Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/17/2000 RFebruary 17, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 17, 2000 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: NOT PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Michael Pedone Russell A. Priddy Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Karen Urbanik Gary Wrage Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 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 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITYEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao BD-99-28, Nelson Marine Construction, Inc., representing Alan Johnson, requesting a boat dock extension of 15 feet beyond the permitted 5 feet for waterways under 100 feet wide for a total protrusion of 20 feet into the waterways, for property located at 214 Sixth Slxeet, further described as Lot 30, Block E, Little Hickory Shores Unit 2, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) R-99-12, Lisa H. Bamette of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, representing Benedict P. Miralia, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "C-4" for property located on the west side of U.S. 41 North approximately 1500 feet south of the Wiggins Pass Road intersection, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3.53:t: acres. (Continued to 3/2) (Coordinator: Susan Murray) PUD-85-01(2), R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing Harley Davidson of Naples, Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Naples Gateway PUD for the purpose of amending the PUD document having the effect of adding new and used motorcycle sales and service and sales of related merchandise as a permitted use for property located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, east of Livingston Road and west of 1-75, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 13.45+ acres. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) Do PUD-99-13, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Relleum, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A' Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 154 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886) and south of Pine Ridge Road (C.R. 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 39.58+ acres. (Continued from 1/20) (Coordinator: Don Murray) Eo PUD-99-14, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc., representing Marian H. Gerace and Wallace L. Lewis, Jr., requesting a rezone from "A' Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Livingston Village for a maximum of 540 residential dwelling units for property located east of the proposed Livingston Road, north of Wyndemere PUD, in Section 19, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 148.98+ acres. (Continued from 1/20) (Coordinator: Susan Murray) Fo V-99-27, Boya~t Design Group, representing Larry W. Ormsby, requesting a 10-foot variance from the required 25-foot rear yard setback to 15 feet for a stairway for property located at 210 Sixth Street West, further described as Lot 31, Block E, Little Hickory Shore Unit 2, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chain'am Badamtchian) Go V-99-30, William L. & Charlene S. Hoover requesting a 5-foot variance from the required 10-foot rear yard setback for an accessory structure to 5 feet, for property located at 5690 Wax Myrtle Way, further described as Lot 94, Tall Pines, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) Schedule to adopt the Community Redevelopment Plan and the Bayshore/Gateway and Immokalee Component Plans. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS: REPORT FROM PATHWAY ADVISORY COMMITFEE 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 2/17/00 AGEND/RN/im 2 February 17, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Budd is here. absent. Commissioner Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Addenda to the agenda. I want to point out, we have three continuances: Item B, R-99-12; Item D, it's PUD-99-13; and Item E, PUD-99-14. Ron, are they continued to a date certain, or -- MR. NINO: I think some of them are. Commissioner Wrage is COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: D is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: 3-2. MR. NINO: I think most of them are going as 3-2. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The first one is listed as 3-2. The CHAIRMAN BUDD: How about the other two? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- others are not listed. MS. MURRAY: Indefinitely. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Indefinitely. MR. NINO: Indefinitely on D and E. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have the first one continued to March 2nd. The other two, indefinite postponements. Page 2 February 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, and-- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Also, I'd like to modify the addenda to start out with the presentation by Beth Yang from the MPO regarding bicycle paths. If we could move that up to the front of our agenda. Do we have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: So moved. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So moved. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and a second. All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have no minutes to approve, so we don't have to worry about that. Any Planning Commission absences? Everyone's planning on being here. Board of County Commissioners' report. Ron? MR. NINO: Item -- the Bretonne Park increase in height from three stories to four stories was approved. The petition with respect to boat docks, the boat dock lots on the famous Third Street in Bonita Shores, that was approved. And the conditional use for earth mining was also approved. And the petition for a child care center in Naples Park was denied. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you, Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The boat dock petition, we had recommended a denial -- MR. NINO: You had recommended denial -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- is that correct? MR. NINO: Correct, you had. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Ron -- one other quick one, Mr. Chairman? The 86-acre parcel adjacent to Collier's Reserve that Page 3 February 17, 2000 we had recommended denial? MR. NINO: It's on indefinite-- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. MR. NINO: -- hold. COMMISSIONER BRUET: MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER BRUET: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER BRUET: CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, good. It's not scheduled for board -- -- approval at this time? I think they're negotiating. Yes, thank you. We have no chairman's report, so we'll move into our agenda and start with Ms. Beth Yang. MR. NINO: Let me say that Beth has been with the county, what, for two weeks, Beth? Two months? Okay. MS. YANG: Three weeks. MR. NINO: Anyway, Beth is the new bicycle path coordinator for Collier County. She's been with us a very short while, in any event. But she's been very noticeable around the office. And I think she's a great addition to the county staff. MS. YANG: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Beth Yang and I am the bicycle and pedestrian program coordinator in the Metropolitan Planning Organization. We're responsible for the planning, coordinating, promoting bicycle and pedestrian programs in Collier County. And the bicycle and pedestrian program serves its citizens through the pathway advisory committee; the pathway advisory committee and the citizen advisory panel, to offer public input and future bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Now it is my great pleasure to introduce Chris Hagen, the chairman of the pathway advisory committee, to make a presentation on future pathway needs in Collier County. Again, commissioners, thank you for your time. Chris? MR. HAGEN: Good morning, commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So Chris, all that complaining about being last on the agenda was worthwhile this morning? MR. HAGEN: Thank you so much for moving us up. I appreciate that. My clients will appreciate that. Page 4 February 17, 2000 I'm here on behalf of the pathway advisory committee. I've served on the committee for approximately five and a half, six years. It's a group of dedicated local residents who have quite a bit of passion for the pathway program throughout the community. During my short tenure I've seen the budget for pathways grow from roughly 10,000 a year to over half a million a year. The County Commission and the public seem very supportive of a unified pathway network for the community. They see the benefits that it will draw away from regular automobile traffic and will help some of the less fortunate people move around. Our primary goals initially were to build some connectivity into the existing network, and we concentrated on getting school children to and from school, that being a big safety issue. And we've been looking and prioritizing throughout. We're in the process of setting a new year's worth of priorities forward. And one of the main purposes for me being here today is to ask you all, as the Planning Commission, to be very careful when you grant exceptions for deviations from the county requirements on pathways. Because the vast majority of our budget is spent on filling gaps that could have been done better if we knew then what we know now. Obviously we can't fix everything right away. There's a limited budget and there's thousands of miles of pathway in gaps and holes that we could look to build in the future. There are going to be some exceptions. We'll rely on your good judgment. But don't throw them out quickly, because we're finding that with even a half a million dollar budget, we can have projects that because of lack of foresight really are expensive. In some cases, down in Linwood, for example, we want to try and put a pathway in there for Shadowlawn Elementary. And because -- now, that's an ancient subdivision, but with the large ditches and that being the only local drainage, we're looking at having to enclose that entire drainage ditch with a pipe. All of a sudden what should be a 7 to $8 a lineal foot sidewalk becomes a 50 to a $100 lineal foot sidewalk. Just to put in the pipes, et cetera, not to mention how it will disturb Page 5 February 17, 2000 traffic during construction. So we're here to request that you all consider those closely. And pathways tend to be the first thing developers look to trim a cost here or there. And in some cases it does make sense; having a sidewalk on both sides of a short residential cul-de-sac does seem a little excessive. But there are other times when they've been excluded or been allowed to be excluded where it's really cost us. So I'm asking you all to consider our issues, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, thank you, Chris. MR. HAGEN: Do you all have any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? We're set, thank you. Moving on to our first advertised public hearing, BD-99-28. Do we have any disclosures on this item? Anyone that wishes to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.} MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 15-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 20 feet into the 80-feet wide waterway. The property is located at 214 Sixth Street, in Bonita Springs, and contains about 75 feet of waterfront frontage. The project consists of the construction of a horseshoe shaped dock intended to accommodate a future boat lift. Seven similar extensions ranging from 17 to 22 feet have been approved along this waterway. No objections to the project have been received. The proposed facility meets all criteria and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Does the petitioner wish to address the board? Is there anyone from the public to address the board? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Move approval. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Page 6 February 17, 2000 All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Second item, Item C, PUD-95-01(2). Are there any disclosures relative to this item? Okay, anyone that wishes to testify on this, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Excuse me, Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have a disclosure, that I've had a conversation with Mr. Anderson with reference to this petition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray with current planning staff. Before I present the project, I need to read into the record that since this petition was filed, the trustee for the land trust that owns the subject PUD property has changed. The new trustee for the Naples Gateway Land Trust is Gerard A. McHale, Jr. He is at 1601 Jackson Street, Suite 200, Fort Myers, Florida. And although the trustee has changed, the beneficiaries of the trust, which are listed in the copies of the application, have not changed. The petitioner seeks to repeal the current Naples Gateway PUD and adopt a new PUD to essentially accomplish one objective, and that is to change the text of Section 5.3 of the PUD document to add as a permitted use new and used motorcycle sales and service and sales of related merchandise. The current adopted Naples Gateway PUD is comprised of approximately 13.45 acres. It is located on the north side of Pine Ridge Road, approximately one-half mile to the east of Livingston Road. The project currently permits a range of commercial uses to meet neighborhood shopping needs, as well as the motoring public traveling from 1-75. Just to let you know what's going on in the site right now, Page 7 February 17, 2000 currently 3.25 acres adjacent to the western boundaries of the site are currently under development for a Hawthorne Suites Hotel. And according to a site plan submitted by the petitioner, the motorcycle sales facility will be located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. And I have the overall site plan posted up here. This being the Hawthorne Suites Hotel currently under construction, and then on the eastern boundary of the site is the proposed motorcycle sales and facility. Consistent with the approved PUD master plan, access to the site will be provided directly from Pine Ridge Road. The submitted master plan shows that the proposed structure will be approximately 90 feet from the future right-of-way line of Pine Ridge Road when it is widened to six lanes later this year. The site plan indicates that the proposed structure will be located more than 300 feet from the rear property line abutting Livingston Woods Lane. There are several components of this PUD which make this a palatable amendment to staff relative to compatibility issues. This is a text change to an existing commercial PUD which presently allows a range of commercial uses, including a very similar use; that being motor vehicle dealers, new and used, which are permitted to maintain repair departments and accessory sales as ancillary or secondary uses to vehicle sales. Second, the Naples Gateway PUD was approved with significant buffering and architectural requirements which assist in mitigating the impacts of the proposed uses on the Estates zoned property to the north. And that is specifically a 20-foot wide type D buffer, as required along Livingston Woods Lane, with more stringent screening than currently required by code. Within this buffer, trees are required to be spaced a minimum of 15 feet on center, with a single row of shrubs placed a minimum of three feet on center. Both trees and shrubs are to be located on the northern side of an eight-foot tall architecturally finished masonry opaque wall. Additionally, the southern side of this wall, the PUD requires at least 45 red maple trees or similar type of trees planted at Page 8 February 17, 2000 eight feet tall. Internally, a five-foot wide buffer along each parcel is required to be developed with trees spaced a minimum of 20 feet on center, and a single row of shrubs spaced a minimum of three feet on center. Furthermore, the PUD is located within the activity center surrounding the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and 1-75, where consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, the location of commercial development is encouraged. The proposed commercial use is similar in intensity to those uses permitted by right in the current PUD document. And additionally, Pine Ridge Road is scheduled for widening to six lanes, beginning later this year. In consideration of these conditions, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners in order to amend the text of the Naples Gateway PUD to allow this use. I did receive two telephone calls in objection, and one letter also in objection. Mostly the objectors were concerned about the noise emanating from a motorcycle type of facility. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? If we could hear from the petitioner. Mr. Easy Rider Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, on behalf of Harley Davidson of Naples, and which is a contract purchaser of the easternmost parcel in this PUD. I have a handout here which includes the reduced copy of the site plan for your viewing pleasure, as well as a rendering of the proposed Harley Davidson building. There are specific architectural requirements in this PUD as well, over and above anything that the county might otherwise generally require. And I provided Ms. Murray with a copy of that this morning as well. This PUD was originally approved in 1985, and was updated in 1997, pursuant to the PUD Sunset review provisions of the Land Development Code. As Ms. Murray stated, it is within an Page 9 February 17, 2000 activity center, and the comprehensive plan provides that the full array of commercial uses are permitted within an activity center. In addition to the similarity of this use with new and used motor vehicle sales, which are already permitted, also permitted in this PUD are standalone automotive repair services. I would emphasize that under this PUD, there is a 20-foot wide landscape buffer, an eight-foot tall wall along the northern boundary, and trees have to be planted along both sides of the wall. The PUD also requires that anything more than a one-story structure must be set back a minimum of 90 feet from Livingston Woods Lane. In the case of this building, as iljustrated by the site plan, the building will be set back more than 300 feet from Livingston Woods Lane, the equivalent of a football field. And let me address myself to an issue that although it is not relevant to a land use proceeding, it may be one that is lurking in the back of your minds, or perhaps those of the neighbors, and that is the issue of whether a Harley Davidson dealership will be a magnet for a group like Hell's Angels or something similar. The answer is no. I've been provided demographic information on the type of customer that Harley Davidson draws in the South Florida district. The South Florida district is everything south of Daytona, Ocala and Port Richey. 40 percent of the customers within the South Florida district are graduates of either college or graduate school. Fully 80 percent of the Harley Davidson customers in the South Florida area have an average annual income of $50,000 or greater. Further, 70 percent of the customers of a Harley Davidson dealership within South Florida are 41 or older. Harley Davidson customers are an upscale group, not unlike the type of customers that could be expected to shop at the Waterside Shops of Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Where they wear their leathers. MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure those will be for sale in the facility. Now, I know some neighbors have expressed concern about noise. I would point out that there is a requirement in the PUD, a Page 10 February 17, 2000 new one that we volunteered, that the service area garage doors cannot face Livingston Woods Lane. And in fact, under the site plan, these service doors will face east towards 1-75. I would note that all service and repair will take place inside a fully enclosed air conditioned service area. And I believe that with the service area orientation towards the interstate, the fully enclosed service area and the football field setback from Livingston Woods Lane, together with a 20-foot landscape buffer and the eight-foot wall and the trees on both sides of that wall, that there will not be any noise generated by this site that would be able to be heard in the adjoining residential area, be able to be heard above the sounds of traffic that are already there from Interstate 75 and Pine Ridge Road or the future Livingston Road that's immediately west of this activity center boundary. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that you might have, and we would request a recommendation of approval to the County Commission. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Anderson, I fail to see where the fueling islands are for this project. MR. ANDERSON: There -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I saw your name on here and that location. MR. ANDERSON: As a matter of fact, gasoline service stations are prohibited in this PUD. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to commend Mr. Anderson on giving us such factual detail on the clientele and the issue of the noise. I appreciate those questions being answered so thoroughly. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions, comments? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? There being none, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning Commission send its recommendation for approval for Petition PUD-85-01(2} for approval. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. Page 11 February 17, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Pedone. Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We will move on to Item F. That is V-99-27. Any disclosures on this item? All those wishing to testify, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a variance for a rear yard encroachment. Mr. Ormsby is trying to build a house, a stilt house, and the stairway will be encroaching to the rear setback by 10 feet. However, the stairway will be inside the pool enclosure, and it will be a roof there and unenclosed stairways, just steps coming down. It's a stilt home. Staff recommends denial of this variance. However, this is not going to be something that's readily visible. And a large piece of furniture or landscaped tree would have the same effect as this stairway. Staff has received several phone calls from neighbors; however, after hearing what the variance was about, they were very happy and they did not object to the granting of this variance. And I also sent a letter to the homeowners' association in the area, and I haven't received anything back from them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So the neighbors are not complaining, nor is the homeowners' association of Old Hickory Shores? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Did I understand the stairway is enclosed, or not enclosed? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's not enclosed, but it's going to be Page 12 February 17, 2000 within the pool enclosure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I understood that, but -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, the stairway is not enclosed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's just the steps coming down. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I do have one question. Reading the material here, I'm curious as to why the design professional didn't take more caution with what he designed here. Because one of the issues says that the petitioner would have to scrap his plans and go forward. Did you have that discussion with the design professional, Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The design professional is here. He can answer your question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would, come to the microphone and state your name for the record, please. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, commissioners. Corey Williams with Boyatt Design Corporation on behalf of Mr. Ormsby. Mr. Ormsby, through the design process, decided that he wanted to have access to his boathouse, which he had been granted a variance for along the waterway. We felt that by existing codes today, we're allowed to go over the setback three feet, just so long as the stairway's unenclosed and unroofed. Our recommendation was that he could run it down the side of the house, but it would look more like a fire escape on the side of the house and it just wouldn't look very good. We were thinking if we could get this variance, put the stairs within the screen enclosure, it wouldn't be an obstruction of view to any of the adjacent residents. And that was his feeling, that he didn't want the fire escape look and he just wanted to scrap the set of plans if he couldn't get the stairs within the screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Any other questions? Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? There being none, we'll close the public hearing. Page 13 February 17, 2000 Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning Commission send its recommendation of approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals for petition B-99-27. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries. Agenda Item G, that is V-99-30. Any disclosures on this item? I have a disclosure. I spoke with Mr. Hoover regarding this. Any others? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have to make that same disclosure. COMMISSIONER BRUET: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: technically speak to him. I've had the same conversation. I only had a voice mail, so I didn't CHAIRMAN BUDD: No further disclosure? All those wishing to testify on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners, Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a variance for a pool and screen enclosure within the Tall Pines subdivision. As you can see on the visualizer, it's north of the intersection of Pine Ridge and Airport in the Tall Pines subdivision. The crossroads are Airport -- or the Naples Boulevard and Ardisia Lane. You can see in red the subject lot and the lake preserve behind it. And now on the visualizer is the proposed encroachment. You can see in yellow the existing home. There is an existing lanai out in this area. The rear setback for an accessory structure is 10 feet. And a standard 14 by 30 foot pool with the screened enclosure for safe access around the pool will not fit. Mr. Hoover is requesting a five-foot encroachment into the Page 14 February 17, 2000 rear setback. And he has supplied letters of no objection from the neighbors on either side. And as you can see on the aerial photos, technically in the plat -- this is called a lake. Mr. Hoover I think more correctly called it a lake/preserve, because a lot of it has remained wooded and not just open water. The neighbors on either side who did not object would be the most closely affected people. The neighbor across the lake probably would not even have a view of the proposed encroachment. And on the aerial, too, you can also see one of the major reasons for the encroachment. Mr. Hoover is the contract purchaser on the land. He did not build the house. You can see the setback of the adjoining houses. Required is 30 feet. This house is set back over 75 feet; therefore, making it extremely difficult to put a standard sized pool in the backyard without requesting an encroachment. I received one phone call asking questions, and the person did not object. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah. When you say standard size pool, what is a standard size pool, Fred? MR. REISCHL: 14 by 28 I have been told is a standard size pool for a single-family house. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You recommend denial after all you've said? CHAIRMAN BUDD: They recommended denial in code. And interpretation of their code is that they are constrained from recommending approval. But if they could, they would recommend approval. MR. REISCHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Can we hear from petitioner, please? MR. HOOVER: Good morning, commissioners. Bill Hoover, I guess representing my wife and I in this case. I've got a hand-out I'd like to provide the board. The home was built about 13 years ago, and the -- what Page 15 February 17, 2000 we're requesting is five foot of a 10-foot rear variance. Without the variance, you can see on there there's 15 and a half feet to provide a pool, a step-down from the lanai, which takes a foot and a half, and I believe it's customary to have a three-foot walkway on each side. We talked to Certified Pool and Mechanics. They said they didn't see a problem if you drop that to two and a half feet. So you could see without a variance you -- I think what you get is a substandard pool. My neighborhood to the north is Mike Baviello. His wife is -- I don't know if she's just a realtor or real estate broker. Speaking to them, they did provide a letter of support. But they don't really feel it does a whole bunch of good for a neighborhood putting in an eight or nine-foot wide pool in a neighborhood where the homes are running 2 to $400,000. They told me their home was appraised for $400,000. The subject home has been rented out for at least three years. And the outside looks pretty good, but the inside, not much has been done in that whole time. The home's probably about 2,200 square feet. So what we'd like to do is go in and remodel the inside and add a pool. And we'd prefer to have something that -- we can put more money in the pool by having a 14 -- it costs more, but when you go sell it, it's an asset for your home, as well as the people around there, because I think it's going to improve property values. One thing you can't see on there is underneath the tape -- and I do have another aerial picture you can look at. But there is a six-foot high hedge underneath the tape on both sides of the property. Unfortunately the tape's probably about seven feet wide on the aerial, so you can't see that. So between -- since the pool is going to be entirely behind the house, with the two hedges, the only people that could possibly see the pool would be the two neighbors on each side that have already supported the project. No one else I don't think's going to be able to see the pool as you -- if you look at the bottom picture, if Fred doesn't mind showing that, you can see Page 16 February 17, 2000 across the lake between all the preserves, no one else can see it. One of the people from the board of directors from the Tall Pines Homeowners' Association went down there, walked around the property and came back. He also provided me a letter of support and said, 'What's the big deal?" So if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? There are none. Anyone else from the public to address this item? Being none, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I recommend that we forward Petition V-99-30 to the BZA with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I'm a little puzzled as to why if this language that Mr. Hoover has highlighted for us, if that's operative, why the staff couldn't recommend approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, we'll hear an answer. MS. STUDENT: Yes, for the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. There are cri -- that's general language. There are criteria in the -- that you have in your staff report that staff has addressed factually that are more specific and that you're to be guided by. That's just like a purpose and intent statement. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Item H, schedule to adopt the community redevelopment plan, and the Bayshore/Gateway and Immokalee component plans. MR. NINO: The appropriate staff person isn't here, so I guess I'm it. Ron Nino, for the record. It is the intent of the long-range planning division to go to Page 17 February 17, 2000 the board asking to establish a community renewal district that would deal with the specific implementation of the master plans that are being generated for the Bayshore Triangle area; you know, the Davis Road/U.S. 41 triangle, and the general area of Bayshore. And one of the financing tools will be to capture taxes known as tax increment financing, which is a tool that captures all the taxes resulting from development after the date of adoption of the CRA. And in order to capture the taxes for 1999, the time frame is July the 1st of the year 2000. That's the time when preliminary rolls are first of course prepared. And in order to meet that schedule, staff is asking that instead of the statutory 60-day review time that you have, that it be crunched down to 30 days. That's the long and short of it. We recommend approval. We think the 30 is -- august bodies can certainly handle that within the 30-day review time frame. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I've spent two years on this MSTU creating this CRA that's before us now. So it would seem nice to lope 30 days off of the last two years. So the support of this board would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions of Mr. Nino? Do we have -- we'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we move the petition forward to schedule and adopt the community redevelopment plan for the Bayshore/U.S. 41 Triangle area forward, as prepared by staff. Second. Motion and a second. Any COMMISSIONER URBANIK: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any public comment? Page 18 February 17, 2000 yOU, Is there any discussion of the addenda? Is there any reason we can't adjourn? We're done. Thank There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 19