Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/05/2009 R February 5, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 5, 2009 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 Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES, Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET A l' 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009, 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 MATERJALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRlOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARJNG. IN ANY CASE, WRJTTEN MATERJALS 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. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ DECEMBER 18, 2008, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 16,2008, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. CPSP-2008-6, A staff initiated petition amending the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management PIau to incorporate updates based on the 2008 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR), the 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plans, and additional staff analysis, including updates to the 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (for Fiscal Years 2009 - 2013) and the Schedule of Capital Improvements for Future 5- Year Period (for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018). [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] [ADOPTJON HEARING - Consent) B. CPSP-2007-6, A petition requesting an amendment to the Potable Water Sub-Element of tbe Public Facilities_Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to amend Policy 1.7 to add a reference to, and incorporate, the County's '~Ten-year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan." [Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner] [ADOPTION HEARING - Consent) 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13618, CUM Naples Hotel Partners, LLC, is requesting three sign variances to allow two wall signs for Spring Hill Suites, and one directional monument sign to serve as both an on- premises sign for Spring Hill Suites and an off-premises sign for Fairfield Inn. The first variance is from Section 5.06.04.CA. of the Land Development Code (LDC), which requires that one wall sign shall be permitted for each single-occupancy parcel, to allow two wall signs. The second variance is from Section 5.06.04.C.16.b.i. of the LDC, which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for an off-premise directional sign, to allow a 35.5T square foot off-premise sign. The third variance is from Section 5.06.04.C.16.b.ii. of the LDC, which allows a maximum sign height of 8 feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway for an off-premise directional sign, to allow a maximum sign height of 12 feet. The subject property is located at 3798 White Lake Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) B. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR- 11320, Sembler Family Partnership #42, represented by Robert Mulliere, AICP of R W A, Inc and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezoning from Rural Agriculture (A) zoning to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as McMullen M PUD. The 19.32 acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit a mixed-use development. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum of 122,000 square feet of medical office and medical support facilities, and up to 48 multi-family dwelling units, with allowances for modifications of commercial activates and residential uses for additional permitted commercial uses. In no case shall the commercial square footage exceed 185,000 square feet. The subject property is generally located one- half mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Extension, the south one-half of the Southeast one- quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED TO 3/5/09 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 2-5-09 eepe AgendalRB/mk/sp 2 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 5th, 2009 Regular Meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 February 5, 2009 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll look at addenda to the agenda. Some of you may have gotten an e-mail that today's one item, which is the CHM -- Naples Hotel Partners, LLC was on and then off and then on and off. But it is on. I guess they're going to go with the advertised distance, and that's the distance that apparently is reflected in our packet. So we're good to go. The second petition, the Sembler Family Partnership, Number 42, McMullen MPUD, has been continued to March 5th of'09. We have a couple items we'll go through in chairman's report. And this meeting, when it is over, we will -- no, no, Catherine, not now, but you're one of the couple items. MS. F ABACHER: I need to add to the agenda, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Once this meeting is over, we'll adjourn and we'll reopen a continuation of the RLSA meeting and we'll go from there. But right now let's talk about the timing of the next RLSA meeting. Today when we start up, we only will have a couple hours, two to three hours. That is not going to be nearly enough time to finish up. I've asked staff to look at the availability of the CDES room and this room -- this room is booked solid, so that's kind of out of the question -- but to finish up over at CDES where we started. I asked them to exclude Mondays and Tuesdays as available dates, because Mr. Midney has difficulties on those two days being there. And I think it's important, since this is generally in his area, that he is at least available as much as possible for those meetings. What that has done has provided us with three dates after today for the RLSA. And I'm telling you this now so that when we come to a Page 3 February 5, 2009 motion to continue, we can have the dates kind of picked out. February 20th is available. February 26th and February 27th -- no, I'm sorry, just -- Tom, it's just the 20th and 26th, is it not? MR. GREENWOOD: We've identified in rooms 609-610 -- Tom Greenwood, for the record. We've identified in rooms 609-610 availability for the Planning Commission, if you wish, beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, the 20th of February. And the -- and again, looking at late week, the 26th of February, all day is available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, by 10:00 a.m., does that mean there'll be another -- MR. GREENWOOD: There's going to be something else prior to that, and I'm not real sure what it is at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have enough time to set the room up? MR. GREENWOOD: You may want to -- I'd have to check and make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to mention? COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I was just going to say the 26th is better for me, if we're jumping in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to need both, and that's where I'm coming from. Based on the review process and the little bit of time we have today, I don't think we'll get through all of the GMP amendment part of it today alone. And then I don't know about the rest of you, but I have collected over a page of questions that aren't related to any specific GMP item. Then we have to go into deliberations and discussion on each one of the policies that we feel need to be changed. And then we finally can entertain a motion. I don't want to lock us into having to cram all that into one day. Page 4 February 5, 2009 And if we can get it done in one day, that's great. But I'd like to have the two days reserved as a backup in case we can't finish it. Mr. Midney, if we were to look on the 20th in the afternoon, would that work better for you? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY : Yeah, I'll be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will give time to set the room up -- staff could set the room up. Does that -- does the 20th starting at 1 :00 work for most everybody here? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the 26th, does everybody feel comfortable with that date? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we'll-- Tom, if you could set those aside, what we'll do is during the discussion we'll make a motion to continue then to one of those dates. MR. GREENWOOD: I will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That takes care of the addenda to the agenda on that item. Our next regular meeting is February 19th. Does anybody know if they are not going to be here on the 19th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have a quorum. That's going to have a little bit busier schedule than todays. Then the -- that's the last item on the addenda to the agenda. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 18, 2008, REGULAR MEETING We'll go to approval of minutes. Our regular meeting minutes Page 5 February 5, 2009 from December 18th. Is there a motion to either modify or recommend approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Homiak seconded the discussion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray, the BCC report recaps. Anything you want to add? MR. BELLOWS: I have nothing for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT And then Chairman's Report. There are two things. A letter with five pages, I think, of attachments, including kind of like a petition. I don't know if it's an official -- yeah, it is, petition for the denial of rezoning known as Heavenly MPUD, along with two pages of letters Page 6 February 5, 2009 from people on the Heavenly PUD was sent to this building for some reason. Ray, I'll turn it into you for the record, as regards to distribution. It needs to be included in packets on the Heavenly PUD or -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- sent out to us in some manner. So before the days over I'll make sure you get this and it gets distributed. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other item on today's chairman's report. Catherine has a brief discussion on some lingering issues she has been badgering us about for a while. Come on up, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a sign code, right? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been putting that on and off. I'm not sure where we're at with it, but thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. You all must be glad to see me. I haven't bothered you in a long time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I feel neglected. MS. FABACHER: Well, you won't be now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is this fluorescent color illegal? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not on the design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, be careful. Everything's on record. So as you speak, it gets typed as best it can. MS. FABACHER: Okay, ready for me to begin, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go right ahead. MS. FABACHER: Okay. What we've given to you is the preliminary draft of the sign code revisions. It's all in the memo here. But just as a brief reminder, we were sued by Bonita Enterprises, Ltd., Page 7 February 5, 2009 because of that truck that came through town. We went to court on that case. As part of the settle -- the court declared sections of the sign code unconstitutional. And part of the settlement agreement was for us to take those out. And I might add, if we don't, then we become liable again to be -- we could be sued again. The hard part that you're going to have is in advising the BCC. Because to make this document content neutral -- you'll see when you read the articles in here what these terms mean. But to make it content neutral, speaker neutral, have no prior restraints and not be over broad, we have a very vague thing, and it could be that anybody could put anything on any sign, essentially. Under the First Amendment, that's allowed. I will have presentation for you in two weeks, along with the final -- we're just making a few tweaks. But I will have a full presentation on it. But I thought for now I have the new revision in here, along with a copy of the current sign code that's from supplement five, which is in-house being proofed right now, so we're almost caught up on the LDC. And I've also put in a couple articles by -- I put the lawsuit in here. I put in several articles too by Dr. Mandelker, who is our recognized constitutional scholar. And then a couple other articles from other persuasions. Some came from a book put out by the sign industry. But it all addresses the legal issues and constraints. And this is one of the most litigated issues in land use law is signage and the free speech. So it's going to be a tough one, but I know the board -- it's scary to loosen the controls. So what you have to do is weigh the risk you take of losing control of what goes on the signs versus how safe you are against being sued again. Because I think we have a very large settlement we've paid out already, and we could be sued again. Page 8 February 5, 2009 But there's going to have to be a balancing act. And at some point -- and I know the board is going recommend -- I mean is going to depend entirely on your recommendations. But at some point we have to feel like we can protect ourselves but not to such an extent that we put ourselves in harm's way legally again. So in two weeks we will give you the final -- just a little tweaking. And later this week I hope to send you the strike-through and underscore version, which is very lengthy, and we had to stop working on it because it was so difficult, and worked on the clean copy. Now we're having it, you know, put into the ordinance form for you all. So if you have any questions at all in the next two weeks or something, please e-mail me and let me know. Because it's a work in progress. And if you can let me know ahead of time, I can get with Dr. Mandelker and we can work on those issues that you find. But we would very much appreciate your help on this. One final thing is, we have not made any substantive changes in the sense of -- we are allowed to talk about the size of signs, the location of signs, the placement of signs, the number of signs. We're allowed to do that. We have not changed any of those things from the regular code. All we've done is tried to take out the content-based, speaker-based, prior restraint issues. So good luck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did, but she actually answered it. MS. F ABACHER: And also, Dr. Mandelker will be here. We have set the dates for the first public hearing, or possibly only public hearing, for March 2nd and 3rd, it's on the cover there, when the public meetings will be held here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, in the litigation or the court case that resulted in some kind of settlement, did we provide a defense or was that just a -- never got to court, never got to trial? Was Page 9 February 5, 2009 it mediated? How did it -- MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no, we defended it and we duly got our heads handed to us. As Catherine said, this is a balancing act. I can give you a sign ordinance that's 100 percent safe against any legal attack and we'll look like Las Vegas, and we don't want that. Any so retreat from that is opening you up to a little bit of attack. So it's a balancing. You know, it's going to be a little bit of risk here, but if you want to maintain the standards of the community, that's what you do. This isn't like real property law or the law involving, you know, wills and estates, which has been the same for centuries. This changes every year. And it's really in the eye of the beholder. And the fact of the matter is, our sign ordinance would have been upheld through most parts of this country. The part of the country we live in, we have a court up in Atlanta that's very liberal when it comes to this sort of issue. And it's what you deal with. And the Supreme Court's never really definitively ruled on the issue. One case that came to them, they split 4-4 on. And it's quite frankly an area of the law that's constantly evolving. And it's in the eye of the beholder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where I was going with my question, my part of the request on whether or not we had a defense, I assumed there was, it was just what was in it, meaning if you had case law citation in the defense, is there a possibility that we could have a link to that case law so we could review it, if need be? MR. KLATZKOW: If you'd like, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, is it Westlaw? Or if you could just provide the citation. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I can provide you with the opinion that the court gave, if you want that. That's really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we haven't got that -- I know Page 10 February 5,2009 I've seen -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to see our briefs, I can get you a copy of our briefs as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind? That would be helpful. MR. KLA TZKOW: Don't mind at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, how much did it cost us to settle the lawsuit? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have the number off the top of my head, but it wasn't cheap. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I wanted to add, though, that, you know, Jeff has really given you some good background, but Jeff Wright could probably get the case law that you want, because he's the one who's worked on this thing. MR. KLATZKOW: Catherine, I think I could do that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think the County Attorney can do that, too, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: I understand, Ijust-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather go to the source, so if you don't mind, that's all taken care of. MS. FABACHER: I'm trying to take it easy on him, not throw him under the bus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, nobody was. I was simply looking for additional backup that we may want to review to understand better what we can and can't do. MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody was throwing anybody under the bus. In fact, I have the highest regard for our County Attorney, he's Page 11 February 5, 2009 done an excellent job. It's just a matter of -- MS. FABACHER: For both of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MS. FABACHER: You have the highest regard for both of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So Catherine, with that, is there anything else? MS. F ABACHER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Item #8A PETETION: CPSP-2008-6, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to consent agenda items. The first one is CPSP-2008-6. It's the Capital Improvement Element that we heard before. Anybody have any concerns, questions or whatever? If not, is there a motion to approve that consent agenda item? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 12 February 5, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #8B PETITION: CPSP-2007-6; POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT The second consent item is CPSP-2007-6, the lO-year water supply facility's work plan. Is there any discussion or is there a motion to recommend the approval of that consent item? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move that item as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray's made-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the motion, second by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Both of those are 8-0. Page 13 February 5, 2009 Item #9A PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13618; CHM NAPLES HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC Now, into our first and only advertised public hearing for today. Petitions SV-2008-AR-l36l8, the CHM Naples Hotel Partners, LLC, requesting three sign variances to allow two wall signs at the Spring Hill Suites. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll move forward with the applicant's presentation. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to say your name for the record, if you could. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Sure. My name is Mike Bou-Sliman. I am the managing partner for CHM Naples Hotel Partners, and obviously representing the property at this time. We have two lots here, lots 15 and 16, that we were constructing two hotels on, actually. There's a Spring Hill Suites, which we just recently opened, and Fairfield Inn and Suites that we're under construction on right next door, so we control both parcels. What we are asking for, it's really pretty simple. We've got -- we've already been permitted for the one sign that's on the building facing west, which faces 951, Collier Boulevard. And we currently have been permitted for the monument sign, which has just the Spring Hill Suites logo on it. Page 14 February 5, 2009 What we desperately need because of this location is a sign on the south side of the building facing the interstate. These hotels, both of them, are what we call limited service properties. And we depend about 35 to 40 percent of our business on drive-by traffic. So signage is very critical to us to be able to bring people in off the freeway and/or going up and down the roadway to occupy our building. With the current sign that we have on the building and with the additional wall sign we're asking for, the building is 61,000 square feet. We still actually fall below the maximum allowable square footage, which I believe is 250 square feet. So even between the two signs, we're still below your maximum allowable square footage. So we've reduced the size of those signs so we comply with that. We do not have, you know, any residential around it us. It's all commerciallindustrial. So I don't -- feel very confident the sign doesn't present any problems for anybody in the neighborhood. Our neighboring properties, I'll just add, across the highway, the Comfort Inn and the Super Eight, which obviously have been there for a little while, both have the two signs on their buildings. And I've got documentation for that, if you'd like it. And also, there's another hotel along the freeway up on Pine Ridge, the Best Western, which only has single street frontage, and that also has two signs also. So, you know, it's basically, you know, critical for hotels of our nature to be able to have that sign so people can view us and find our hotel. The second part to it is simply an entry sign. The Fairfield, which is under construction right now, sets back off the road a little ways, and we have one single entry drive. If you look at your site plan you'll see we have one single entry drive that's going to service both properties. So we're just asking that the entry sign for the Fairfield just be placed with the Spring Hill sign, since it's out at the road front. The Fairfield one actually, you know, if we were -- if we were to Page 15 February 5, 2009 put it at the entry of the Fairfield, it basically serves no purpose. Because once they're in the drive, they know where they're at. So that's kind of the general summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On your new site, are you going to have any signage on that up on, what is it, the -- MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Fairfield? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- white -- yeah, going into there. What's going to be for signage on the new site where you're going to have the Fairfield? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: There'll just be a building sign, one building sign, facing Collier Boulevard, which would be the west side of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So people coming off of Collier making that turn on the trail, you're not going to have anything on that corner pointing them down towards your access drive? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow where you're talking about. Like on -- off of Collier Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. You come off of Collier, I forget the name. It's -- MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Oh, City Gate Boulevard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: City Gate. And you're going to go down City Gate for a little bit and then you're going to make -- head south on White. So nothing's planned for that corner? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Not out by City Gate and Collier Boulevard, no. No, we have no signage out there. That of course is not our property. And we've asked the developer ifhe would try and do something out there but, you know, nothing has been proposed or Page 16 February 5, 2009 planned at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that -- in other words, I'm talking about the corner of your property where you're building the Fairfield Inn. It would be the northwest corner. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: No, actually -- you're talking about the northwest corner of lot 15, which would be the Fairfield site? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: No, there's nothing that's going to front the street. We've actually just been approved recently for lots. But the front portion of the Fairfield is actually going to be a separate parcel, or actually is now a separate parcel. It's just a one-acre out-parcel. So yeah, there's nothing else proposed for there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the other question is the south sign, the one facing 75, it kind oflooks a little crowded on that facade. In other words, I know you need a larger sign because you have a greater distance, but -- MR. BOU-SLIMAN: To the contrary, there's an off -- that's a pretty big facade. It probably -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm actually thinking of the pediment that it's actually mounted on. I know the total length ofthe building is quite large, but -- MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Yeah, are you looking at the sketch that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: -- that was in the enclosures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the one on the west side kind of balances nice. This one looks like it's crowding. To me anyway. I mean, it's an aesthetic issue. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Right. I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you need it to be that big, or maybe position it slightly lower or something to -- MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Yeah, I would tell you now looking at that, I'm not sure that's a real good representation of how it -- you Page 17 February 5, 2009 know, scaled, you know, versus the actual facade. Let me -- Nancy, do you have that one photo I sent you where he did scale it right on the building? MS. GUNDLACH: Let me check it for you. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: We did actually have the sign company scale it on an actual photograph of the building. No, it's an actual color photograph of the building. Give me one second, I think I've got it in my file. This is a shot of the actual physical building. I believe, and I apologize to you that -- yeah, the sketch that you have, you know, showing a 32-foot total width of that sign, the width of that parapet wall, as we call it is, you know, probably 50 foot in width, and has a height of -- I would say of at least 11 feet. So the sign letters themselves are only -- they're two-foot ten, which is 34 inches is the tallest letter. And 34 inches against 11 feet is -- you know, I think it will -- aesthetically it will fit in there pretty -- I mean, it will look quite uniform. But in answer to your question, if you'd like it to be a little bit smaller, I don't have any problem with making it a little bit smaller, as long as we've got something on there, I think it'll get seen. We can go to a 24-inch letter, which would cut it down. A 24 or even a 30-inch letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the point is the one on the east is proportioned fine. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This one is out of -- so what you're saying, that the total impediment up at the top is how much feet, you say? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: If you look -- you see the top row of windows -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BOU-SLIMAN: -- which is the fourth story. If you go from Page 18 February 5, 2009 even that EIFS above that to the top of that peak, it's easily 11 foot. It means, I could get you the actual dimensions, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The width is what I'm looking -- MR. BOU-SLIMAN: The width I would tell you, is at minimum 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Then it will probably fit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are these signs lit? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are these signs lighted? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: Yes, sir. But it's not a -- I will tell you, it's not a -- they're very subdued lighting. It's not a neon type of any nature of that where it's glaring. It's just straight back lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problems with the recommendations by county staff? MR. BOU-SLIMAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other questions, we'll ask for the county staff presentation. Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And staff is recommending approval of this Spring Hill sign variance. And it is subjected to three conditions of approval. And one of -- the second one is slightly going to change, but I will begin with the first one. The first condition of approval is that the second wall sign, that's the one on the south side that we were just discussing, will be located Page 19 February 5, 2009 on the southern building facade. The second condition of approval, which is changing slightly, is that the directional monument sign shall be limited to 35.5 square feet, not 44. 35.5 is the size that was advertised. And the third condition of approval is that the directional monument sign height will be limited to l2 feet. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, recommendation one, after going through the hearing and what they present us, is there any way they could move that sign someplace else but where they're showing it? MS. GUNDLACH: That sign is going -- if you look at that elevation of the building -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. GUNDLACH: -- and you see the white area, that's where they're proposing the sign on -- they need the south on the south facade to face I - 7 5. Mr. Bou-Sliman had offered to make that sign slightly smaller, if it's the proportions that are kind of bothersome. He is willing to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think that's the question. MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, what's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is it's on the southern facade. I mean, is the intent allowing him so that that sign can wander around on the facade, or is it to -- in other words, why are we saying that? Because this is where we're expecting it to be, exactly there. MS. GUNDLACH: There is -- okay, I'm going to back up a little Page 20 February 5, 2009 bit and share with you the code requirements. This hotel is allowed to have one wall sign. And currently there is one that exists on the western facade. And the request is of course to have this one on the southern facade so they can get their visibility from I-75. So I'm not quite sure if that answers your question. It's just simply where they desire for it to be. They feel that there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is does recommendation one give them the ability to move it anywhere they want on the southern facade? In other words, why don't we just strike recommendation one. I can't see any advantage to it. I can't see -- I mean, he wants it there. That's the only prominent spot on the building. Why would we need that at all? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, I see your point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern is that if we leave that in there, he has the right to let it wander all over that facade. MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- for the record, are you just recommending that for number one we cite specially as showing on the referenced drawing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, wouldn't that -- MR. SCHMITT: The second wall sign, Sign B, shall be located on the southern building facade as displayed on figure one or whatever. So it specifically cites where it would go on the building. That's what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think my confusion comes in is that the applicant has an application. He shows, you know, documents showing where he wants to put the sign. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why would our recommendation have to say that he has to put the sign as per the application? I mean, doesn't that go without saying? Page 21 February 5,2009 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the intent is that sometimes the provision is subj ect to the encroachment or variance as depicted on the illustration. In this case we'd make this an exhibit to the resolution. That would lock it in the location. I think that was the intent of that stipulation. But I agree with you, it should be more specific as to this graphic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in your recommendation one, we'd reference the graphic in some manner or form when it comes back for consent. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we are -- in number two we're now changing the size of that sign to go with the advertising. Do you have administrative authority to increase the size of that sign anyway? MS. GUNDLACH: We don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. That's good. MS. GUNDLACH: I wish we could, but we don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's good. So 35.5 means 35.5. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, that's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public requests? MS. BELPEDIO: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. Page 22 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I recommend we move Petition SV-2008-AR-13618 with a recommendation of approval as per the staff recommendations as amended today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Just so we're clear in the staff recommendations, because it has to come back on consent. And number one on the recommendation, there will be a reference to the graphic that's been provided to us in some manner so that we lock it in. And number two, the 44 will be changed to 35.5. Were there any other changes to the recommendations from staff that we missed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that in mind, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. And with that, we will need to entertain a motion to adjourn, because we advertised the continuation for 9:30. So we're going to have about 28 minutes in which we have to break and come back. Is -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. Page 23 February 5, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the meeting is adjourned. We'll come back at 9:30 and resume a continuation of the RLSA meeting. Page 24 February 5, 2009 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:03 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 25