, I would like it to be on record that my wife and I, along with the rest of the neighbors, want the Planning Commission's recommendations for the landscape berm along -- wall along the entire property, west and south sides -- I'll make it quick -- along with the stipulations that the wall be built before the construction of the hall is -- proceeds, which we have agreed to. I would also like to add that I have a signed petition from just about every neighbor that I could track down in the neighborhood, which we have about 15 homes. I have about 12 -- 10 to 12 signed petitions that are totally against the expansion of this project. I thank you very much for your time and consideration for our neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, sir. I think you're probably the only representative of the neighborhood here today? MR. RAIMER: There's a couple more. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. I'll wait to address this with them. MR. RAIMER: Okay. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ralph Case. He'll be followed by Ruben Guadalupe. MR. CASE: My name is Ralph Case. I am one of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am actually what they call a circuit overseer. My responsibility is to supervise the activity of over 20 of our congregations. Most of them are here in Naples. I personally wasn't planning to be here this afternoon for this meeting due to the favorable response that I heard that we had with Page 160 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-2'r,'WG72 our public meeting, the additional meeting that was requested; however, yesterday I did receive a copy of our neighbor's notice of pleas regarding inviting the community to show up for this meeting where he's asking them to oppose the project. That was quite a surprise to us in the sense that it seemed favorable at the previous meeting, and it was a surprise to the ones who are taking the lead in this consideration. We have truly believed that the Scriptures say that we should be -- that our reasonableness be known to all, and so in everything basically that they have asked us to do to show them consideration in this manner, we have agreed to do it, and gone beyond what the city (sic) itself has asked us to do. Basically this is a church, and other members have mentioned the benefit of this church or will mention it, and I don't think we have to explain that a lot, the benefits of the church. Many of you, without a doubt, are God-believing people. The seal that we have right here says, In God We Trust. Churches have long been a center of community, just as important as schools, fire stations, libraries. It benefits the community, it benefits the families, the youth, are multiple. And a church should meet the needs of its community that it serves. This commission, without a doubt has approve -- was responsible for approving the Catholic church that's on Vanderbilt and Weber Road, which I believe is probably close to a 20,000-square-foot project that's there, to meet the needs of the community that's in the Estates area. We're only asking for an additional 4,000 square foot, and doing everything possible to meet the needs of our neighbors and, at the same time, meet the needs of our parishioners that are in the area, the Estates area, our current needs that we have. We realize that there has been growth in that area because the people have moved in. The meeting prior to this is stating the needs in Page 161 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-2"fJ,"i6fJt2 your plans to expand or build out the infrastructure, taking into consideration future needs of the area. So we have parishioners that are in that area. We're trying to serve the needs of our community that are there. As far as some of the objections that they have, I personally live at the 3480 Golden Gate building site. The noise. I hear noise from the neighbors also, their children. They have also -- some of the neighbors have a golf cart, they ride up and down the street. We see it. We see the traffic there that comes from the school right there that -- an expansion's been added to that. Traffic that backs out past the -- our neighbor's house in the morning. Far more traffic, far more noise from the park that's across the street, the Max House (sic) project that's there. Our footprint is very small in the community. Most of our parishioners enter in from the Golden Gate area. There.- some might come up Weber Road, but that vast majority enter there. We've taken into consideration the neighbors. As far as noise, I personally live there. I might hear parking, sound from a car. My own car personally does it, makes a beep when I park it and lock the door, but I think it's all within a reasonable amount. I personally have never been bothered being -- living there myself by the noise. I hardly hear it myself; however, again, we're more than willing to take into consideration our neighbors' circumstances and be reasonable in doing that. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ruben Guadalupe. He'll be followed by Mike Casady. MR. GUADALUPE: Yes, my name is Ruben Guadalupe, and I'm a member of the Jehovah Witness Spanish congregation. I'm a father too. I got two children, one girl, one boy. They are behind me. And I just want to let you know that even though we live like in a paradise in Naples, it's been great for me for the past 20 years in this Page 162 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22. 200S June 26-27:20ffj2 city; and raising my kids in this city, they endure pressure in the school. Have to deal with morality, have to deal with drugs, have to deal with a lot of choices they have to make. The fact that they have this Biblical education in the Kingdom Hall has helped them grow spiritually just as well as physically, and face those pressures, good -- in being a good citizen right now. They are good examples of this community, in school and at home and the way that they go out and preach to the other people in this community. So I just want to let you guys know, understand, that it's very important for our youth and for us as a Spanish community, too, to have Kingdom Hall because we don't only go over there to listen. We go over there to learn and to change our way of living so we can improve in helping other people. And my children, Ruben and Melanie, they have their papers over there. I don't know if you want to listen to them right now, so you can see the importance for them as kids to have this place, spread Jehovah. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Casady. He'll be followed by Ruben Guadalupe. MR. CASADY: Good afternoon, Chairman and commissioner board. We really appreciate you meeting with us this afternoon and going over this important information. This is a very important project for us, as you've heard already from some of the other members of Jehovah's Witnesses, that it has many good effects on the neighborhood, the community, morals. We pay our taxes, and it's a great training program that we offer for the members of the church that we have to become outstanding citizens in Collier County. And it has rubbed off on our businesses, the people that we work for, the companies that we've worked for, have good recommendations, things that we have learned and are teaching at the Page 163 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S P~e 23 of 52 June 26-2/, 2007 Kingdom Hall, the instruction that we get has rubbed off and carried over into our businesses and infrastructure of business that we have in Collier County. So we appreciate you hearing us. The building size is, as mentioned, 4,400 square feet, isn't a big building. In fact, it's just a little bit bigger than this room. Probably a few feet wider and a few feet longer than this room. So it's not a gigantic building. It's got a low-profile single story, hip roof, and it's all colored to the colors of earth tone colors, light green, brown roof and so forth. It blends in real good with the landscaping that's there. And we did agree to the wall on the south side, and that's fine, at our June 7th meeting, and we had several neighbors at that meeting, probably 10 or 12 neighbors, and we've come to a conclusion that they wanted the wall on the south side. We agreed to that. And with the additional landscaping and the hedge and so forth inside, outside, and we agreed to that. I mean, we shook hands together; we thought we had a great agreement for this petition to pass. MS. FILSON: Ruben Guadalupe. He'll be followed by Melanie Guadalupe. MR. GUADALUPE: Hi. My name is Ruben Guadalupe, Jr. My dad just spoke. And I want to point out that there are positives to building the Kingdom Hall, and not only for us but for everybody in the community. Since I was little, I've been raised believing that God is always watching, and just keeping this in mind, it's kept me out of a lot of problems and helped me get through difficult situations. I can say the same for my friends in the congregation. Besides our responsibilities in the congregation, we also hang out together and support each other, and it helps us keep out of trouble. And building the Kingdom Hall, besides making everything less crowded for us, will also give us a place to keep growing spiritually and continue spreading hope to people who need it like we do. MS. FILSON: Melanie Guadalupe. She'll be followed by Page 164 r-----~-~- Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-1'>;'i6d12 Patrick Burnell (sic). MS. GUADALUPE: Hi, I'm Melanie Guadalupe. I think. the Kingdom Hall should be built for many good reasons. I have learned throughout my life that God rejoices when we follow his principles, and he also helps us do so, and especially us young people in the world, it is very hard for us, but he knows and understands our troubles and our difficulties that we are presented with, and also being able to have someone to talk to and we can confide in that's always there helps me and others in the congregation to make good decisions. And I think. that -- I mean, I love to spread the good hope that Jehovah has given us for the future. And by having a new Kingdom Hall, we will have the space to do so. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Patrick Purnell. MR. PURNELL: Chairman, Commissioners, I apologize for my informal dress. I had other things to do this morning. The concerns that I have -- I am the property directly across from 1st Avenue Southwest. One concern I have is the two congregations that were supposed to be in the existing building and now is five. How many more are going to go in there? And it doesn't seem anybody's answered that question. The gate that's gone on 1 st A venue, the agreement that we made on our last meeting is that it would only be used for emergency vehicles. What kind of enforcement? I mean, how do we know that's what it's all going to be used for? I understand we have the word of the congregation. We also say -- they also said they were only going to have two congregations there, too. And as far as other meetings in the past, I've never been personally notified by mail or any other way by the congregation. Mr. Raimer is the only one that ever advised me. They're the only points I wanted to make. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. Page 165 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26_2"eiMfj2 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go away, sir. MR. PURNELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you could, please, a couple questions. How long have you lived at this present address? MR. PURNELL: I don't live there. I own the property there. I was going to build a house there, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And do you find the idea of the improvements they're planning to make is satisfactory? MR. PURNELL: I haven't seen the new plans. I saw the plans on June 7th. Ifthey agreed to everything we talked about -- if you're going to approve it, you know, I want it approved by what we had talked about on June 7th. I do -- my only -- the only real question I have is, like I said, the existing building was approved for two congregations, and now five are there. Now we're going to build another 4,000 feet. Does that mean that 10 congregations will be there? And then all of a sudden that gate that's only going to be used for emergency vehicles is going to be opened for more traffic to go out onto I st A venue Southwest. Now, I bought that property, obviously, with the park there and the school and the church the way it is now. I don't know that we need any more -- more traffic or more people, more congregations. It's . . . t Just gomg to -- It s -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. PURNELL: It might be too much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We -- at this point in time, do we have anything from staff to offer? MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Reischl (sic) has a couple items he has to put on the record. Anything, Fred? Mike, sorry. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz. I'm the Principal Planner with Department of Zoning Land Development Page 166 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-27;'iOd't2 Review and Comprehensive Planning. The -- there was a neighborhood information meeting on January the 20th, 2005, and you've heard there was a series of requests for continuations, that this petition did not come forward to the Board of Appeals. The -- they have met with the association and they have listened to them and tried to address the needs of the -- that was expressed by the board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did they get the approval vote from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association? MR. DeRUNTZ: They -- at the first meeting they had their support, but they wanted to have that second meeting with the neighbors, and it is my understanding that at that meeting they addressed the concerns that the neighbors had. So I don't think there was ever a vote by the association, but they seemed to be, from my understanding from the -- from Deborah, that the -- that they were supportive of this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. I was there at the meeting. There was never a vote taken to indicate there was support. There was a couple of people that offered support. MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A number of people from the church in the audience. In fact, I think it was about 60 some. It was probably the biggest crowd we've ever had. It was an impressive crowd. MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But once the issue was over with, they left. We were hoping to get them as members. That's neither here nor there. But I didn't want anybody misled that the Golden Gate Civic Association took a formal vote and got approval. They did not. MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. I didn't say they took a vote. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That never came up. The last time a vote was taken was many years ago. At that time it was voted against. Page 167 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-~'r,"iOdT2 And you know, I just want to make sure the record's in proper perspective to what we're going into. Is there anything else you have to offer? MR. DeRUNTZ: That the CCPC voted on July the 7th. It was a 5-1 vote in support. There was four conditions. One was that a type B buffer, which included a six-foot tall wall on top of a three-foot berm shall be provided along the western property line consistent with the Land Development Code regulations, which included irrigation and maintenance. Two, a type D buffer would be provided along the southern property line. Three, an access to 1st Avenue Southwest shall be restricted by a gate to emergency vehicles only. And four, the southernmost parking stalls shall be constructed with grass pavers. At this meeting that was held on the 7th -- and I have on the visualizer a copy of the site plan that was approved, it shows here that along the western property line here that they are going to provide a six-foot tall wall on top of the berm, and they identified that there will be a type C buffer on the outside of this wall, and the same is along the south side here. One of the other concerns was about the lighting that was there at the site, and they have agreed to have a dome-type lighting fixture and that these would be turned off at 11 o'clock, I believe, at night. And the -- and the staff has found that this application is consistent with the growth management plan and found to be compatible with the Land Development Code and is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did anyone address the issue of the original conditions where there was only going to be two congregations meeting in the church and now there's five? MR. DeRUNTZ: I believe in looking at the statement of record that that was not a condition of the approval. That was just the verbiage that was -- language that was spoken of at the meeting. That Page 168 Aaenda Item No. 1.2A - Aprii 22, 200S June 26-~1,e2M'12 was not placed as one of the conditions of the approval. But I'll let Deborah speak to that. MS. STEWART: Thank you. And yes, I have reviewed the minutes from that meeting in 1996, and as -- I have a set right here. And as I recall reading it earlier, as Mr. Leruntz (sic) indicated, there was discussion about that meeting and there was an inquiry made of the congregation as to how far they thought they would expand. Let's see. A Mr. Martin -- I'm not -- I don't recall who he is -- he talks about -- I believe that there will -- and I think he was a staff member. I believe that there will be a plan for the site for more than two congregations, and I believe one is Spanish speaking and one is English speaking. Then there was some other discussion. Commissioner Matthews, Bettye Matthews at the time, said, I just wanted to make sure we knew it's two congregations. But as I read the motion with their stipulations, that was not one of the stipulations that there would only be two congregations at this site. And let me say again, this was back in 1996. That's more than 10 years ago. I know that if this congregation knew back then they would have expanded more than twice its size, they would have told you. It's my understanding they gave you all the best opinion they had at the time. I mean, I think a lot of us undershot the amount of growth of our community 10 years ago. So in my opinion, it was not made part of the record or the motion at the time, that this conditional use back then be capped at two congregations. And the other thing -- and if I may continue. I'm not sure at what point -- to address some of the issues -- the comments that were raised by Ms. Humphries, Mr. Raimer, Mr. Burnell (sic), again, we come back mostly to the traffic and the noise. One of the reasons the current Page 169 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-27;"iadlf2 congregation is meeting six nights a week at this location is because they don't have the additional building. Their plan is, with the additional building, their goal is to only meet at this site three times a week. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words -- MS. STEWART: Two to three times a week, Wednesdays, Sundays, and possibly one other evening. CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Would you agree to that as a condition? MS. STEWART: I'd have to confer with my clients. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, because I'll tell you where we are on these -- MS. STEWART: That would be-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on this. Back a number of years ago when Golden Gate Estates was young, there was no particular rules. You could build a church, you could build -- put a fraternal organization out there without having to go through a lengthy process. It was a use that could be -- come around without difficulty. I remember I ran into problems with the Moose in the fact that I stopped them from getting out there when they wanted to go in a residential neighborhood. Why not? The property's considerably cheaper to buy in a residential neighborhood than it is in one that would permit these kinds of use as a normal occurrence. So we formed the Golden Gate Master Plan. This is back in '92. And we came up with a whole matrix to be able to make it a little more difficult for churches and fraternal organizations and commercial to locate in the Estates, and it's been a long process and it gets you to where you need to be. And that's where we are today. But, once again, you know, we're talking about a residential neighborhood that has -- now has a commercial use. Yes, large lots and everything. And I don't think the people that have been there for a long time ever anticipated this particular venture getting to the size Page 170 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-rzy~ 2D'(W that it is. MS. STEWART: I understand everything you said, Commissioner, Mr. Chairman. And again, if! may say, I believe that -- it's my understanding this particular site is the -- one of two in this area that's qualified for this transitional use, if you will. So I don't think the board's going to see very many more applications for this type of application. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, but still, it's the option of this board to approve or not approve. MS. STEWART: Yes, of course, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what I'm challenging you with, is to see if your congregation can -- if the church could live up to what you just said, that this larger facility will allow them to reduce it from six nights a week to three nights. If you can get them to agree to that, I think I might be much more understandable of how this whole thing works. MS. STEWART: Is this an indefinite period of time, from here till forever or is it -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'd have to come back before this commission again to get it changed. MS. STEWART: So you're talking about restriction that's -- days and times of operation? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, to bring it down to something-- in other words, if you're going to, you know, impede upon the peace and tranquility of the residents that live there, what can you do to try to bring a balance to it? Maybe it will be a more intense use for those three nights that it happens, but at least they can be assured that they're going to have four nights without a heavy use. MS. STEWART: And here's one other thing that maybe we're not focusing on. I have heard a lot of discussion about the noise, the traffic, the car alarms, the talking and yet I heard no one present any proof, per se, that it was from this congregation. As you all know, Page 171 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-21;"20dlf2 Max Hasse Community Park is directly across the street, there is another church further down the road, and there's a school there as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, I understand. But the school isn't operating at night for the general -- you know, generally late at night. They -- MS. STEWART: No, but the park probably is. I'm not sure that that church -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The park has got hours of operation, baseball and everything. There's usually something that takes place during the day. What I'm saying is, trying to compare the two of them, the peace and tranquility of the evening nights in the Estates is something that people treasure greatly, and the peace and quiet that they get there. That's the reason why they moved out there to those large lots. And we -- and that's one of the reasons why it's so important that, if you do this, that the walls be built on top ofthe berms, that all the amenities that go into place are there. But meanwhile, we still have a more intense use for a residential neighborhood. What can you do to tell me that that use will only be so many nights a week? I mean, you just said that it was going to be reduced. Either it's true or it's not true. MS. STEWART: Well, it's true for the period right now. If you're asking us to project into the future how much further this congregation will expand, I think that's another question-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- and that's fine. MS. STEWART: -- if that's what you want me to discuss with them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. But this commission is open for discussion in the future if somebody wanted to bring something back to have a change made to their -- MS. STEWART: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- original agreement that was put Page 172 I~ Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-2"1l,e20ff12 together. MS. STEWART: I would request a break. and let me discuss that with my clients. I don't know of any other way to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Stewart, how many congregations are meeting in the church? MS. STEWART: There are approximately five congregations that meet there now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What was the petition in the '90s? What name was that petition for? MS. STEWART: I'm looking at a set of minutes, I believe, and it reads, resolution 96-488, petition CU-9612, Don Apperson, requesting continual use to allow for a house of worship for property located on the south side of Golden Gate Boulevard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the congregation is the house of worship? MS. STEWART: They refer to their buildings as their house of worship. The congregation is the number -- when I use the term, it's the number of members of that particular church. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many churches do you have meeting in there? MS. STEWART: Just the one congregation -- well, one Golden Gate congregation, five separate groups. They can't all fit into the one building at the same time, so they are scattering them out through the week. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying you have five different services or five different congregations? MS. STEWART: I'll call up my client, Mr. Casady, and he can probably better answer that question. MR. CASADY: Okay. Yes, we have five groups that meet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your name, for the record. Page 173 Agenda item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-~; ~:OO12 MR. CASADY: Mike Casady. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they a member of one church? MR. CASADY: It's all Jehovah's Witnesses, it's all Jehovah's. There are a couple different groups that speak Spanish that's there, and then there's two -- there's three groups that speak Spanish and there's two groups that are English. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I heard the Hispanic gentleman say they lease from you. Did I hear that or is that wrong? MR. CASADY: No, that's not right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's one church. I mean, I agree with Commissioner Coletta, there has to be some limitation on that, the use on that property. MR. CASADY: It's very difficult to calculate the growth. Just as we are -- you hear from time to time the roads are continually . growmg. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. CASADY: Building roads, and it's real hard to calculate how many people are coming in that are receiving God want to come in to worship. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me tell you my experience. First Baptist Church originally started, it was right next to Naples City Hall, and then they moved it way out there on Pine Ridge Road, and then from there they went to Orange Blossom Road (sic), and they are still growing. And I think they've found a property to fit their needs. And, you know, I'm concerned, like Commissioner Coletta, that maybe you're outgrowing the neighborhood. Maybe you're outgrowing your space, and it impacts on a single -- or a residential neighborhood. That's my concerns. And, you know, those conditional uses, churches, are not really meant to be seven days a week. MR. CASADY: Well, as 1-- Page 174 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22. 200S June 26-~~e26e7'2 COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'm glad you're doing what you're doing. MR. CASADY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am, too. MR. CASADY: And as Deborah mentioned, you know, that we do meet there regularly. I mean, almost every night we have a group, and that would shrink that down to like three nights -- three nights a week where we would be able-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that might be acceptable to the board, three nights a week. MR. CASADY: But the future, we don't know. I mean, how can we stop? How can we stop people coming in to worship God in a house of worship? It's very difficult to say, no, we can't have you come in anymore. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. CASADY: -- we would feel-- we would not feel right to do that, to stop by some numbers. We do want to eventually, you know, find some property out in the Estates if anything's available, and that's the problem. There's nothing out that way, or Oil Well Road, or for the future in the years to come. And we'd rather be out that way, but for the time being we need -- you know, we really need this project, this building, to house the people that we have, and probably some additional people that would come along in the next few years. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, let's go ahead and take a 10-minute break. And maybe you can discuss it with members of your congregation. We think you're doing a wonderful job with congregation. They serve a lot of purpose, but we also have to bring a balance for the neighborhood. So take a few minutes, talk it over with your attorney, and see what you can come up with. Okay. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike, sir. Page 175 Agenda item No. 12A April 22, 200S June 26-2"P,eibfJf2 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Back to you. MS. STEWART: Thank you. Commissioners, my clients have asked me to pose one suggested -- one suggestion, and that is, would the neighbors be willing to agree to, say, four nights per week rather than the three nights per week? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what. We've got one neighbor that actually lives there. I'm going to invite him back up to the podium, ifhe wouldn't mind. Not that easy trying to find a common ground-- MR. RAIMER: No, it isn't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on a situation like this. Buy I thought if I could buy you some evenings of peace and quiet. MR. RAIMER: Sure. No, I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state the name again. MR. RAIMER: My name is Jeff Raimer. I live to the west of the church. And you know, I want to go on record that I'm not here to impede anything. My wife and I have a beautiful piece of property. I don't want to see a wall go up. I want to look at my views coming out of my front porch as they are. I don't want any services at night. I've got five or six as it is now. You know, no to four. I mean, I don't want any. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I understand that. MR. RAIMER: But I can't stop that obviously, but-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's make a choice. In other words, if we refuse this, then the status quo stays with six nights a week, no wall, no shrubberies. If we go ahead and we accept it, then we're down to four nights. At leave you've got three nights of quiet. And you do have a wall, shrubbery, something to enhance the whole thing. MR. RAIMER: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Help us with this decision. MR. RAIMER: Well, I'd love to. I know you're in a tough spot, and I can only tell you as for myself and, you know, the Page 176 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-~~ wo72 neighborhood, that we met. It was pretty adamant to them that we don't want any expansion that, you know, we agreed to this plan that they gave us because they have to bring a plan to you for approval or not approval. So, you know, we said, okay, if you're going to bring a plan, because you have to have one -- first of all, we don't want one, but if you have to, okay, you need the wall on the south side, you need the wall on our side, you need it on a berm, you need the landscape on both sides, you need to put the ball lighting in to keep the things down, but none of us want the expansion. And I understand they want to do it. They're growing. You can't tell me 10 years ago they didn't know they were going to grow from two congregations to five, and now they're at five, arid who knows what it's going to go to. And my concern is, who's in charge of -- who's in charge of saying, okay, they're not meeting three nights a week? Who's in charge of that? I mean, do I got to call every time they're meeting on a night they're not supposed to meet? Do I got to call somebody up and watch that, that -- I mean, you know, it's not a conditional use. What they have now is -- you know, they got the transitional conditional use which states that, to my knowledge, that the piece of property needs to be two to under five acres. They've got 5.15 acres, so that transitional conditional use should have never been granted back in '96 or '97. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it was. MR. RAIMER: But it was. So there we are again. So I'm asking you guys not to further that. That shouldn't have been here in the first place, that's all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, one more time, I just want to make sure I understand. The present situation, if the status quo remains as it is, six nights a week meeting -- and they might go to seven because it doesn't seem like there's anything to stop them, there Page 177 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-~"fJ,e1M'12 would be no improvements done to the peripheral part of the property, so you know, you get to see what you are -- there will be no nose (sic) break -- nothing to break the noise. So you would think that that would be more preferable than to grant them the expansion and to cut down on the amount of services they have. MR. RAIMER: For my wife and I, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Tell me about the traffic situation that you're enduring now. MR. RAIMER: Well, the traffic situation, we certainly knew that when we bought it. I mean, you've got -- at the end of our street you've got Big Cypress Elementary, you've got a Presbyterian church, you've got the Max Hasse Park, you've got their church. That's all within, without exaggerating, 150 yards, all ofthose. So you've got all that coming in, you've got their church. You know, they say they don't come down 1st Avenue, I don't know how you would know if they do or they don't. I can't say they do, I can't say they don't. What I can say is, at nine o'clock, between 9:00,9:30, 10:00, when they are coming out, there's car horns going off, they're sitting out in the parking lot, they're talking. You know, we're used to it now, quite honestly, we are. I mean, it's, you know, at that point-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but if they had the expansion and the traffic was to say double, would that be an inconvenience? MR. RAIMER: Like I said, you know, quite honestly, I can't say that because I don't know what cars of theirs are coming in or coming out. I do know if they're -- you know, I do know that in the minutes, in the Planning Commission minutes, that there is a stipulation that they could have their right turn or their left turn taken away off of the Boulevard. If that happens, guess where they're going? They're going to go down 1 st Avenue Southwest because they don't have a choice. If they can't go out of their church and take a left on the Boulevard, they're going to be coming out of their parking lot turning right towards Max Page 178 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-~l,e1belf2 Hasse and taking a right on 1st Avenue, and that's how they're going to be leaving. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then again -- MR. RAIMER: It's in there, it says that it could happen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- it's a public road. Can't quite, you know, tell somebody they can't use the public road. MR. RAIMER: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if they were to take their church and increase the size of it, it would most likely cause more traffic. Do you agree with that? MR. RAIMER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to ask you just for a few minutes to stay there in case any of my commissioners -- MR. RAIMER: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- have questions for you. Thank you, Jeff, for your patience. MR. RAIMER: Yep, thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any questions of this gentleman, but I do have a question of the representative of the church. Usually if you're a successful church, and you apparently are, you make plans for expansion and you get a building fund and you collect money and identify what your long-range alternatives are going to be. And I'm wondering if you can tell me how much money you have in your building fund. Have you established one? Do you have long-term plans to acquire property that suits your needs? I hope you will not stop growing. I hope you will continue to grow. But how do you intend to accommodate that growth, by trying to jam more in this neighborhood, or are you really going to make a sincere effort to find a place that will permit you to grow even larger? Page 179 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-21,e2~ef72 And that's my question. I have -- I have run into similar situations where churches simply don't want to spend their money on getting bigger facilities or other facilities and they merely want to try to pack more into what they've got, and that is understandable, but it's not necessarily fair to the neighborhood. And so that's my question to you. What are your long-range building plans, how are you going to accommodate for growth from this point forward, and have you begun to collect any money to fund those long-range plans? MR. CASADY: Yes, sir. We do have a building fund and we do plan in the future, we do plan to expand elsewhere, not just this one piece of property. Like we mentioned in comment earlier, we'd like to find some property, feasible property, inexpensive property, which is hard to find in Collier County now, out towards Oil Well Road, someplace out that way. We're looking for some additional property besides what we have planned to do here. So that's where our growth is. Most of our -- a great majority of our people that come to the services there do live in the Estates area. There are some that lives in town, but the majority of them does live in the Estates area. And we'd like to for future, future, in the future, to build someplace out in that area also. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you have a building fund that is going to support that strategy? MR. CASADY: We're working on that, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead, sir, briefly. MR. CASE: Having the larger picture, I'm very much aware of the situation of all the congregations here in the Naples area. We have a Kingdom Hall on Guilford and we have four congregations there. We have one on Pine. We have three congregations there. We have Page 180 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26_~"jl,e20()j2 one on Yarberry. We have three congregations there. We have one on Green in Golden Gate City, and there's four congregations there. There's five there in the Estates. We try to not bring people from other communities into the community. We try to serve our neighbors -- our parishioners that are in that particular community without bringing the burden from outside into that community that's there. With that said, their goal was actually to build something that was farther out, but we are having difficulty trying to find land that will allow us those -- that use farther out towards the Everglades area, the Everglades Avenue. We have this piece of property that's there. This is -- would reduce the use of the overcrowding that's in this one particular -- one particular building. Also in regards to the impact on the neighborhood, we try to really keep it light. We consider our neighbors. We're not interested in tearing down this building and building a cathedral that would have a larger impact in the area. Our smaller building -- our meetings, we feel, have less of an impact in the neighborhood, and we are trying to do whatever we can, and we believe we have met the requirements of all the zonings and also the laws in regards to considering those types of impacts or noise and lighting and everything that they've asked, and we've agreed so as to keep that impact there and not cause a difficulty within the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing what I've heard and everything and having to weigh everything -- and I mean no harm to the church, I'm going to vote for disapproval based upon transportation element number 5.1 and 5.2, that I think that this particular venture would have an impact on the neighborhood that would be negative, and the surrounding area also. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner. Page 181 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-21:1b~f COMMISSIONER HENNING: It also doesn't comply to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan with the lot size conformity. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I add that to my motion. And if I get a second, we'll be able to proceed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it for discussion purposes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Henning for denial. Do I hear any discussion? Yes, Margie. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling. I also believe there was testimony as to noise, and that is one of the criteria that exists in the code for whether a conditional use should be approved or denied, and I don't know if you may wish to add that to your motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I include that in my motion. How about your second, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show Commissioner Henning indicated with a nod yes. With that, any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in the -- favor of the motion for denial, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show Commissioner Page 182 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 42 of 52 June 26-27, 2007 Halas was in opposition to the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was, too. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala, that the motion only required three, correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, four. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, did it? Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we need another motion. MR. WEIGEL: Here's what happened. It's four to approve a conditional use. It is not approved -- this motion to deny is not approved either, but the petition does not go forward at this point, that's for sure. So I think if you can entertain another motion-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't need another motion? Okay. Hearing nothing? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure that was clear. I'm not sure David -- MR. WEIGEL: I'll restate. If, for instance, we had a motion to approve that failed, because it failed to achieve the supermajority vote, that is an action. It fails to move forward. This motion to deny also fails in the sense that it's not a supermajority vote out of conditional use; however, ifthere is no motion to go -- if there is no further motion taken, the petition will fail in any event because there is no motion to approve that it's going forward, is what I'm trying to say. If there is -- if there is a desire to entertain another motion and that motion were to approve it and it fails, then I think you've, you know, fully covered the gamut there, is what you could do. Anything else? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear another motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion and -- with the stipulation -- motion for approval with the stipulation that they are only allowed to meet four nights a week. Page 183 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 June 26-~"jl,eibt1j2 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that they have the fence? COMMISSIONER HALAS: With all the other stipulations that have been put in there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the CCPC as well as the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, and then what was also discussed with the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion for approval by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you agree with -- go along with that four nights, that's it? MS. STEWART: Oh, yes, we do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. STEWART: And if! may, at this point in discussion, if the motion does not go forward, will there be permitted cross-examination of witnesses? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. One more time? MS. STEWART: If the motion is not approved, will there be time for cross examination? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, absolutely not. MS. STEWART: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 184 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 P",..e 44 01:i;2 June 26-.L I, 20u/ COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were for or opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was -- I was opposed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have myself, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner Coyle in opposition to the motion. The motion failed. Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- MS. STEWART: If! may make one-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that -- MS. STEWART: If! may make one objection to the record, please. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. This part of the proceedings concluded. We don't -- we don't -- we're not a court of law. MS. STEWART: Object based on the denial of due process. Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Commissioners, the chairman asked me to try to keep this, to get the supermajority vote particular issues out of the way because Commissioner Coyle's a little under the weather. Item #8B ORDINANCE 2007-54: PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, TREE FARMLAND TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT MULHERE, AICP OF RW A, INC., AND GEORGE VARNADOE, ESQUIRE, OF CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP, IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT Page 185 Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 45 of 52 RESOLUTION NO. 07-..J.+O A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DENYING BY OPERATION OF LAW THE REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR AN ADDITIONAL CHURCH BUILDING PURSUANT TO TABLE 2 OF SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34S0 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD S.W., TRACT SI, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO.4, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DENYING THE REQUEST BY OPERATION OF LAW. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Cbapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish. coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41), as amended, which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of panicular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of conditional uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning hoard for the area hereby affected, has held a public bearins after notice as in said regulations made and provided. has considered the advisability of a conditional use for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2 of Section 2.04.03 of the CoIlier County Land Development Code in an Estates Zoning Disnict on the property h....inafter described, and has found that sarisfactoI)' provision and arrangement have not been made concerning all applicable mall... required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.OS.00 of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested panies have been given opportunity to be beard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board bas fuIly considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF WNING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA thar: The petition filed by Mike Landy of Landy Engineering, Inc., representing Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovab's Witnesses, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: ~-SO'-UT10/oJ OF lJ:,~(i1-(_ OU _ - &NDLTlo(\.)il'- USE P"")lTlOI0 (0 {2uf Or Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 46 of 52 Tract 8 I, Golden Gate Estales Unit No.4, Collier County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Pages 79-80, of lbe Public Records of Collier County, Florida, more panicularly described as 3480 Golden Gate Boulevard S.W. by operation of law is hereby DENIED the conditional use for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2 of Section 2.04.03 of the Comer County Land Development Code in an Estates Zoning District for the reasons set forth in the record of the proceedings of June 26, 2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted based upon motion, second and majority vote to approve the subject request. which was not a sufficient supcr.majority vote. and thus. the request is considered denied by operation of law effective this date. Done this Ol..t. day of o'~ ,2007. A TTESl':>~:.ifJ ,,;. . DW.!GHTE.Ilil:~CLERK BOARD OF ZONlNG APPEALS COLLIER~RJD.A d:~ JAMIfs N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN BY: Approved as to fOllll and legal sufficiency: ~ ')~) 'J., ,^ . . ( . .'.j ... , ,.t -J:n",.c,,, MlUj . M. Student-Stirling .',j Assistant County Attorney C:U-2004.AR~)8.\Il..IJ[){1Ip 2 _ ~S/'?Mi/ ")(ot~ ::10 fYO{L2Er,;1IQ _ "'U=>cI (Vtncl ;iU,S (f,...~(!~~ ,~ "'-:"-, '\, "~\ 1'- ';li';;I'U- Ii , '~" ij., \, , II"i'l Ii \ ~~\ ~ \\ 'WIII~I~lli~ \ l 1\\ u :: II!:U'!l!!I';'11 I I R ~'I[-~: , ~ !I!II'II.!!:li II I 1\ \If :: "'jllt dl!ij if / 1"\ \\~-l ~-- !,iliiri'I'~11 II ,) II :e-, ;~ 'il! riA \\\ i in ~!~I~!i I ! k" ill i l 1I1'!fllj If II l"j-..r1 III \ \ _~..____- -------- .Ii.p : II II II I 1\\ iT i ~ i I! i I,,!~q \ 11 : ___ __! ~=:~~~~~/__~L - J-~~:ti~~~~~~~:~~S~~~--~o~~~~~~oooo~~~- ~~:~.jc::;~;~~~. =========== 'S!-~~ o - N-r--- Z",'" E~ ~ .$ o..ro -<(0- m u c Q) Ol <( . - . -,. . . - i!i Ii 'I~ll '''IIIII'l'~ 'll'llei' It' "ill'l loa I!.:in L~15I,,11 II II,.. ,i" If. i,!H1 !!.lli all:IIP.II!1 'i l!Oil,' I' !!Im~'n i; ~ II jli · '" I '!:: lib I'j I;!i lill~ I i Ii I 11...1.\ ~ ~. q t .:ii " .. ~ =1 r- 1'- I -':.o_~" I III I I .. 11\ I I "! ! ! !!! . I 1'1 !,' 1. , .. I' II I h : 'i I .... uu ilnl i ~~_~1===_~~ - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - ".. ..uaa"._ -.... - - ~.........~,.- II. ,i, =~======== ------'.TAIiEFlVESofi"i.I's, U i - r- - t..... -..-.~ .. ! - . ':'':''1 iill m. 1111 j:! 91 -,', . Iii; I! iil ~ HH I' P II m. ... ---------< ---------. D I ( I , II : I I I \\ \ \ >,~ \or . ~'. ~~l~ \,;\ ~ ;\ ~ \1 ~ ,. , .--L--,--- l I I , , " ' , , ~--' s !,*~ . '\ N ~ ",..., ail1W m r ..... unr 81X1.WMD"" III 3480 Golden Gate Bolililvard COND/l1ONAt USE 41ASTG PLAN ,.....- -- , - . -....-- - !..IliaD1f !!~L'iDI!IG -~"-."'; -----.- ....."...- <nrn:>'It..-___ --~==~~- REVlSIO Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 48 of 52 IN RE:Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals Denial of a Conditional Use Petition of Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. / Special Magistrate Recommendation Pursuant to Section 70,51(19), Florida Statutes Pursuant to Section 70.51(19), Florida Statutes (2006), and after a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 70.51(15), Florida Statutes, the Special Magistrate in the above-captioned proceeding enters this recommendation pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section 70.51 (18), Florida Statutes. APPEARANCES For Petitioners Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnessess, Ine. ("Congregation"): James D. Fox, Esq. Roetzel & Andress, PA 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Building, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34103 For Respondent Collier County ("Collier County"): Marjorie M, Student-Stirling, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112-4902 The following individuals and entities were granted "participation status" pursuant to Section 70.52(12), Florida Statutes (2006), and they each made presentations during the public portion of the Section 70.51(15), Florida Statutes (2006), evidentiary hearing: Mike Landy Mike DeRuntz Jeff Raimer Mike Casady Patri ck Purnell Dave Brawling BACKGROUND The Congregation is the owner of real property addressed as 3480 Golden Gate Boulevard S.W., Naples, Florida. The property is located immediately to the west of the entrance to the Max Hasse County Park and Cypress Wood Presbyterian Church. The fundamental issue in this proceeding is whether the Congregation should be denied a conditional use to allow them to build an additional church building. S A:~I i'lL. m I\G., s m.m1F t2..FQJI-1/<.1e7lJJ) ffTl orJ 3/1<;108- Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 49 of 52 On or about June 26, 2007, although the Collier County Planing Commission approved the Petition and County planning staff testified that the Petition was deemed to be consistent with the GGAMP, the Collier Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA ") denied the application for a conditional use to allow the Congregation to build an additional church building. The BZA denied the request for a variance finding that I) the Petition does not comply with the lot size requirements under the GGAMP; 2) the Petition does not comply with Transportation Element No. 5.1 and 5.2; and 3) the effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise. THE NATURE OF A SECTION 70,51 FLORIDA STATUTES PROCEEDING It is critical in this process for the parties, the Participants and the public to understand the nature of the Dispute Resolution Act proceeding. The overriding purpose of the Dispute Resolution Act is to try, informally and outside the judicial system, to resolve land use and environmental disputes between private property owners, governmental entities and other affected entities. The stated purpose of the Dispute Resolution Act is to "focus attention on the impact of the governmental action giving rise to the request for relief and to explore alternatives to the development order . . . and other regulatory efforts by the governmental entity in order to recommend relief, when appropriate, to the [property] owner." S 70.51(17), Fla. Stat. (2006). A key responsibility of the Special Magistrate in these proceedings is to "facilitate a resolution of the conflict." 9 70.51(17)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). In short, the overriding purpose of the Dispute Resolution Act is for the Special Magistrate to help the parties find a solution. Several processes are provided to the Special Magistrate in the Dispute Resolution Act to accomplish this, such as the ability to convene a mediation session, act as a facilitator, hold evidentiary hearings, request testimony from witnesses that the Special Magistrate deems essential, and to issue, if necessary, a recommendation to the parties. The Special Magistrate is given broad discretion on how and when to use these processes in order to resolve the dispute. LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION Section 70.51(17)(a) states that, "The first responsibility of the special master is to facilitate a resolution of the conflict between the owner and governmental entities to the end that some modification of the owner's proposed use of the property or adjustment in the development order or enforcement action or regulatory efforts by one or more of the governmental parties may be reached." In furtherance of this requirement the Special Magistrate invited the parties to make recommendations that they thought might resolve this matter fairly. The following suggestions were made: 1. The Congregation move to a different location. 2. County purchase the Congregation property for public use. 3. The Congregation purchase the Raimer's property. 4. The Congregation make additional changes to the proposed sight layout to lessen the impact of any additional noise. Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 50 of 52 None ofthese recommendations were acceptable to all. Therefore, the Special Magistrate declared an impasse to mediation and proceeded to the next section ofthe statute. Section 70.51 (17)(b) states that, "If an acceptable sol ution is not reached by the parties after the special master's attempt at mediation, the special master shall consider the facts and circwnstances set forth in the request for relief and any responses and any other information produced at the hearing in order to determine whether the action by the governmental entity or entities is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the real property." An informal hearing was conducted and the Special Magistrate heard from all parties and witnesses that wished to speak. It turns out that the lot size is a non-issue. When the road easements (upon which roads are built) are subtracted from the total lot size it falls within the Jot size requirements under the GGAMP. Next is the issue with Transportation Element No. 5.1 and 5.2 dealt with traffic flow, volwne and patterns resulting from approval of the Petition. At the hearing before this Special Magistrate no one could provide any evidence that granting the Petition would result in traffic problems. In fact, Mr. Raimer, the neighbor immediately to the west probably said it best at the Planning Commission meeting, "Our street, quite honestly, is like - unlike any street in the Estates in the effect (sic) that there is a lot of traffic on that street. I mean, you can see where our house is, and you can see if - if you continue down First Avenue Southwest to the east down to the school, which isn't even in the picture, every day in the morning and in the evening - in the aftemoon cars go past our house to pick their children up at school. That's fine. I mean, you know, we - my wife and I didn't do our research when we bought that piece of property. The point is there's a lot of traffic. My guess is five, six hundred cars a day. I mean, they have - that's the only entrance they can come pick their children up from that school." NOTE: the school being referred to is the Big Cypress Elementary School approximately 850 feet to the east of the subject property. At the BZA hearing he was ask the question, "Yeah. but if they had the expansion and the traffic was to say double, whould that be an inconvenience?" He answered, "Like I said, you know, quite honestly, I can't say that because I don't know what cars of theirs are coming in or coming out." The proposed driveway off of First Avenue Southwest was requested by the fire department for emergency access. It is now proposed to be limited to only emergency access - all but eliminating any impact to traffic on First A venue Southwest. The Congregation satisfied requests by County Planning staff and the Collier County Planing Commission to address the issue of noise in advance of the hearing before the BZA. However, as a result of suggestions made at the informal hearing before the Special Magistrate they have since made major changes to the layout of parking and lighting in an effort to eliminate all reasonable objections. Some ofthem are: The berm with a barrier on top, which had been requested of the Congregation prior to the hearing before the BZA, to soften the noise and light issues was found to be adverse to the view from the adjoin neighbor because it destroyed the natural look that presently exists. It is felt that eliminating the berm is less intrusive on the existing natural vegetation and look and that a more effective method dealing with the light and noise has been Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 51 of 52 achieved by moving the proposed solid barrier away from the property line to a location near the parking lot. A 6' high CBS wall is proposed along the west and south side of the property. This would provide a better off sight view and also provide effective protection from noise and lights to the neighbors. The parking has been rearranged to move it away from the objecting neighbors to the sides that face the entry road to the County Park. The Congregation has requested its members to lock their cars by means other than with a remote (which results in the horn going off). The County Planning staff still found the Petition consistent with the Growth Management Plan, found it to be compatible with the Land Development Code and recommended approval. Section 70.51(19) states that if an impasse is reached in the mediation, the Special Magistrate will enter a final recommendation within 14 days after the impasse. In the final recommendation, the standard that the Special Magistrate will use in making the recommendation is whether the official action taken by Collier County regarding the Congregation's lot is "unreasonable" or "unfairly burdens" the use of the Property. In doing so, the Special Magistrate will focus on the criteria listed in Section 70.51(18)(a) through (h), Florida Statutes (2006). The Special Magistrate interprets these criteria to include evidence, if any, that the actions taken by Collier County with regard to the Congregation's lot do not comply with statutory, regulatory or case law. RECOMMENDATION 1. Background of Recommendation As this Special Magistrate noted, one of the key roles of a Special Magistrate under the Dispute Resolution Act is to find a solution to the land use dispute. In that context, the Special Magistrate provides these comments so that the parties and other stakeholders have a clearer understanding of the intent of this recommendation. Land use disputes are emotional episodes in the history of a community. Many times emotions get in the way of finding rational solutions to the dispute between the valid but competing interests of private landowners, government and other stakeholders. It is at these times that everyone in the community needs to, as much as possible, look objectively at the situation and see if a solution that advances the different interests of the stakeholders can be found. The one matter that appeared to reasonably concern the affected neighbors was noise and lighting. This appears to have been effectively dealt with by the accommodations proposed by the Congregation. 2, Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Special Magistrate that the following solutions be pursued: To eliminate the possibility of future legal actions Collier County could consider the purchase of this lot from the Congregation if there is any public use that could be made of the Agenda Item No. 12A April 22, 2008 Page 52 of 52 property. Of course this might result in a worse situation for the affected neighbors. This probably best points out the reason the present situation exists. Someone has to be next door to a public use property like the park or park entrance. If the church were to somehow disappear a new residential owner of the property would face issues similar to the existing neighbors. It appears that having the church located on this property as a "Transitional use" was the original goal. An alternate solution would be for the Congregation to purchase the lot from the Roomers for fair market value and utilize it for their own private benefit. Finally, If none of the above solulions result in a timely resolution to this matter, it is the recommendation of the Special Magistrate that Collier County should consider granting the requested conditional use. It appears that even with two buildings the agreed to "enhancements" would vastly improve the situation over that existing presently. It also appears that, considering the unique situation present in this neighborhood with the existing County Park, elementary school and Cypress Wood Presbyterian Church all adjoining the subject property, it would be unreasonable to deny the Petition as presently presented. Finally, the Special Magistrate commends attorneys Marjorie M. Student-Stirling and James D, Fox for their cooperation, excellent presentations, work product and professionalism in helping the Special Magistrate arrange for the hearing and develop his preliminary recommendation in this proceeding. This Special Magistrate Recommendation was entered and provided to the attorneys and other persons listed below by US mail on March 15t\ 2008, :ua~Jd- Ted Brousseau Special Magistrate Jametl D. Fox, Esq. Roetzel & Andress, PA 850 Pari< Shore Drive Trianon Building, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34\ 03 Marjorie M. Student-Stirling, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 341 12-4902