Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/21/2007 R June 21, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, June 21, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney (Absent) Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Planning Services Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 3, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; MAY 17, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; MAY 2 I, 2007, PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEE WORKSHOP 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 22-23, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PE-2006-AR-I055I, DeVoe Family Limited Partnership II, represented by Sandra Bottcher ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a parking exemption for the DeVoe Suzuki dealership. The exemption seeks approval of an off-site employee parking area on a residentially-zoned lot to serve the DeVoe Suzuki dealership in the adjacent conunercially-zoned district. The subject property, consisting of 0.23 acres, is located at 1397 Trail Terrace Drive, on the northwest corner of 14th Street North and Trail Terrace Drive, approximately 500 feet south of Solana Road, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) RE-ADVERTISED FROM 5/3/07 B. Petition: BD-2007-AR-11344, David and Kathleen Small, represented by Jeff Rogers, of Turrell and Associates, Inc., requesting a 9-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l to allow a boat dock facility protruding a total of 29-feet into the a waterway about I 14 feet wide and accommodating 2 vessels. The property is located at 240 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Bayfront Gardens, Lot 9, Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. This property is within the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. (Coordinator: Mike Sawyer) 1 C. Petition: V A-2007-AR-l] 500, The District School Board of Collier County, represented by Donald Murray of TKW Consulting Engineers, Inc. requests a Variance of ten-feet from the maximum height of 35 feet for the Residential Multifamily- 6 units per acre (RMF-6) zoning district, as provided for in Section 4.02.01 A, Table 2 of the LDC. The :!:25.60 acre tract ofland is occupied by the Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology campus. A new 3-story building is proposed to be constructed at a zoned height not greater than 50-feet. The project is located at 3710 Estey Ave, in Section I and 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) D. Petition: CU-2006-AR-I0925, Basil Street Partners, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, Esq., of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a Conditional Use (CU) for a passive recreational structure in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, as specified in Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property, consisting of 4.32 acres, is located at 10111 and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS I I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 6/21/07 eepe AgendalRB/sp 2 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If you'll all quiet down a little bit. Welcome to the Thursday, June 21 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise to be sworn in -- yeah, to be sworn in by the court reporter. No, no, Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, Brad's getting married over there. Good morning. Roll call by our secretary, please. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here, COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff is absent. Item #3 Page 2 June 21, 2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda? We've all been notified by em ail that petition -- item D, petition CU-2006-AR- I 0925, Basil Street Partners, LLC, for the Keewaydin Island application has requested to be continued until the -- I believe it's July 19th, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: July 19th meeting. Is there any comments from the commission? Otherwise there's -- motion to approve that continuance? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, approve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those of you in the audience, if you're here for the Keewaydin petition, it will not be heard until next month. Item #4 Page 3 June 21, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is first -- what, the second of -- when's it in July, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I have the July 5th meeting with no petitions, so I assume we're not going to have a meeting unless some petition today is continued and wants that day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we should have a meeting and talk about nothing. MR. BELLOWS: Nothing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been accused of that before, so-- MR. BELLOWS: It was continued to the 5th, and there is no meeting on the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow, that's a first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we won't have a meeting in July -- in the first week in July, but the second would be the 19th of July? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and during old business, I'd like to discuss the agenda for the summertime with you. But right now, as far as the 19th of July, is there anybody on the panel who doesn't believe they'll make it on that date? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: -- talk about the 19th of July? The 19th of July also we are going to bring to the Planning Commission, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners, the ordinance for the moratorium. That will be a hearing by the Planning Commission as directed by the board. It has to go before the local board -- planning authority, and I'll have to defer to Mr. Klatzkow, but I believe that Page 4 June 21, 2007 hearing will have to be at 5:05. And will that create a problem with this board? Weare going to advertise that next week. The plan is to bring that to you on the 19th of July, and it will go to the board on the 24th ofJuly. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's correct. There's going to be -- the same rules as we had with the rezoning there's going to be for the moratorium ordinance, so it will be 5:05. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, that takes a supermajority vote, is that correct, on the Board of County -- MR. KLA TZKOW: It is going to take a supermajority vote, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have no hesitancy about meeting. I think that's an irrelevant point, but as far as the productivity of a meeting, has anybody broached the BCC since your office came out with that conclusion after the BCC meeting in which the vote for the ordinance took place, that now they need four to pass the ordinance? And I understand that direction has to be followed, but are we following something and spending a lot of time that has no hope of continuing? MR. KLATZKOW: The board has never voted on the actual ordinance. It could very well be that when it comes time to the vote that they will vote 4-1 or five-nothing, so I'm not going to predict what the board's going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just didn't want to see a lot of time spent on something that was going to be fruitless. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I have a question, what materials will we receive and how early so that we can make some intelligent judgments about this issue? Is it just the ordinance? MR. SCHMITT: You will receive it, and the county attorney is drafting that ordinance. We are going through budget hearings next Page 5 June 21, 2007 week on the 20 -- let me get the right dates -- 24th -- I'm sorry the 28th and 29th we go through the budget hearings. The -- part of that is certainly the basis in regards to the recommendation for the ordinance and the issue issues with the capital improvements element. To answer your question, the 19th will be the hearing. We should have something to you that week, first week of July, ifI'm not mistaken, but I have to turn to the county attorney. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I -- what I think I understand from you, Joe, is that the predicate for all of that is really what the budgetary impacts are going to be, and then the ordinance would -- perhaps, would be the result. MR. SCHMITT: Well, ifI could clarify. That was a staff recommendation based on the finding -- notice of intent based on our lack of ability to present a fiscally feasible CIE. And given the uncertainty and the funding stream, the budget of a 5- and a 10-year program with certainty and to demonstrate that to the DCA, because of the uncertainty, staffs recommendation was, until we have that certainty, that we propose that we bring to the board a planning moratorium. So I -- I wanted to make sure it was clear. It's not only the budgeting issue. It's all based on the notice of intent for both -- or specifically for the CIE. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: The capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would request, and I presume for the rest of the commissioners as well, that an extraction from the minutes of that meeting pertinent to that particular transaction -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if you could include that as part of a packet -- Page 6 June 21, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: I will certainly do so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would help me a great deal to understand. MR. SCHMITT: I will certainly do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I didn't witness that. I don't really know. MR. SCHMITT: And if you want a CD of that to listen to the presentation, we'll get you a CD of it as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can read it. That's fine. Ifit's easy enough to -- whichever's your pleasure. My idea is, I want to get enough information to make some kind of a judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you want to-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. I sat through the meeting and so I understood what's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. We'll look forward to it. And as far as meeting goes, then we will start the morning with the Keewaydin item because it was continued, so it will be the first on the 19th agenda, and then we'll continue through the day with whatever else is on our regular agenda, then reconvene -- then we'll adjourn that meeting and reconvene an LDC or an ordinance meeting at 5 :05 that evening on the 19th; is that -- MR. SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll continue on on the 19th until it's time to break and go from there. On the 19th in the evening, does anybody here feel they can't make it on that particular day? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll be ready to go. MR. SCHMITT: Since we're talking schedule then, you also have the 25th, your first hearing, LDC hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- and I think what we'll do Page 7 June 21, 2007 is, Ray, when we get to old business, I'd like to get into the July and August schedule just so we know what we can look forward to over the summertime. MR. SCHMITT: And we'll be glad to make adjustments to meet your needs. I don't think Catherine advertised yet for the LDC hearings, but we have several of them scheduled to ensure that we have sufficient time to get those amendments through this -- through this panel. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 3, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; MAY 17,2007, REGULAR MEETING; MAY 21,2007, PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEE WORKSHOP CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Towards later in our agenda, we'll go into the detail on those. Okay. Approval of minutes. We have three of them in our packet. The first one is the May 3, 2007, regular meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 8 June 21, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Minutes of May 17, 20077 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, again, made the motion, Mr. Murray seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. May 21,2007, Productivity Committee subcommittee workshop. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. commissioner MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Adelstein made the motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Murray. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 9 June 21, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MAY 22-23,2007, REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the July 12th Board of County Commissioners' meeting, they heard and approved the Pine Ridge mixed-use center PUD amendment. That was approved on the summary agenda. They also approved the conditional use for the Civil (sic) Strand Concrete Facility. That was approved on the summary agenda. The Boxwood PUD was continued to the 6/26 BCC meeting. I believe that was to allow the applicant time to provide some additional information on affordable housing and what was the cost justification for that. And then the Evans CPUD was approved on the summary agenda also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. Don't really -- basically I'm just going to get into the scheduling. We'll do that later in the meeting. That brings us to our advertised public hearings. Item #8A Page 10 June 21, 2007 PETITION: PE-2006-AR-I0551 The first petition is PE-2006-AR-10551. It's the DeVoe Family Limited Partnership, II, for a parking exemption for the DeVoe Suzuki dealership. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. For those of you that are going to speak, we need to have those little tickets made out and handed to one of the gentlemen over here to the left, if you could. Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I had a phone conversation Mr. Pekar, one of the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I met with Mr. Arnold, I think. I don't think Richard and I talked about anything. I know Wayne and I have a couple of times. And I went and met with Mr. Pekar and talked with him about his petition that is sitting in front of us today. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also met with Mr. DeVoe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- Mr. Pekar did call me. We had a brief conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you all. Looks like almost all the bases were covered here. Page 11 June 21, 2007 Before we get to the applicant's presentation, there has been an exhibit passed out to us. It contains a petition with various names on it, a graphic on the front. Is there a motion to accept this into evidence? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. I've looked at those sign-off sheets, and as far as I'm concerned, if they aren't there to -- for us to know that they're actually signed by people, I have never been able to say these things are valid and they should go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not saying that, Mr. Adelstein. Secondly, if that was a requirement of every petition of the county, these rooms would be full with hundreds of people. You can't ask the bodies that sign petitions -- that's why they sign them because they can't be here. There's a motion made to accept the documents handed out into evidence. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, one, two three, four, Page 12 June 21, 2007 five to one. Mr. Kolflat was here. I guess he stepped out for a few minutes. Okay. With that, Mr. Arnold, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And with me today are Dick and Don DeVoe, we also have Rich Yovanovich, Sandra Bottcher, Jeff Curl from our office as well here to answer the engineering, any landscape question that you may have, or the De V oes, related to any operational questions that you may have. Little better? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There you go. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Most of you are familiar, I think, with the site. The De V oes have had their dealership complex there for numerous years. The site in question is a former duplex lot. The De V oes purchased that some time ago. They demolished the deteriorating duplex on that piece of property with the idea that this would make an ideal location for them to put some of the employee parking that was necessary for them as they expand their dealership operations on the commercially zoned property that fronts Goodlette-Frank Road. The De V oes have been through this parking exemption, off-site parking process, a couple of other times. They've been, I think, good corporate neighbors in the community. They've been good neighbors in the communities for 20-plus years at these various locations around Solana. What we're really focussing on today though is the parking exemption for the one property that's on 14th and not some of the past issues that I think some of the neighbors may have with the off-site parking that relates more specifically to the Cadillac dealership at the opposite end of Solana. The DeVoes, you know, have been here for a long time, and I think if you drive by their facility, they've tried to maintain the Page 13 June 21, 2007 property in very good condition. The off-site parking lot they have adjacent to their existing Isuzu and Saab dealership is utilized by employees only, it's well landscaped, it's well kept, in my opinion, and I think they look to even do better on this proposed parking exemption in 14-space parking located just west of the existing Suzuki dealership. You know, I read through John David's staff report, and obviously we don't agree with the conclusion where they recommend not to adopt this parking exemption or not to accept it, but the criteria are not, you know, pass/fail. The criteria that we have here are, to me, informational, and you have to weigh them based on certain conditions that we have. And I don't want to go through each and every one of those because some of those really aren't applicable to the situation. But I did want to go through and highlight a few of those. You know, number one, for instance, was whether or not the parking is in excess of the code. And staff did a very thorough job of documenting that we do have more parking than code and, therefore, concludes that the off-site parking is not necessary. But from the De V oes' perspective, and knowing the operations of a car dealership as they do, they have a dealership in place that's Suzuki, they have their Isuzu dealership and they have Saab in the same general area, and those dealerships -- and with the focus on, I think, gas efficiency and smaller cars, to some extent, the Suzuki dealership is going to be successful. They have a need for more parking than code. And I think that in some context it's not a bad thing to have more parking than code because the one thing that you'll never have is an operational issue. Should the Board of County Commissioners, for instance, decide to limit hours of operation of the off-site parking lot, you're never going to end up in a situation where you're now deficient on parking by code. You're always going to have at least code minimum, which is obviously the minimum standard that we need to Page 14 June 21, 2007 adhere to in the county. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having a successful business that may require more parking. And I think later on I'll go through and show you what we intend to do with respect to landscaping and how we can treat that parking lot to make it a good neighbor and assure that it will be. One of the other criteria that I went through and looked at -- there are two that relate to pedestrian safety, and I know staff concluded that having an off-site parking lot is not as safe as an on-site parking lot. And I guess I would give them that, but I do think with our requirement to go ahead and build a sidewalk connection to the Suzuki dealership and extend the sidewalk to make it a crosswalk and a safe crossing -- we have 14 cars parked there. Employees only. Their hours of needing to cross that road are limited. It's a 60-foot local road, not a high traffic road. So I think in that respect we can deal with that issue in a safe manner and one that's appropriate for the condition we have. I guess the next criteria was really -- I think it's criteria number five. It talks about the quality and character of the neighborhood, and I think this is a neighborhood that's -- that's -- I don't mean it in any negative way, but it's a transitional neighborhood. We have a mix of land uses. We have commercial, we have multi-family residential, we have single-family residential, we have duplex, we have a -- quite an extensive amount of renters in the community in and around this specific parking lot. I mean, those are factors, but the fact is, when we looked at -- and had our neighborhood informational meeting that we did voluntarily, and we noticed the more immediate people around us, we didn't find opposition from those immediate neighbors. I do see that on the petition we have, obviously, one neighbor to our west and letter from her that she is in opposition, but I think largely it demonstrates that we have been good neighbors and that there's not an opposition to the fact Page 15 June 21, 2007 that we need off-site parking during the day for employees only. The one thing, too, I think that we need to keep in mind, when you look at this, 14th Street, while it serves residences, it's also the street that fronts these commercial businesses. You have Naples Fertilizer, you used to have Kitty Koral, you have Suzuki, and that then extends then onto Solana, which serves the balance of their dealership complex. It's not just a residential street. It really is a street that serves both commercial and residential uses, so I don't think that it's fair to characterize this as an intrusion into a neighborhood that's residential only because if you look at Solana and the pattern of development, the DeVoe complex that's there extends far past 14th, and so I don't think that we can fairly say that this is just an intrusion into a residential neighborhood. And I guess one of the other criteria gets down to the buffering, and maybe it's an appropriate time to talk about some of the landscaping that we're prepared to do and how we can treat that parking lot, because I think we can even one-up the existing facility that we have. This is an image of the proposed off-site parking lot, it shows the 14 spaces with access to 14th only. No access to the other local street, and you can see that we've provided 10-foot buffers adjacent to the streets and 15-foot wide buffers to the adjoining residential buildings. Within that 15-foot buffer, we've proposed a wall with landscaping on both sides of that wall. And if Ray can pull that out, we've done some schematic views through that. But I think it demonstrates that we don't have issues with light penetrating into a home, and then, frankly, these aren't going to be used after hours so it shouldn't be an issue. But I think one of the other images, Ray, that -- one of the views from the street side, for instance, and from the neighboring property, is going to be a wall with a hedge with trees that's going to obscure the parking lot from view of those adjoining residential homes. Page 16 June 21, 2007 So I think from the standpoint of it being compatible, we can make it compatible with, one, the operational characteristics that it's not anything that's used after hours and, two, it's only used for employees. And then, secondly, from the compatibility standpoint of just visibility, it's not as if you're looking at a parking lot. You can look at a well-landscaped wall that's hidden by landscaping. It's a treatment that's used for other commercial/residential relationships. It's one we can provide here and still provide the parking that we need. I guess in looking at the last criteria, it's probably one that, to me, is a tough one because it says, are there other alternatives. And I guess that's a tough one, because I think there are always other alternatives, and one of those is clearly, provide parking on site. But for the De V oes, they have operational characteristics of a dealership that go beyond code minimum. Each dealership requires a certain number of parking to be provided on site. The dealerships want to make sure that they can be successful by offering full range of their vehicles, color types, et cetera, so that people come on the lot, they can have access to the vehicle, drive that vehicle, and then purchase that vehicle without having to either wait or have it transported from another location. So I think from the operational standpoint, they know the business. They know what they need to deliver, and each of the dealerships do require a certain number of parking, and that may be in excess of our code. And I know staff alluded to the fact that maybe an LDC amendment was required. I don't necessarily think that's the case, but I do think that we're here because we do have a specific request related to this site and the operation of that site. So I think that we've dealt with those issues, and I think the real issue that we have -- and it's one that has evolved, I guess, over the last several months, and that is with the petition that was handed out Page 17 June 21, 2007 today, there obviously is some neighborhood concern that this is an inappropriate use for this piece of property. And we think we've demonstrated that we can be a good neighbor and that we qualify to be there. The petition, as I read it, doesn't really state the objection other than they don't want commercial on this piece of property. And this isn't pure commercial and we're not asking for the zoning to be changed and we're willing to live with conditions that are functional, operational, and compatible with the neighborhood if you feel that you can condition it so. But I guess, as the last several months have gone on, we saw letters and there were related -- and some of these I don't know how accurate they are, but we heard that there were operational issues with test driving vehicles down local streets and skid marks that are applied and issues of speeding and things like that which, to me, are completely unrelated to the parking lot itself, because if we didn't ask for this parking lot, those same issues could be there if they really are Issues. Now, that's not to say that the DeVoes aren't concerned about that. Obviously they have a reputation that they need to maintain. They want to sell vehicles. They'd like to sell vehicles to the neighborhood residents that live nearby. I think that Mr. De V oe has taken steps in the last several months to limit the amount of -- limit the pattern and extent of test vehicles that can go through the neighborhood. They're limited to Solana Road, as I understand it, and then through Goodlette, 41, et cetera, but not to intrude any further south into the residential neighborhood. I think the other thing, looking at the one exhibit that came with that petition -- this is the exhibit that was provided to us this morning by staff that shows the highlighted properties that are apparently listed on the petition against the project. And when you look at the pattern of that in relationship to where Page 18 June 21, 2007 we are, the vast majority of those are internal to the residential neighborhood and are not immediately located adjacent to us. I think in reviewing that with our team, to look at the existing parking lot that's on the very top side of that exhibit -- there's an arrow pointed to it that shows the existing off-site parking lot -- you do see that there are some people there that signed, but the vast majority of those people are not adjacent to that that signed this. So I don't think we can categorize the existing parking lot as having an operational issue. In fact, we had a letter of support from the one property owner immediately adjacent to us to the west. So I don't -- that name apparently is on their petition as well -- to the north, I'm sorry, to the north of us. So the folks to the north of us -- I have an exhibit that I prepared, too. Let me put that up. This was an aerial. This was based on the letter that staff provided to us a few weeks ago. We have some orange and red highlights, and the -- the orange outlined properties have written letters of support, and that includes both commercial and residential properties. The red highlighted property (sic) are those that have listed a letter of objection to us. And I think that it's telling, only one property owner immediately west of us has an objection. Property owners to the north and south did not. So in that respect, I think we show that it's a mixed bag. We have people who are supportive of us. The people who are nearest and see the operation don't seem to have an objection. The property owner immediately to the west, I understand that's a rental property, but the property owner is here and is opposed to the property. I don't know the extent of that opposition, but they are here. But I think from our perspective, I'd like to hear what some of the resident concerns are, because if there are operational things that we can put in place to address their concerns, I think we're more than happy to entertain those, because we do want to be a good neighbor Page 19 June 21, 2007 and we do want to be here and be a part of the community for the next 20 years. With that, I think I would close and let you talk to staff and maybe hear from the neighborhood residents that are here so that we can address some of their concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, I've just got one quick question. I'm trying to understand your reasoning in using the graphic that has the yellow highlights that were attached to the petition. You said it's clear that most of these people don't live next to that parcel. Well, yeah, there's -- by count of those yellow parcels, there seems to be about 100 of them. You couldn't have all 100 of them living next to that parcel. MR. ARNOLD: No, but most of those people are also outside the notice requirements for the petition as well. And you'll notice I think they're most heavily weighted west of 12th, which puts them much closer to the Cadillac dealership than it does the De V oe's existing facility or the proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to make a comment that I don't know how you could fit that many people next to that one parcel, so to weigh it that way may not have been a good comparison. MR. ARNOLD: And maybe it wasn't, but I think it's fair to say that the people most immediately around us, except those to the __ immediately west, don't seem to have an objection or have signed the petition against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe they're not in town. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Wayne, could I see the other picture, please. MR. ARNOLD: The aerial? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The two red squares to the north, are they notices of complaint? There's not even houses there? MR. ARNOLD: The orange ones to the north are those that Page 20 June 21, 2007 wrote letters in support. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And the two to the-- you just had it, Ray. Those two. They were a letter of complaint? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah. There was also people who sent letters directly to -- whether they wanted to do this or not. In fact, I received actually 10 of them as of yesterday, and five of them were for yeses and five of them for nos. So actually it just washed out, but there were actually 10 different people who sent petitions in and explained what they wanted and why they did want it or why they didn't want it. But in all there were 10 of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you happen to make copies of those? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to put those in the record? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think I could do that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we didn't -- I received some with the packet. I'm wondering if it's the same ones we received with the packet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will take them out. I have them. No, I have them coming in from the packet yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Were they part of our packet is what I'm trying to find out. I want to know if the rest of us have gotten them as well because you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There were a couple that came yesterday that may have not gotten to everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're talking about the items that were supplied to us by county staff? MR. ADELSTEIN: Right. Page 21 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to get at. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Wayne, I've got one question. Do you have a layout of the current facilities for the De V oe parcels that are developed? I'm not talking about the off-site parking; I'm talking about the dealerships. MR. ARNOLD: I don't have a site development plan level detail. I have the aerial that we can zoom in on to show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show me on the aerial where the loading and unloading zones are for the trucks that bring in the quantities of vehicles that are displayed on their parking lots? MR. ARNOLD: Why don't I have Sandra Bottcher, who's been dealing with the De V oe dealerships there for the last several years, maybe try to point those out for you, Mr. Strain, if you don't mind. You are talking about the existing Saab dealership that's on the north side of Solana, or are you talking about Suzuki? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one. I'd like to know where your loading zones and unloading zones are for your semis that come in. MS. BOTTCHER: My name is Sandra Bottcher. I'm with Grady Minor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you want to spell your name for the record and speak a little closer to the mike, please. MS. BOTTCHER: B-O-T-T-C-H-E-R. And the areas that we'll be unloading in -- Ray, can you go down a little more. No, I'm sorry, up, up. MR. DeVOE: You've got to get to Solana. You've got to go a little further. There, you've got it right there, to keep it relative. MS. BOTTCHER: Don will identify these areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, before Mr. Don (sic) can identify the areas, he's got to identify himself, and for the record, he's got to get near a microphone, and the court recorder's got to take all the information that he states. Page 22 June 21, 2007 MR. DeVOE: My name is Donald P. DeVoe, and I'm one of the owners of the dealerships. Is that what you need? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If you're going to speak though, sir, you're going to have to use the microphone, so __ MR. DeVOE: Okay. Actually I'm just trying to help Sandy identify the spots, but this would be that extension of 14th that goes into the Florida Power and Light. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't see what you're pointing at, sir. Can you use -- MR. DeVOE: Sandy's going to do it on the mouse so I can show it here. This is that part of 14th that goes into the FP&L substation. That's -- the majority of the off loading is done there. On occasion, it has happened where they've parked to the grass in front of our dealership operations here off Solana. I recall one time when they unloaded here on 14th Street and we stopped them because that is an issue and a problem and always has been. And so for the 10 years I operated the Buick/Isuzu, and then as that became the Saab, Suzuki, Isuzu and now Subaru, we've always used this area here, and if we had to, this area here along Solana. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On the area that's the extension of 14th Street, once a semi drives in there, how does he drive out? MS. BOTTCHER: He backs in and then pulls out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the semis with the cars piled on the backs of them drive in, they unload whatever cars go to your dealership, and then they back out onto Solana? MS. BOTTCHER: No. They actually back into the dealership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So either way -- okay. They're backing into the dealership and driving out then? MS. BOTTCHER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. DeVOE: And that, in theory, is how it should happen every Page 23 June 21, 2007 time, and obviously it doesn't. Our goal though is to have everyone trained, in terms of the drivers coming to deliver cars, to do it in a way that it doesn't impact the neighborhood and, as best we can, we monitor that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. DeVoe, how long -- how long has your dealership had this Suzuki franchise? MR. DeVOE: The Suzuki franchise was located in this half of that building for the first year and a half approximately, and then the last six months we've been building the facility here on this -- I'm sorry. I'm not using your mouse. But it's been in operation now for about six months, for a total of probably two years with Suzuki. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And when did Suzuki introduce the requirement to have a minimum of 60 spaces for -- MR. DeVOE: That happened when we got the franchise. When you sign up for a franchise, they basically say, we like to have a certain number of our cars displayed, and they have a requirement __ all the manufacturers do it -- specific to a number, and they say, we'd like to see -- I think in this case it would be 60 -- 60 spaces dedicated to Suzuki, new product only, and so we commit to doing that and we have to have that equipped facility to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that was -- that's a question for me to have to resolve, I guess, unless you can help me resolve it. If you knew in advance that you would have five pounds of material in a four-pound bag, how were you going to work that, how you were going to accommodate it. Let's assume for a second that this parcel that you'd like to put your people's cars on didn't exist in any way. Would you be able to function; would Suzuki close you down? MR. DeVOE: No, I don't think so. I'm not sure I understand your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let me try to be more Page 24 June 21, 2007 specific. In other words, they require you to have 60 and you have __ you would in excess of 60 needs. You would have your people's cars, then you'd have to have the exhibition cars. MR. DeVOE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if you couldn't accommodate that on the parcel that you have because it's not adequate for that -- and you couldn't find any space adjacent, what would you do? Would you close down? Would they close you down? I doubt it. MR. DeVOE: No, I don't think they would close us down, no, but we had 60 spaces at that point to commit to, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that's my prob -- I need to understand, if you had that facility, what has changed? MR. DeVOE: Oh, okay. We always did have the plan --I'm sorry. When we purchased the Kiddy Koral and the property between our existing corner and the Naples Fertilizer building, that was always a plan to expand into there with new and used car display. It would be new Suzuki and used car display there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That qualifies the information. MR. DeVOE: Okay. I'm sorry I didn't -- I didn't understand what you were asking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right. Sometimes I may not be clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Ray -- or Wayne, you might be the one to answer this. What you're showing now is not really what the layout of the dealerships are going to be over there, correct? I mean, there's something under construction there right now. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. There was an amendment to -- that John David's staff report alludes to that expands the Suzuki dealership to the south, and it was the old Kiddy Koral, for those of us who've been around a while. But it's the property that separates Naples Page 25 June 21, 2007 Fertilizer from the existing facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's shown here, is that all the DeVoe property, or do they still own one more to the south? MR. ARNOLD: The highlighted property is the subject property that's tied to Suzuki only, but they do own the property immediately to the south. That still reflects the Kiddy Koral, I believe on the bottom of that aerial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the reason I do it is, I think the scale of these dealerships out there are kind of nice. They're small along Goodlette. But is the intent here to build a large -- what is going to be built there? What's under construction now? MR. ARNOLD: That is part of the expansion of Suzuki. And as Mr. De V oe said, that was part of the intent when they originally purchased it. It was going to be a phased expansion of the complex that they have. And, you know, keep in mind that for years they had their used-car-only-car lot where Suzuki presently is. So that's been replaced with a new and used car dealership, and the expansion onto the former Kiddy Koral site also allows them to expand with the potential of having other dealership opportunities here as well. And I think -- we weren't trying to hide anything. We agree with staff. We have parking in excess of the code. That's not our issue. We think, and the De V oes think, that we have operational characteristics that are a little bit unique to us because there are three dealerships here, and they have a successful dealership. They sell a lot of product. They don't want to have problems with the neighborhood. They don't want to have cluttered parking. They want to have a good presence to the neighborhood, and I think they've demonstrated that. I would hate to see them be in a position where, because they meet code, they end up with a condition where they have to haphazardly park cars or their employees park in areas that are more creative, if you will. Page 26 June 21, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have any documents showing what the current approved build-out of their properties are? MR. ARNOLD: Could you give me one second to see what all I have? I'm not sure I have the entire picture of everything of their ownership, but let me -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can move on, Mr. Chairman, and Wayne can get back to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can move on and Wayne can get back later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, too late. We can during -- you're going to have the rebuttal time. You can bring that forward at that point if you want. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one other one that seems to come out of the discussion that I was hearing from you all. Do you have a copy of your franchise agreement with Suzuki available for us to review? MR. ARNOLD: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The basis for your argument is that Suzuki is requiring it of you, which means your franchise agreement, which you've already stated exists, would have some kind of bearing in regards to that requirement. If you don't have it, that doesn't help a lot, but if you do have it, that certainly would have been beneficial to see. MR. ARNOLD: I don't, but I think Mr. DeVoe indicated that it -- their requirement with the Suzuki franchise is that they have 60 vehicles for display. We have 60 vehicle spaces for display. That's not CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the terminology I heard him Page 27 June 21, 2007 state wasn't a shall, but it sounded like a should or would like. That's a lot different than a mandatory requirement. That's why I wanted to see the agreement. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I don't have access to that, and I'll ask Mr. De V oe if he does or can clarify that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if there is no other discussions of the applicant, we'll hear from staff. MR. MOSS: Good morning. For the record, John David Moss, zoning and land development review. Staff has conducted an evaluation of the requested parking exemption based on the criteria outlined in the LDC and is recommending denial based on the failure of the petitioner to meet four of those criteria. Number one, the dealership is already approved for 119 parking spaces, which is 98 spaces over the minimum parking requirements for the use. Number two, the proposed use would encroach upon a long-established residential neighborhood thereby affecting its character, quality, and future development. Number three, the location of the parking lot across 14th Street would pose an increased pedestrian and vehicular safety risk compared to on-site parking. And number four, there are clearly more viable alternatives for the applicant, particularly in light of the fact that they already own vacant property abutting the dealership that is zoned for commercial uses. Staff has received five letters of support and five letters of objection from adjacent property owners, and then you've also received a petition that was handed to me this morning which one of the residents provided me with. And to give you an explanation of the petition, all the names that are highlighted in yellow are actually property owners, and Mr. Pekar Page 28 June 21, 2007 went ahead and verified those with the tax records, and then he also started to highlight them on the map for you. So he said there's still a lot of residences that are not highlighted on that map from people who actually signed the petition. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try and answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'd just like to follow up on a statement you made that -- to the south, did you say? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: The DeVoes already own vacant property? MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I know we have public speakers. How many? MR. BELLOWS: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As your name is called, if you'd come forward and use one of the mikes. I have to ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes. And Ray, if you'd just call the first public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Bob Pekar. MR. PEKAR: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. PEKAR: I have some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to first identify yourself for the record. MR. PEKAR: I'm sorry. I'm Bob Pekar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name? MR. PEKAR: P as in Peter, E-K-A-R. Page 29 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. PEKAR: I'm a homeowner, and I've gotten some help with the petition from some things, but I've got some pictures for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: You might want to use that mike. Oh, I thought he had -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Perhaps they might be shown better over there for the audience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Members of the commission, we've received 14 pages of photographs. Does anybody want to accept those into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, sir. You can continue. MR. PEKAR: Okay. We had a -- the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to make sure you talk real close to that mike because that's the only way we can -- some of us can be able to hear you and the court reporter -- Page 30 June 21, 2007 MR. PEKAR: I'm a little nervous. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. I just want to remind you so your voice gets heard by everybody. MR. PEKAR: Okay. Just a couple comments. First landscaping doesn't constitute being a good neighbor, okay. And there's a long history of different problems in the neighborhood with the encroachment of commercial activity into our neighborhood, okay. I think it was alluded a few times by Mr. De V oe and Mr. Arnold. Test driving vehicles and -- through the neighborhood, and also the parking of the tractor-trailer trucks on the right-of-way and on the grass providing -- you know, that makes very dangerous driving. There's no sidewalks in the area, so the pedestrians are, you know, really in danger. There's been three kids that have been hit by cars in our neighborhood in the last 10 years. A lot of the residents are out of town right now. You know, it's summertime. So we've got a hundred and close to 80 signatures. I would say about 120 of those are homeowners, okay. And the commercial encroachment with the parking, he does have other alternatives. John David did a good presentation. I agree with everything he said, okay. But it's a safety issue for the neighborhood and it does detract their property values also. I would like to see the Suzuki agreement also. Ifhe had this agreement, he said we would like to see that you have 60 cars, okay. Ifhe bought the dealership before he bought the property, they agreed to have less already. What's happening is -- I think is he's expanding with the new and used dealership in addition to this and trying to come into the residential property, and that's really unsafe, okay. There is more appropriate alternatives, too. You know, he does have vacant property. Stay on the commercial end. He did also point out the map with the highlighting. There was additional homeowners closer to the property in question that have Page 31 June 21, 2007 signed the petition. I think you got three extra pages. Let's see. Marilyn Janns, of course. She lives -- she owns a duplex right behind it. There's a Virginia -- excuse me -- yeah, Virginia Bellview on 1394 Michigan. If you look on the little plat map, her house abuts 14th Street, and she has a house and four lots going down Michigan. She is against that. That's not highlighted on your plat map there, okay. Also, there's a Mr. and Mrs. James Moss. They live on 3880 14th Street North, husband and wife. They've been there a long time. They've had many issues with the tractor-trailer parking on the street, issues with safety and stuff. There's been a lot of dogs run over again, and the three kids that have been hit by cars, too. So we don't want to see any further encroachment into the residential area. He has better alternatives. There is other issues. We have a lot more information, but I know your time's valuable, so do you have any questions for me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. MR. PEKAR: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In your testimony, sir, you indicated that there have been three vehicular accidents with children. Do you know factually whether or not those were related directly to the De V oe people in any way? MR. PEKAR: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. PEKAR: And that's a good point but, you know, there's no sidewalks there, and their commercial activity really constitutes a danger for our residents, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Explain that further for me, if you would, please. MR. PEKAR: Okay. Their parking -- if you'll look at the pictures, one, the employee parking lot that they have on Solana Road, which maybe we can show that up on the thing. Page 32 June 21, 2007 MR. BELLOWS: Which one was it again? MR. PEKAR: The first -- the first one. Thank you. Okay. And then you go to the second, you can see it's clearly marked employee parking. The second one shows some skid marks from people, employees, peeling out of the parking lot. The third one is the close-up of one of those, and you can see what we're dealing with. They're very aggressive drivers. They get angry when Mr. De V oe tries to instruct them to be good neighbors, okay. I've known Mr. DeVoe a long time and he's a good guy. He does a lot for the community. He pays a lot of taxes, but we have a neighborhood to live in. You know, ifhe wants to build a house on that 14th Street and live next to us, that would be great too, okay, but I don't think that's going to happen, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? MR. PEKAR: Yeah. There is another one after that one. That's on Solana Road. Okay. The Land Development Code is pretty clear, no parking on the grass, no parking on the street, okay. Long history of code enforcement complaints. I can document them, but I don't want to take your time here, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've adequately answered Mr. Murray's question. Let's see if there's any others. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. A lot of these pictures appears to be up by 41, at least where we can see. MR. PEKAR: Well, this one right here is on -- the one before that, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, okay. MR. PEKAR: That's on Solana down near Goodlette. So that's pretty close. There is other ones up near the thing. It's a complex that Mr. De V oe has that they go back and forth to test driving cars through our neighborhood, unloading cars on the streets. It's been a real Page 33 June 21, 2007 nightmare, okay. Really has. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question is, what kind of traffic is on 14th Street? Wayne brought up a point that there is a lot of traffic going down, and the only way to get to that fertilizer store is 14th. MR. PEKAR: Yes, okay. They would -- there's a sign on 41 on Cypress Woods Drive that says no through trucks, okay, over a ton or something. So when they pull in, say, here or on 14th Street where they're going, they pull in -- and Mr. De V oe said himself that they pull out, okay. They pull out. The only way they're going to get out of that is to go through out residential neighborhood. There's been traffic studies that they're going 70 miles an hour in the middle of the night. That's not Mr. DeVoe or his employees, but there is a lot of problems. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question though is, on 14th Street, is there commercial traffic up and down it? Or like, to go to the fertilizer store, how would somebody go? Would they go down Cypress Woods or would they go down 14th? MR. PEKAR: They would go down -- Cypress Woods turns into 14th. They do have like golf carts and stuff that they use for their residential deliveries in our neighborhood, but they -- we haven't had too many problems with the fertilizer people compared to the car Cadi -- the dealerships. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Did I understand you to say that there are more people on the petition that do not appear on this video -- or this picture with the yellow marks? MR. PEKAR: Thank you for the question, yeah. That's true. It's very labor intensive. There's been a lot of hours between us put into Page 34 June 21, 2007 this. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So they were just left off because you didn't have time to put them on? MR. PEKAR: Yeah, yeah. It's -- you know, we got close to 180 signatures. That, alone, took a lot of time trying to go through the plat map with all the homeowners on the tax roll to verifY that they were homeowners, okay, and they signed. So, yes. And then the ones that I mentioned earlier that live close to the property that's in question, they're not even on there, okay. And that was one of the points that I think Mr. Arnold brought up, that there wasn't as many neighbors very close to the property that were on the petition, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said you spent a lot of time getting signatures. Who else helped you in getting signatures? MR. PEKAR: A couple of the other speakers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the three of you spearheaded this project -- MR. PEKAR: And there was -- yeah. And probably a couple other ones that were on the petitions also that weren't -- a lot of working people, a lot of homeowners that owns multiple properties in that area. There was a lot of out-of-town up-north property owners. Of course we couldn't get them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. I see some signatures by the same person numerous times -- MR. PEKAR: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- with different addresses, but it's the same person. Okay, thank you. MR. PEKAR: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 35 June 21, 2007 Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. PEKAR: Okay. Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, our next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Marilyn Janns. MR. PEKAR: Just give me a minute here. MS. JANNS: I'll go over to this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the court reporter, did you get copies of the exhibits that we've taken into evidences? Mr. Pekar, if you could provide a copy of your petition and the yellow paper with the locations on it and a copy of the photographs to this young lady sitting right here -- MR. PEKAR: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's got to be for the public record. MR. PEKAR: Okay. Now, can that be included in the one I gave to John Mark -- or John David, I mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you have a-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Here's an extra petition. MR. PEKAR: Oh, okay. The pictures you mean, or the petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything that you provided to us has to be provided to this lady here or doesn't become record. MR. PEKAR: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: We've got it all right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're fine. MR. PEKAR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave that with the lady in blue. Thank you. Ms. Janss, thank you for waiting. MS. JANSS: Yes. My name is Marilyn Janss. I'm the property owner of the duplex piece of property just to the west of the proposed Page 36 June 21, 2007 parking lot. And the DeVoes already own most of the east side of 14th, and I'm sure they will eventually acquire the fertilizer company as well. So you can sort of see the picture of what's going to happen. All of those cars are going to be between 14th and Goodlette, and even -- and the lot next to mine, should it become a parking lot, opens up the possibility of the lots between Trail Terrace and Solana to become parking lots as well, because otherwise, why would he have a pig in a haystack, you know, something -- an offbeat area for a parking lot when, in theory, if you're going to purchase properties to develop as parking, you would do it as the dominos fall, the property that's next to his Solana 14th piece of property, and then the next piece of property on 14th he would try to purchase to become a parking lot as an exemption as well, instead of having my piece of property next to a parking lot on the corner of Trail Terrace and 14th with residential in between and then a parking lot on the corner of Solana and 14th. I mean the picture is clear. You have a parking lot on this corner, you have a lot of land in between that's residential, you have a parking lot on this corner, and eventually he's going to try to swallow up the whole rest of that street. That's my picture. And frankly, it's going to lower the value of my property. I don't appreciate having a parking lot next to me, not for any reason. I'd rather see nice green land, trees, another pretty building, which would also be a buffer against the -- all the cars and everything else that's going to go across the street on 14th -- between 14th and Goodlette. You know, I don't want the residential area to be encroached by further development of commercial property. And that's pretty much all I have to say. Eventually he will buy the fertilizer company. You realize that? Because I know he's already tried. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions? Mr. Vigliotti? Page 37 June 21, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How long have you lived in that house there? MS. JANSS: I don't live in that house. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MS. JANSS: I don't live in that house. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do you have tenants there? MS. JANSS: I have tenants there, and they don't like the idea of commercial property being next to them either, and eventually I will develop that property. And when it's -- it can be -- it could be a nice-looking duplex. I mean, right now it's an old-looking duplex. It was probably built in the late '40s, early '50s. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, so you have plans of renovations? MS. JANSS: I have plans of knocking it down and building something nice, yes, and I don't want an ugly looking parking lot next to me. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I thought you actually lived there, and this question may not make sense. But you know, they are going to put a IS-foot buffer. They're really going out of their way to -- MS. JANSS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put this -- no, they're not? MS. JANSS: Well, whether they put a IS-foot buffer or not, it doesn't matter. There's still going to be cars there instead of a nice piece of property. And as I say, it's going to open up the potential of the DeVoes purchasing the rest of the residential pieces of property on 14th between the two -- one already existing piece of property that's a parking lot and the proposed parking lot, which is on 14th and Trail Terrace. Page 38 June 21, 2007 I mean, it's illogical for anybody to think that the rest of those pieces of property aren't going to fall by the wayside and become parking as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with that. I think that's probably what's going to happen. My thought is that, isn't this a better buffer -- for example, I don't think somebody would want to live looking across the street at the dealership, so doesn't this become a natural buffer between the residential area and the dealership area? This whole thing -- MS. JANSS: Not for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, there's no lighting on it, it's going to close. It's all walled. MS. JANSS: Right. And so you look over into a parking lot. From my point of view, when I develop my piece of property __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With a second story? MS. JANSS: -- with a second story, will look over into a parking lot, and then all of the commercial development across the way with all of the cars. No, no. I want to look into a house. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you don't think this could be landscaped enough so you would break all those views? MS. JANSS: No way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. JANSS: And by the way, I'd also like to add one other thing, and that is that Mr. De V oe came into my business numerous times harassing me about this project. I didn't appreciate it. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Marveta Shaw. MS. SHAW: Good morning. My name is Marveta Shaw, and I've lived on Trail Terrace for 42 years. Page 39 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, before you -- do you need that name spelled? THE COURT REPORTER: I have the speaker slip. MS. SHAW: And I'm deaf, so you'll have to speak loud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SHAW: Or let me read your lips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I was just asking the court reporter something. That's fine. You can continue, ma'am. MS. SHAW: Okay. My concern is, number one, the safety issue. The house I live in is old and the whole neighborhood is from the '50s. There's no sidewalks for the children to play on. My kids played in the street when we lived there when they were little. The kids that live there now play in the street because there are no playgrounds or sidewalks. And what I would really like to see is less traffic and a place for the kids to go play. Maybe this piece of property would be turned into a green space or a playground of some sort for the children to hang out, would be a greater safety issue than more traffic. People use Trail Terrace now as a cut-through from 41 to Goodlette, and they do not follow the speed limit, which is 25. In fact, I have gotten a petition before asking for speed bumps. Then I was told that, well, we're doing the million-dollar job on Solana, so it's probably going to be a couple of years before they do anything with speed bumps, and you don't meet the criteria. And I said, okay, how about a four-way stop on the intersection of 12th Street and Trail Terrace. No, you don't meet the criteria. But I see stop signs in people's yard -- Wisconsin, Victoria Park, Crayton Road, to name a few. So why would you need a stop sign in a yard when it's a four-way section that really needs stop signs? If -- if you -- if we can get Trail Terrace dead-ended, that would suit me fine because there's just too much traffic, and they have clocked cars going through there like 60 miles an hour. Page 40 June 21, 2007 And I spend a lot time outside. I watch what's going on. Things that you see is really scary because kids will across the street. They don't look. And in a couple of seconds, a car will go zooming down Trail Terrace, and it's only the grace of God, I guess, that keeps these children from getting hit. I have also seen these big rigs loaded with cars coming up and down Trail Terrace, and I've seen them parked on 14th and different streets unloading. This is things I have seen. Another issue is that a friend of mine called I'm not sure who, the sales manager maybe, and said that there's a lot of traffic, customers test driving cars in the neighborhood, the courtesy shuttle coming up and down through there, could they please do something about this? And in a few minutes, we saw two cars with the -- you know, the metal tags stuck on the back, and they were zooming down the streets, skidding, slinging gravel and running the stop (sic), and that was the -- their issue in regard to a complaint. These -- these issues that have been brought up are good points. And I can only speak for what I see, and I see that there's a lot of traffic through there. And if we have another parking lot, there's only going to be more traffic. And when employees are late, they're going to speed down Trail Terrace to get to their job on time. There's already the parking lot on Solana and 14th. There's the other parking lot for employees on 10th and Solana, and it seems to me that should be enough parking lots for the employees. And we've lost the thrift shop. We've lost the restaurant. We lost a couple of houses and we lost the day care, and it's all now replaced with cars, so I think that's enough cars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I need to ask that you wrap up your presentation. Up here. Ma'am? MS. SHAW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up here. I'm -- hi. MS. SHAW: Hi. Page 41 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your time limit is just -- you're getting to the end of it -- MS. SHAW: Okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so if you could just wrap it up, we'd appreciate it. MS. SHAW: That's my points. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker -- we had one more come in. Mimi -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not as long -- if it's Mimi Wolok, no. The last speaker then? MS. WOLOK: Mimi Wolok. Do I have specific permission to speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. MS. WOLOK: There is my neighborhood. I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone else today. I've lived here for seven years. I don't live on the block. I live a couple blocks away on Trail Terrace Drive. I live in a 1952 tiny little fixer-upper with original pine floors. The rest of the housing is still in fixer-upper stage. I walk this neighborhood every morning with my dogs. I know the neighborhood very well. I know my neighbors. I'm one of the ones that speed down Trail Terrace Drive and try not to. I believe that this parking lot is a bad idea. I believe that any more internal encroachment into the neighborhood is not a good idea. De V oe doesn't have an automatic right to make a parking lot out of this property. It's a residential neighborhood, and we know that one lot by one lot they're going to be eating up some more of our internal neighborhood. I can see the perimeter, perhaps. You know, it's not a deed-restricted community and the perimeter is next to commercial streets, but this is internal and is a residential neighborhood. Page 42 June 21, 2007 And I don't see where De V oe has given anything back to this particular neighborhood. So I would say that this petition needs to be denied, but if it's not, to require that De V oe buy a double lot, which are still available in the neighborhood, and make it into a park. We have no parks in this neighborhood. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mimi, do you -- since you walk your dogs every morning there, have you observed any of the conditions that the other speakers have related to? MS. WOLOK: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And have you seen that as being a safety issue as far as you're concerned? MS. WOLOK: I absolutely do. 14th Street, which is, you know, right where De V oe is, cars and those trailer trucks with cars behind them just speed as fast as they can. I've never seen a policeman there regulating that. And then as they say, Trail Terrace is used as a cross through, and I see those trucks going through. Perhaps they're not supposed to. You know, I don't know if they're told not to go through the neighborhood, but they do. And this particular lot right there at the corner is -- there's kids in the neighborhood. There's kids right there on Trail Terrace Drive right on that lot. And I find is it dangerous right now to go walk my dogs on 14th. I only do so if I find myself going down that block and I have to or I get over as, you know, fast if I can. I generally don't walk on my own block because it is that cut-through, and it's not all just DeVoe cutting through, but we do have the trucks cutting through and we do have a lot of kids in the neighborhood and we don't have a park for them. We don't have Page 43 June 21, 2007 sidewalks. So I would support the previous speakers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, is that all the public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: That's all. MR. PEKAR: May I make a couple more comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. You've had your time. Mr. Arnold, did you want to have any closing comments? MR. ARNOLD: I think Mr. Y ovanovich has a few comments, and I may jump in as necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I wanted to address a couple comments or questions raised by the planning -- the Planning Commission and then respond to those couple of comments from the public comments, and Wayne can jump in when he can. First of all on the franchise agreement, and in order to obtain the franchise agreement, the De V oes represented that they would have 60 spaces available. In answer to the question is, if they don't have the 60 spaces available, will that be the sole reason that they would lose the franchise? No. But it would be a factor that can be considered in losing the franchise. So there was a representation before they received the franchise agreement they would have 60 spaces available so that -- that was one of the factors considered in receiving the franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, while you're on that subject -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just for clarification, let me read this Page 44 June 21, 2007 to you. It says, additionally, the Suzuki franchise requires the provision of 60 vehicle display spaces, and Mr. DeVoe, I thought, when he -- during his discussion said that they would like 60 display spaces. Are you saying that the would like is more appropriate than requires? MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm saying to you is, they -- you basically -- you apply for the franchise, and the information that they provided was they would have 60 spaces available, and they were chosen. And what I'm saying to you is, if they don't have those 60 spaces and that's the only violation of the franchise agreement, they will not lose the franchise. So interpret it how you want. It was a representation we would have it. I don't want you to believe that if we only have 59 spaces they're going to automatically lose the franchise, but it will be a factor in considering whether or not they lived up to the franchise agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I find it interesting the comments about the cut-through of traffic. Everything I've heard in the last eight, nine years from your transportation department is, is these gated communities are a bad idea, that we need a grid system to occur in Collier County so people will use the grid to get from one point to the other point. It's in the City of Naples, people use -- use that grid system to get from point A to point B. I drive 14th Street every day to get to my place of business. I come down Goodlette-Frank Road, get onto Solana, I take the left, I go by the first parking lot, make sure it's properly maintained, because I knew I was going to be here, keep going around, get onto -- get onto Cypress, and I go to my business on Parkshore. It's a fact of life. People -- there are speed bumps. People-- some people speed, others don't. Most us who drive through there know it's a residential neighborhood and we try to make sure we don't Page 45 June 21, 2007 speed. Mimi speeds and she lives there. But most us try to be observe those -- observe that. But I think a grid system is, frankly, what your transportation department wants to get from point A to point B and not only use the major arterials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, let me remind you, this is a rebuttal. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. I'm rebutting the comment about the cut-through traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just keep it as short as we can, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nobody -- I mean, nobody wants to hear the kids have had an accident, but we don't know where they were and we don't think that we were in any way responsible for those accidents. The pictures that you were provided, if you'll look closely, many of them are the same picture with just different angles. The property -- I guess the complaints are over by the Cadillac dealership. If you look at the zoning map -- do we have that, Wayne? 10th Street, where the vehicle is parked -- and we try to catch people when they come in, if they're coming in and unloading. It's usually new drivers. We tell them not to do it. Occasionally it happens, they unload. But that property, that street is actually within the commercial zoning district, so it is a -- it is a commercial -- clearly a commercial street, 10th Street. It sounds like there -- most of the comments have dwelt with operational issues that we think we've addressed and try to do our best to address them, but, again, as Wayne said, we take that seriously. We want to address that, but it's really not related to the parking issue. And we're going to have those employees regardless. We think it will be better to have them on that parking lot. It will be a more Page 46 June 21, 2007 attractive automobile dealership if we do provide the parking on that -- on that. The playground's a nice wish, but if you look -- I could put into the record all of the habitat homes that De V oe has helped construct and all the other charitable contributions that this family has given back regarding scholarships for kids to go to school. They have done a lot of things for the community, and I don't think that that -- just because they haven't built a playground in that neighborhood is -- should be weighed against them. I don't know what our neighbor to the west's plans are for the property. It's my understanding that she's owned that property for a while. I don't know when she plans on demolishing that property and rebuilding into something nice. I do -- I can only tell you that it was reported to me that she was willing to sell that property to our client for a rather hefty sum. The number that was told to me, it was $650,000 for that lot. So I do know that it is -- it's an investment property. She's not living there. I don't know when she plans on knocking down what's there and replacing it with something new. But as far as the future, who knows. To date she hasn't done that. We are requesting that we give -- be given the opportunity to have parking for employees. We believe we have addressed all the compatibility issues. I doubt you'll see another parking lot in Collier County that will look that nice and be used on a limited period for our employees and only our employees, and we can be compatible. We have been compatible. The property, as you're looking -- and Ray, how do I -- this property right here. This lot right here is an existing lot that we have already done that. There are two-story buildings right here, two-story condominiums. The neighbor -- the property owner of those two-story buildings has actually written a letter in support. So we have shown that from a two-story perspective that a Page 47 June 21, 2007 parking lot can be compatible. We're sure that we will be compatible if our neighbor to the west ever does knock down the structure that's there and replace it with a two-story property, whether she lives there or her tenants live there or not. Wayne, do you want to add anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a comment myself. When he's through, I'll be ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's through. He just asked Wayne and Wayne said he didn't have anything. Mr. Adelstein, do you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have something. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. Basically I've been watching and listening to all of the people discussing this and the fact that Mr. De V oe runs his business this way and runs his business that way, and he does this and these people are doing that. I understand that, but there's only one issue here. We're talking about the employees getting a parking lot of 14 spaces. All the other things that were discussed here are a matter of, we don't like it because we don't want to live next to this, we don't have that. It isn't the issue. Right now there is a parking space that will make things a whole lot easier for the employees, possibly for the people in the area, and all it's talking about is 14 cars being parked by employees who put it in in the morning and take it out at night. I've seen the pictures of this. It seems like it's about as good as it can get. It's not going to change one way or another. If they do get it, fine, if they don't get it, fine. Nothing is going to change regarding the way people think this business is being run. But what they can see here is the fact that people here will have it all fixed up. There can't be much noise if they get it in the morning Page 48 June 21, 2007 and they can't get it done at the end of the day. Most of us don't want to live in a place where there's an awful lot of things going on and things are going on good and some bad, but this issue is just one, a 14-place car parking lot for employees to make it better and easier for everybody. I can't conceive of talking about the other or explaining how we can do it. That's not going to change. But I think the idea of putting this into practice might be a good one. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, waiting for Wayne, was going to get me that plan. I wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Arnold, the response to Mr. Schiffer's earlier question, did you find something? MR. ARNOLD: The entire plan; I do have a plan. That is a copy of the entire buildout for the Suzuki dealership property. I think Ray will have to pull that back a little bit to see that -- to see that highlighted area in gray is the expansion that's presently under construction right now for parking and display. North will be to your west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all their properties they own today? MR. ARNOLD: I believe that is, isn't it? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's just along 14th Street. MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's the properties on 14th abutting Goodlette, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean where this application is, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, did you have a comment? Page 49 June 21, 2007 MR. KLATZKOW: Just briefly. I'd just like to remind the Planning Commission, there's 12 factors that you need to look at on this. I'm sure that because of franchise or business reasons, that's why they're here, but that's not one of the criteria whether or not their franchise requires it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And I would not have brought the question up except at the last meeting when we talked about that village in Immokalee, in which Mr. Adelstein insisted that we have the sales contract for the people that bought into those condominiums that I thought wasn't part of this, I thought you opined that we could look at that. Then if that was acceptable in that particular petition, I can't see why a similar agreement on this petition wouldn't be equally acceptable, especially since a basis for this petition has been a supposedly (sic) need for these display areas that push the parking for the employee across the street. So that was the only basis I brought it up. And I don't disagree with your statement now, but I certainly disagreed with it then. MR. KLATZKOW: My reason then was because, if they had sold those units on the basis that there would be this center open to them and they had sold 100 units or whatever intending the entire time not to keep it that way, I'd be concerned there might be a fraud on the public. Having heard the speakers, however, from the community in support of that, you know, it was no longer a concern of mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wayne, what is the buffer that's along that east -- or western boundary line? MR. ARNOLD: I believe that's a 10-foot wide buffer. Are you talking about our off-site lot? Page 50 June 21, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what's shown. Yeah, what's shown here. MR. ARNOLD: I believe that's a lO-foot wide buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: I would say -- I don't want to interrupt Mr. Vigliotti, but -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: But I did have a brief conversation with Mr. DeVoe who said that given the speaker comments, that he'd be more than happy to try to sit down with Mr. Pekar and others and try to deal with any operational issues we could that might alleviate some of their neighborhood concerns, if that's a consideration for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Any other comments, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Looking at the property south of the fertilizer store there between Goodlette and 14th, that's, I believe, zoned residential; is it not? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. I believe that's RMF-6 residential. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there is a spot of residential there between Goodlette and 14th. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In that area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none -- we have no other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. I'd like to just -- Mr. Moss, I think, gave a very concise and excellent summation in his Page 51 June 21, 2007 recommendation that I'd like to review again, and that is that the proposed use already significantly exceeds -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Kolflat, are you making a motion or are you having a discussion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm having discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we just closed the public hearing. We'll just re-open it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to have Mr. Kolflat's questions addressed. I didn't know that he had any, so we'll re-open the public hearing. Mr. Kolflat, if you want to now ask your questions of -- is it staff you're asking of? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, sir. I thought I could have some discussion after the hearing was closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before -- we need to make a motion first, then we can have some discussion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then we'll reclose the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I move that we recommend to the Collier County Commission to deny this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to this -- the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Kolflat, seconded by Commissioner Caron. Now, Mr. Kolflat, let's go into your discussion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I just want to summarize what -- I thought Mr. Moss gave a very terse and excellent presentation. And he says that the proposed use already significantly increases the LDC parking requirements as they are now irrespective of the franchise additional parking demands. Page 52 June 21, 2007 It would encroach upon an existing residential neighborhood, which we can see, and even though not all the residents abut the subject property, they are in the general area, thereby negatively impacting its character, quality, and future development. It would pose increased pedestrian vehicular safety risks and cause more viable alternatives available to accommodate intensive parking needs. I thought that was an excellent summation, and I support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some. Number one, I think that there's a public safety concern should this be approved and, therefore, I would support the motion to deny it and support staffs recommendation. Number two, I think there's some pedestrian safety concerns. I believe that the character and the quality of the neighborhood will be damaged by further erosion by off-street parking, that the vehicle access to and from the residential streets is not appropriate to see this particular location used as another site for off-street parking. I don't believe that there's been a proven need for this and that there are plenty of alternatives to park in other areas other than off-street parking in a residential area. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. As the second, I would just like to say that I think I certainly would not approve an encroachment into this residential area. I think it's incrementalism at its finest. The De V oes are very good business people, and they would not have made a commitment to Suzuki unless they could fulfill that commitment legally. So I believe that they can accommodate the parking on the facility that they have or they wouldn't have made the commitment to Suzuki to begin with, and so my second is for those Page 53 June 21, 2007 reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree with the comments aforesaid by the two of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any others? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll be voting for approval. I realize it's a very heavily trafficked area, and I don't think the DeVoe dealership is causing all the problems. I am very sympathetic with your needs and problems, but I look at what they're looking to do with the buffering, I think it will be a nice addition to that area with the buffering. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So do I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All that being said. All recommendation -- a motion was made to deny the request and approve the staffs recommendation of denial. Those in favor, signifY by saying aye, oh, and by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four in favor. Those opposed to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three. Motion carries 4-3. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll take a IS-minute break and be back here at 10 minutes after 10. Thank you. Page 54 June 21, 2007 (A brief recess was had.) Item #8B PETITION: BD-2007-AR-11344 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back. We will resume our meeting with the second petition today. It's a boat dock petition, BD-2007-AR-11344, David and Kathleen Small, for a boat dock at 240 Barefoot Beach Boulevard. All those wishing to speak on half of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures on the part ofthe Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward with the presentation. MR. ROGERS: For the record, my name is Jeff Rogers with Turrell, Hall & Associates, representing our client, David Small. Rocky Scofield's passing out an aerial view of the site and other docks within the adjacent neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You guys have a great tag team gOIng. MR. ROGERS: Okay. We're here today requesting a boat dock extension for our client at 240 Barefoot Beach Boulevard in Bayfront Gardens. We're asking for a nine-foot extension from the allowed 20 into a waterway that is approximately 114 wide as shown on the drawing here on display. With the request our total protrusion is 29 feet from the mean high water line, and we have met the required setbacks for Collier County, the IS-foot setbacks. Our setbacks are 25 and 27 feet. Page 55 June 21, 2007 With the design, we're incongruent with our surrounding neighbors and minimized our over-water structure to the fullest extent possible in order to also supply our client's wishes with the proposed vessels that he's proposing to keep at the site. The vessel sizes; one's a 25-foot vessel on the outside, and a personal watercraft is proposed for the inside slip. We have received state and federal permits for this, an SPGP from the Corps of Engineers, both of them being exemptions. And with that, I'll open the floor with any questions that you guys might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's have the staff report. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, senior planner with zoning and land development reVIew. As you can see with the staff report, the applicant is meeting all of the secondary criteria and is meeting all but one of the primary criteria. That criteria is a percentage of width on the canal that they're located on. We did find -- you cannot -- you know, you are allowed to not meet one of the primary criteria. In this case, staff did not feel that the amount of increase -- it's basically .4 increase over the allowed amount. Additionally, there are only two other docks -- two other parcels that access this particular canal other than, you know, past this particular location. We also don't feel that it's a major increase or is it going to affect navigation through this area. Other than that, don't have anything other than what the applicant has already presented. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Page 56 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, the only thing that did not meet is there's a maximum 25 percent, and this is 25.4? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the .4 is your problem? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, although he's allowed to have two boats at this dock, he's only planning to be one and a watercraft; is that right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. That's what is included in the petition. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I got a few. I normally don't have any on boat docks, but this one I have a few on, unfortunately. Under the criterion not met, that particular one, I just want to read a statement. And it says, this particular waterway has dense mangrove growth and a shallow bank along the subject property. That's the second paragraph. The third paragraph says, staff considers that the mangrove shoreline creates a need for a dock extension. Now, if you go to the second criteria, number one, it says, criterion met. The subject property has a natural shoreline with mangrove vegetation creating a shallow shelf near shore. And if you go into continuation on the following page it says, picture taken while standing at the northeast property corner looking south along existing mangrove shoreline. Now, if! seem to be talking a lot about mangroves, it's because if you turn to a -- one of your diagrams, and I don't even know how to Page 57 June 21, 2007 tell you which one it is because there's several, it says, proposed dock details. I notice that while your verbiage keeps saying there's a lot of mangroves, this particular one mysteriously has the mangroves stopping where they conveniently need to stop so that no one's taking out mangroves to put this dock and this lift in. And I'm wondering, have you done an actual site inspection? MR. SAWYER: Yes, I actually have been out to the site twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does it -- the mangrove clearing, is that something authorized by our code? I thought mangroves were something that couldn't be cleared without state permits or things like that, or they're a higher level of scrutiny. MR. SAWYER: There is, I believe, a certain amount that can be done as far as related to the actual dock such as this. There is not going to be removal of mangroves with the proposed dock in the proposed location that it's at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, according to the proposed layout, another one of the diagrams attached, it says, existing vegetation, no mangroves to be cleared in existing mangroves (sic). So all the existing vegetation is what then? If it's going to be cleared, what is it; do you know? MR. SAWYER: Specifically plant types, I couldn't honestly tell you exactly what those plant materials are. I can confirm to you that they are not the mangroves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I'm concerned is that they've got this smaller of the two structures, the lifts, going quite a ways into that vegetated area, and it just seemed odd that the mangroves mysteriously stop on both sides of this dock and then the vegetation where the dock is happens not to be mangroves. If the applicant has some clarification of that, that would help. MR. SAWYER: I'll let them respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ROGERS: Before we made any submittal of the application Page 58 June 21, 2007 to the county, Rocky Scofield and myself went to the site, flagged all mangroves, took pictures of mangroves, and we have an official survey showing that this particular area where we have proposed the dock, that has no mangroves. There are seagrapes and some Brazilian pepper along the waterfront, along the water's edge, but mangroves basically consist to the south as shown on these drawings. I can show this real quickly. The dark hatched area is indicating exactly where the mangrove fringe line is starting, and the area that's hatched where the dock is at is basically just vegetation. Like I said before, seagrapes and Brazilian pepper mainly consist right there along that area. And then to the north, there's one small area of mangroves. Basically we have -- we've proposed no impacts to any mangroves, and we laid this out purposely so that we would not have to go through the state in order to get approval in order to remove or trim mangroves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion to move -- let me get the number -- with a recommendation of approval, or actually it ends right here, doesn't it? Okay. Move to approve BD-2007-AR-11344. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? Page 59 June 21,2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, thank you. MR. ROGERS: Thank you. Item #8C PETITION: V A-2007-AR-11500 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is V A-2007-AR-11500. It's a District School Board of Collier County for a variance at 3710 Estey Avenue. All those wishing to testifY on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. John David, I'm sure you're going to be one of those that want to testifY . (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with three members of the school administration and discussed this issue, and everything we discussed Page 60 June 21, 2007 will probably be rediscussed here at today's meeting. Okay. MR. MURRAY: Good morning. I'm Don Murray with TKW Consulting Engineers. I'm representing the Collier County School District for this petition for a variance from a 35-foot height limitation to a 45-foot height in order to allow a third story addition to the Lorenzo Walker Technical High School, which will be constructed on the Lorenzo Walker Technical Institute campus. And I just want to point out this is located on Estey Avenue just east of Airport-Pulling as shown on the site location map. The area, as you can see around it, to the north is mostly small single-family homes. There is a residential condo located, if you see on the PUD, on the right side or the east side of the campus, and then to the south bordering the property at the campus, and also along the west side of the campus is commercial properties. I will point out that there are a number of buildings of varying heights along Davis Boulevard and Airport, including a four-story building in the -- to the west. The campus -- the campus site plan, it's not all showing here, but on the board it is. We'll get to that in a minute. But the orientation of the new high school would be from north to south, and it's located on the east part of the campus, east of the existing buildings. These building have all been built from about 1970 through the 1990s. They've been there for a while. They've been a good neighbor to all the properties around it. The access for this, there are three access points for the campus. One, I'll have to point to the site plan on the board. Can you hear me? Okay. One access point is on the west side of the campus just to the east of the commercial area on Airport. The other access point is on the east side of the campus, which would be the main access for the high school. There is an additional access to the south off Davis Boulevard. Page 61 June 21, 2007 But for purposes of the high school and the orientation, the access will be from the east where vehicles coming in to drop off and pick up students will enter into the parking area and exit, and then buses will be able to line up so they can control what's happening there with line of sight of the buses to see the students, observe them, and for security purposes as well. The campus also -- if you look on this plan, there are some distances from some of the adjoining lots and homes. As you see, the closest distance, I believe, is 141 feet across Estey Avenue. As I said, the building, the height limitation on the campus, is 35 feet, and the setback that's required is 50 feet. The school district is proposing to move the building back to the 60- foot line. This allows them to maintain the parking, also to provide security, and to also incorporate that building into the design of the existing buildings on the campus, as well as control public access to the campus. Right now the access for visitors to the campus comes into the northwest part of the campus, and with that corridor in mind, that gives them access to the building that's controlled. And they -- they're also able to observe who's coming and going. Also, the -- with the bus, proposed bus drop-off, by state law has to be separated from the automobile drop-off and pick-up points. Within your packets, you had some photos that we supplied. I'm just going to throw a couple up here on the board just to give you an idea of what it looks like. This is the entrance as you're approaching from the west to the east. That would be the west entrance. And as you continue on down, you can see that there is a mature vegetation along the boulevard and what it looks like. Also want to point out this building is the first building that you would see as you're driving to the east from the west. The roof pitch on this building is probably equivalent to three stories. So this building would be blocking the view, to some extent, you know, with the trees and everything and other buildings in here if Page 62 June 21, 2007 you're coming down the road and you're looking at the building. Well, maybe not blocking it too much, but the idea is it blends in, it's a campus, it's also a design that keeps the buildings clustered for control. From the east as you're driving along, there is mature vegetation, and that is also shown here. I'll put this rendering up. This gives you an idea of what the building would look like. Keep in mind, there are some buildings not shown that would be just to the right of the high school, and the high school would be right in the middle right here, and this would also give you an idea of what it would look like from bird's eye view from across the street. We believe that the orientation and the setback is adequate to compensate for the additional one-story height on the building. We also believe that to increase it, as in the condition number two that staff is requesting, would be really just not warranted, a little bit too much. It would also interfere with the parking. We'd have to reconstruct and redesign the parking at some cost when it's really not necessary. So we would like to have your approval or recommendation of approval with the 60-foot setback only. And if you have any questions, at this time I'll take some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In order to accommodate this building, it looks like you're having to reconfigure part of the parking lot anyway; is that correct? MR. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Secondly, did you hold any kind of a neighborhood information meeting? MR. MURRAY : Yes. We had a neighborhood information meeting. We waited for an hour during the time that we advertised, and no one showed up. So we're assuming people didn't care. And also, as of this date, we've received no calls or questions or complaints Page 63 June 21,2007 from anyone, and I believe staffs probably had the same experience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow-up, do you have the signs posted on the site notifYing that there's a variance request going on at today's public hearing? MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You indicate that the area will be 60,000 square feet? MR. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that for each floor, or is that a total for all three floors? MR. MURRAY: I believe that's the total for all three floors. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And also what you're requesting is an increase in height from 35 feet to 45 feet. MR. MURRAY: Yes, sir. That's for the additional story. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Would it not be possible to be three stories in 30, 35 feet? MR. MURRAY: I'm not the architect or the designer, but I understand that to have the adequate floor to ceiling space, they need to have the additional height for the additional story. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I thought it would be possible to design a building that would be able to accommodate that and be within the 35 feet and still give you the same floor area. MR. HARDY: I'm Alva Hardy with the school district. I'm executive director of facilities management. Our floor to ceiling heights, given the size of some of the rooms, the skills labs, in order not to compress the space, would require that we have this variance. To build a three-story building in 35 feet in an institutional environment just isn't possible. We were here last month with the Immokalee Career Center. Same kind of scenario, tight site. This site's been in existence a lot longer and has served the community as an adult facility for a long Page 64 June 21, 2007 period of time, and we're adding a high school component. And in order to meet our parking and storm water requirements, we're requesting the height variance. And I would point out that that's the only real variance from the requirements that we have. The setback in our interlocal with the county is 50 feet, and we've moved it back to 60 to try to accommodate its presence on the street as well as existing vegetation that we're maintaining and is actually quite dense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your slab-to-slab height, we're used to, a lot of times, talking about residential and condominiums and things like that. But in an institutional building, if my memory's correct, your drop ceilings are a factor that need to be in because above them you have your plenums, you have your ductwork, you have your air-conditioning, you have any other of the multiple types of electronics or cables or other things that are needed to support the facilities below. So generally the slab to slab in an institutional facility will be a lot higher than in a residential. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I didn't realize that. I thought possibly it could be done within the 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not -- it's not as practical in institutional. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: One other question. Do you have any idea the percentage of graduates that remain in Collier County? MR. HARDY: No, sir, I do not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I mean, it's an excellent school and it's certainly filling the void that -- for education that we need, but I was just curious whether we give them the education and they go out of the county or whether many of them stay here. You have no program that would follow that to see? MR. HARDY: Like the Immokalee Career Center that we brought to you before, this is a school that has a career component, Page 65 June 21, 2007 and obviously the careers are predicated and must be by survey with the workforce development people to target jobs that are needed in this community. So every effort is made on the behalf of the curriculum to provide those. And we have what you might expect in this environment, marine, aviation with the airport across the street, and automotive, as well as other career -- high-tech careers for computers and things. So they are targeted for this community. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: One other thing you had in your write-up was, most buildings on the site were also built prior to the school interlocal agreement. What are the county interlocal requirements? MR. HARDY: In what regard, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, you mention in here that -- meeting all of the county requirements make it difficult. Most of the buildings on the site were also built prior to school interlocal agreement, and meeting all of the county's requirements make it difficult, but you didn't identifY what those requirements were that make it difficult. MR. HARDY: We have an interlocal agreement for site plan review with the county. That's my reference to the 50-foot setback that was agreed to in that interlocal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those agreements, Mr. Kolflat, are-- we received those before you became a Planning Commissioner. This board had to review those. They are quite involved. And at some point maybe staff could supply those to Mr. Kolflat so when we have more school board questions come up, he has the agreements that we were supplied at the time they came through the process. I'm sorry, SIr. MR. HARDY: I think more to the point is that this project was developed mostly in the '70s with the building with the sloped roof being added in the '90s and to do comprehensive water management Page 66 June 21, 2007 and parking, and this is a multiple-use campus. There is also an alternative school on this campus. And in order to meet our parking requirements, as well as take care of the storm water requirements, which get a little more stringent every year, that also has presented us with the need to go three stories in order to meet all those requirements. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It wasn't mentioned in the report, and that's why I was confused by what they actually were. You mentioned that you're exceeding the setbacks on this project you're putting in. So you're giving up some land for setbacks that could possibly be developed? MR. HARDY: It is proposed to be water management. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So it will be used for that? MR. HARDY: I believe so. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: My question was, if you did not give that land up exceeding the setback, could the use of that land enable you to build a building and have the surface you want and still maintain a 35-foot height? MR. HARDY: Our exceeding the setback, I think, is intended to mean the other direction. Our setback is 50 and we're proposing 60, so we aren't even close to using all the setback that we're technically allowed by our agreement with the county. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, that's my point. If you utilize that setback for your building, would that enable you to get it down to a lower profile? MR. HARDY: Oh, no, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You have looked at that? MR. HARDY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That's all I have, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The county has a Page 67 June 21,2007 condition where they would like the thing set back 80 feet rather than 60 feet. What kind of problems would that present? MR. HARDY: We believe it presents a parking problem. We prefer that our schools have adequate parking. Again, this is a multi-use campus with adults, high school, and alternative schools. I believe the staff has addressed that in their staff report. We have a difference of opinion on the number of parking spaces that we think are adequate for the site, and in order to maintain those, because it's our experience at a school, more parking is better than not enough, especially since this is a school of choices and it's not a school of attendance boundary and we could anticipate the need for more parking in that regards also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if they make you push this building back 80 feet, you couldn't redesign the building or -- MR. HARDY: No, sir. The buildings are based on academic principles of how you deliver instruction, and their classrooms are grouped in a certain way around grade levels, and it would require a reduction in the amount of parking and also some difficulties in the staging of the buses because we like to keep them in a nice neat line so that we can supervise the activities of getting on and getting off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Staff report? MR. MOSS: John David Moss, department of zoning and land development review. Staff has evaluated this application based on the criteria that are outlined in the LDC and is recommending approval subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B of the staff report, which would require that the school building be set back approximately 80 feet from Estey A venue in order to maintain the established setback along the northern campus boundary and to Page 68 June 21, 2007 mitigate the incompatibility posed by locating a 40-foot -- 45-foot high building adjacent to existing single-family residences rather than more internal to the site or abutting the neighboring multi-family and commercial uses existing to the east, south, and west. In staffs opinion, this setback could be possible with a reduction in the 44 excess parking spaces that the application has. Staff has received no letters of objection from the community. And I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Your condition number two, why is it an either/or? Why wouldn't you require the trees even if they do set back 80? MR. MOSS: Well, because if they do set the building back 80 feet, it wouldn't be necessary to buffer the view from the adjacent single-family homes. So it was sort of an either/or thing. If the board was going to approve this without the setback, we wanted to make sure that they had the additional buffering of that landscaping. It would be nice to have both, set back 80 feet and the buffering. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would think you would want both. MR. MOSS: It would be great, but we're not being picky. Trying to be flexible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The neighborhood informational meeting, no one objected? MR. MOSS: Apparently no one came to the meeting, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you have any letters of objection? MR. MOSS: I received none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was this fully advertised and noticed to the neighborhood? MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any public speakers Page 69 June 21, 2007 registered to speak on this matter? MR. BELLOWS: No, no one has applied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it doesn't sound like anybody's objecting to this project at this point. MR. MOSS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. No public speakers, right, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that petition V A-2007-AR-l1500, Lorenzo Walker Technical High School expansion be subject -- be forwarded to the Collier County Board of Commissioners subject to the recommendations by staff, which would includes the 80 feet, and I'm open to modification of the motion should there be a compelling case. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made that has been suggested to even be modified by the motion maker, and seconded. Discussion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. To the motion maker, I wouldn't vote for that because of condition number two. I'd like to see that struck in its entirety. It's -- pushing the building back the 20 feet, I don't think, is necessary, and why you would have this requirement that if you don't push it back, to put 24 more canopy trees, or you have less parking and everything else. So I would be voting against it Page 70 June 21, 2007 solely because it includes condition number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to agree with you. If the motion stays with condition two intact, I can't be in favor of it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I also agree. I can't see why they can't do that and leave the trees -- and put the trees in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let me not hear it unanimously made, and I'll also agree to that. I would eliminate that requirement from the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eliminate requirement number two -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of the staff. So we're supporting the motion to recommend approval with a 10-foot height variance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second agree to that as well? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and second agree to that condition. Any other comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than I'm happy now. I'll be voting for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it looks like a terrific thing for the community. It gives the kids an opportunity to get some real good vocational education. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 71 June 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the staffs recommendations were valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Six in favor, one against. Motion carries. Thank you. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That ends the petitions for today. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS We have one item of old business I'd like to ask about. Actually it's new business but we discussed it earlier, we started to, at least, and it involves the LDC hearings and the other scheduling for this commission for the months of July and August. Ray, our scheduling for July and August. Could we go through what you have? MR. BELLOWS: Okay. On August 2nd, there's a Planning Commission meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back up to July. We first started talking about the 19th, and that meeting we already heard about was going to be in the day and in the evening both, and then you had mentioned the 25th of July; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. On July 2 -- or yeah, on July 25th is LDC meeting number one it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 21st or 25th? MR. SCHMITT: 25th. MR. SCHMITT: 25th on Wednesday. Page 72 June 21,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what time? MR. SCHMITT: 5:05, in the evening, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. July 25th at 5:05 and be -- in what room? MR. BELLOWS: The boardroom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what's the one -- what will be the next one after the 25th of July? And that would be an LDC hearing on July 25th. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, and that's it for the meetings in July. There are earlier meetings in July, but you covered that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: -- at the beginning of the meeting. So the next is August, and on August 2nd there's a Planning Commission meeting, a regular for land use items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go there, there's -- some members of this panel have some plans or are trying to make some plans for August, and it's really dependent on, I guess, this meeting -- these meetings, not being me. I'm available. But as far as the August 2nd meeting, do you have enough agenda items to warrant a meeting, or if it's just a few, like it was today, couldn't we consolidate them to a combined date and save the opportunity for someone if they wanted to take a vacation? MR. BELLOWS: It's my recollection there's at least four or maybe five petitions on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. MR. BELLOWS: July is the one where we didn't have many, that's why we don't have a on meeting July 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine then. Then the 2nd. What's after the 2nd then? MR. BELLOWS: There is another, August 8th. That's an LDC meeting number two, and that's a Wednesday. And it's says here we have it scheduled from 8:30 to 12 o'clock in the boardroom. Page 73 June 21, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 8:30 to what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To 12. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is that a backup meeting to the other one or -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That would be a continuation of -- it says meeting two, but it's a continuation of the first hearing. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Only ifneed be? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: More than likely -- do we have any sense of how many LDC items we'd be looking at? No, okay, all right. MR. SCHMITT: Not right now, and it's certainly nowhere near what it was last cycle, but there's some issues that are going to take some time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's just as well we have backup dates. What's the next one after August 8th, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: August 16 is our regular land use meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that one, do you have any idea how many are set up for that date? MR. BELLOWS: No, I don't have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it looks like ifanybody's planning to take a longer vacation, the month of July might be the better time for it if that can be arranged in your schedules because August looks like it's planning to be a long month. Is there anything after August 16th, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We have another LDC meeting on the 22nd of August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the 8:30? MR. BELLOWS: No. This one says 5:05 in the boardroom. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's weird. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Would we need a second one at Page 74 June 21, 2007 5:05? Don't we generally move them to-- MR. BELLOWS: I haven't really talked to Catherine about this, so I don't know why she scheduled it this way. I'll have to get back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have time if you could check with her. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it for the month of August? MR. BELLOWS: One more on August 29th, and it's also an LDC meeting number four she has, and that's a Wednesday one o'clock to five in the boardroom. Again, we'll -- I'll confirm with Catherine, and we'll get back to you with what exactly she has planned for those particular meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think preferentially, if our choice is to meet here at 5 :05 or meet over at developmental services during the daytime, I think the preference would be to continue meeting here. So if that's a reason for the 5:05, I don't see a problem with it, I just don't understand it, but -- MR. BELLOWS: Okay. We'll figure out why the time, too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The one to five is on Horseshoe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, here. MR. SCHMITT: They're all here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: They're all here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They're all here. Okay. Thank you, Ray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. When is this tennis club coming up? Because the emails I've been getting are borderline spam right now. Page 75 June 21, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, they are? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just out of curiosity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That Naples Bath and Tennis, when is that coming up? MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's September, but I don't have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Holy mackerel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Somebody's really jumping the gun on that one. Okay. I think we have a lot of emails.so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Should be interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will be interesting. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT Okay. Doesn't look like there's going to be a lot of public comment. And the only other item I wanted to mention is I talked to transportation, and they had to be somewhere else today unless absolutely needed and suggested that, if possible, we could discuss the memorandum that they provided in regards to standard PUD language at the next meeting, and I said that would be fine. So that's why we're not hitting that today. And with that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Kolflat, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. Is there any update on this AUIR? We discontinued that meeting. Are we going to reconvene that or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a lot of that's going to be up to Page 76 June 21, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners and their decision on Tuesday of next week, if I'm not mistaken. MR. SCHMITT: Tuesday we go with a summary to the board, an executive summary to the board, asking the board for guidance as to how to proceed with the -- putting together the 2007 AUIR. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: We'll be asking the board for guidance, and we'll be proceeding along the path at the guidance we get from the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically we're here at the pleasure of the board. And if they send it back to us to -- in any manner whatsoever, we'll just follow the direction, do what they want us to do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, motion to adjourn? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. MR. SCHMITT: I'm just checking -- and I'm sorry, I apologize. I'm just trying to look for the schedule, because I want to make sure that we define from the LDC cycle, because we do have four meetings. But we go into two hearings. Those number three and four that we had in August probably may not be needed because we then have hearings -- let me -- again, I'm -- because we have to go through two hearings, and I'm trying to make sure -- now that I look at it though, that meeting at 5:05 on August 22nd is actually your second hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: So you have two dates for the first hearing and two dates for the second hearing. That's why the second hearing was 5:05, unless you choose otherwise, but we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. MR. SCHMITT: We did the hearing at 5:05, the second hearing at 5:05, the continuations are the continuation into the day, the Page 77 June 21, 2007 following day or whenever we scheduled it. So that covers your two hearings, because we go to the board, and their first hearing is actually in October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. And Mr. Adelstein had already made the motion to adjourn, so this panel is adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:48 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 78