The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 04/20/2000 RApril 20, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 20, 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: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Michael Pedone Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Karen Urbanik Gary Wrage NOT PRESENT: Russell A. Priddy ALSO PRESENT: Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, ,aPRIL 20, 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 WRITYEN 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, 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 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 OFTHE PROCEEDINGS PERTAfNIlqG 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 C,M~L BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 16, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAInMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUD-2000-02, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover planning & Development, Inc., r~r~entmg Mark L. Lindner, Trustee, requesting a fezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hibiscus Village PUD for a maximum of 200 affordable residantial housing umts for property located on the west side of S.R. 95 I, approx'mmt¢iy % mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, cousistmgjof 18.76:1: acres. (Continued to 5/4) (Coordioator: Chahram Badamtchian) ; 1 ao Co BD-2000-02, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing George C. Kellogg, requesting a 20-foot extension from the permitted 20 feet to construct a docking facility extending a total of 40 feet into the waterway, for property located at 242 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, further described as Lot 10, Bayfront Gardens, m Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Companion to V-2000-03) (Coordinator: Ross Gochenatu) V-2000-03, Miles L. Scofield, of Scofield Marine Consulting, representing George C. Kellogg, requesting a variance of 5 feet from the required 7.5-foot west side setback for a docking facility for property located at 242 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, further described as Lot 10, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. (Companion to BD-2000-02) (Coordinator: Ross Gochcnaut) V-2000-09, George L. Vamadoe, Esquire, of Young, van Assenderp, Vamadoe & Anderson, P.A., representing La Playa LLC, for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement of thirty (30) feet to fifteen (15} feet, the front yard setback of thirty (30) feet to twenty-six and one-half (26 IA) feet and separation between building requirement from forty-nine (49) feet to thirty-five (35) feet for property located at 9891 Gulfshore Drive. (Continued from 4/6) (Companion to CU-2000-03) (Coordinator: Ron Nino) CU-2000-03, George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, of Young, van Assenderp, Vamado~ & Anderson, P.A., representing La P!aya LLC, requesting Conditional Use "5" of the "RT" Resort Tourist zoning district for a private club per Section 2.2.8.3 for property known as the La Playa Hotel and Beach Club, located on Gulfshore Boulevard, further described as Lots 25 through 30, inclusive, Block A, Unit No. 1, and Lots 24 through 28, inclusive, Block B, Unit No. 1, Conher's Vanderbilt Beach Estates, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Continued from 4/6) (Companion to V-2000-09) (Coordinator: Ron Nmo) CPR-99-1 - Repeal. Ordinance, An Ordinance rescinding and repealing in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based Objectives and Policies at issue m Administration Commission Case No. Acc-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM); by providing for: Section One, Rescission and Repeal of Ordinance No. 99-63; and Section Two, Effective Date. Rescissmn Ordinance, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 89,05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan having the effect of: Rescinding certain EAR-based Objectives and Policies at issue m Administration Case No. ACC. 99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM), more specifically portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Ord. No. 97-56), Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (ord. No. 97-59), an Drainage (ord. No. 97-61), Subelements of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element (Ord. No. 97-63), Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Ord. No. 97-64), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Ord. No. 97-66), and the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map (Oral. No. 97-67). CPR-99-3, An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05 as amended the Collier County Growth Management Plan by adopting remedial amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as directed by the Administration Commission in its June 22, 1999 Final Order in Case No. ACC. 99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM) to the following elements: Future Land Use; Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Subelement of the Public Facilities Element; Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element; Housing Element; Golden Gate Area Master Plan and related maps; Conservation and Coastal Management Element; adding a vesting policy to the Future Land Use Element for properties located in certain Activity Centers that were rezoned consistent therewith during the mtenm period between adoption of the EAR-based amendments and legal effective date of said amendments; and correcting certain map references in the Golden Gate Master Plan. 2 Adoption of Ordinances to amend the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element (GGAMP) and related Maps; the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and related Maps; the Transportation Element (TRAN) and the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) as follows: CP-99-i, GGAMP Amend the Golden Gate Parkway Office Commercial District to allow retail uses. CP-99-2, GGAMP Amend the Commercial Infill Designation to permit office and retail commercial uses on the NW comer of Santa Barbara Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway. CP-99-3, GGAMP Amend the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict to provide 7.15 acres of commercial uses or Conditional Use on the SE comer of Wilson and Golden Gate Blvd. CP-99-4, FLUE Amend the FLUE to provide a new commercial subdistrict for mixed use commercial at the intersection of Airport and Orange Blossom Roads. CP-99-6, CIE Amend and update the Capital Improvements Element. CP-99-7. TRAN Amend and update the Transportation Element. 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS I0. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 1 I. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ! 2. ADJOURN 4120/00 AGENDA/RN/im 3 April 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order. We'll start with our roll call. Commissioner Priddy, absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Commissioner Rautio is absent. Any addenda to the agenda? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak to the committee at the end. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Anything else? Motion to amend the agenda? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we amend the agenda. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All those in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we will hear Commissioner Urbanik at the end. Okay, any planned Planning Commission absences? I'm going to be gone on May 18th. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So am I. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: So am I. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other absences? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'll be absent May 4th, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could we focus on May 18th? Is there anyone else going to be gone May 18th? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. Page 2 April 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I'll be gone on May 18th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Urbanik is. We have four announced absences on May 18th. We've got five remaining commissioners for a quorum. So Ron, if you could follow up and make sure everybody shows, or it's going to be a waste of time for somebody. MR. NINO: May t8th. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. And I'm sorry, you had another absence? COMMISSIONER BRUET: 4th. May4th-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: May 4th? COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' And I have to leave early on the 4th, maybe about 10:00. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I'm not going to be here on May 4th. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay, so we have two out on the 4th, and Commissioner Abernathy is going to have to leave a little early. Any others to announce? Okay, backing up a little bit to the approval of the minutes. We have our minutes of March 16th. Do we have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Mr. Chairman, I found an error in prior minutes we approved. The March 2nd minutes, Page 15, regarding the -- let me see if I can find it here -- the preemption device that went along with CU-2000-O2. That was my motion. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And who did they have recorded as the motion -- COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Commissioner Rautio. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay. Marjorie, will we just make a motion to amend those previous minutes? Page 3 April 20, 2000 MS. STUDENT: Yes, I believe that's the proper procedure. And have it noted for the record, and that they be amended. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Karen, we'll take that as a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those minutes are amended. Okay, Board of County Commissioners' report. Ron, do we have anything? MR. NINO: Well, you might be interested in knowing that the board decided to approve the Mastercraft variance, which you unanimously recommended a denial of. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have no chairman's report. We'll move into the advertised public hearings. Item A has been continued to May 4th. We'll move on to Item B and C that are companion items. That's BD-2000-02, and V-2000-03. We'll hear those together and we'll take separate motions. Are there any disclosures on these items? There being none, if there's anyone from the public that wishes to address the Planning Commission on this item, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Witnesses were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ross? MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. The petitioner is requesting a 20-foot extension, as well as a five-foot variance from the required seven and a half foot side setback for docks, to create a docking facility that would protrude a total of 40 feet into the waterway. In order to construct the facility, both the extension and the variance would have to be approved. The property is located at 242 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, in Lely Barefoot Beach, and contains about 53 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a dock and boat lift. The property has a relatively small amount of water Page 4 April 20, 2000 frontage and is located at the end of a dead end waterway, as is shown on the petitioner's drawing here. The project would have no adverse impact on the neighboring properties or use of the waterway. And construction of a viable dock would not be possible without both the variance and the extension. According to the petitioner, the owner of adjacent lot nine to the north has no objection to the approval of these petitions. We've received no other objections to this project. We see it as a reasonable request, with no adverse impact on the environment or the community and, therefore, staff recommends approval of both the variance and the extension. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for staff? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Your recommendation is that the petition be approved subject to stipulations listed in the resolution. What are the stipulations in the resolution, in addition to the exotics that's always in there? We don't have a copy of the resolution, or at least I don't. MR. GOCHENAUR: Okay. I can't explain why that's in there. They would be the typical standard stipulations for boat docks. If there are any mangroves in the area, typically we ask that the dock be field adjusted to avoid removal of mangroves. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Manatee warning? MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Manatee sign? MR. GOCHENAUR: Yes, sir, manatee warning and exotics removal. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So there's nothing peculiar to this particular dock? MR. GOCHENAUR: No, sir, there are no additional stipulations to those standards. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The other question I have regards the diagram you have on the screen. How do you derive the dog-leg out there at the -- MR. SCOFIELD: I found it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is that yours? MR. SCOFIELD: It is. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Scofield, if you'd come up to the Page 5 April 20, 2000 microphone, please. MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, excuse me, Ross. Miles Scofield, for the record, representing the applicant. I can show this to you. What it didn't show up on the reproduction, the little dock-leg there, it's two arrows coming down and you see the word that says riparian line right above it? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. From the riparian line, you have two lines coming out. There's an arrow on each end. And on the reproduction, it did not show up. It's just pointing to those lines as riparian lines. And I'll show you this real quick. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if the -- MR. SCOFIELD: You can see it here. See the little arrows? It doesn't -- they don't come out to the point. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: In other words, the point is out further. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I see. I can see the arrows now. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Yeah, it didn't show up on the reproduction. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But it doesn't change your problem. MR. SCOFIELD: No, sir. GOMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. GHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Scofield, while you're there, do you have any comments? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I don't. On lot -- the only -- excuse me, I'm losing my voice. On lot nine is really the only one that would be affected by this. The previous owner to lot nine, we -- I did some sketches for him, showing him several dock configurations he could do on his lot. He could have a -- he's got quite a large shoreline. He can have a fairly good sized dock, and wouldn't have any interference from what we're asking for today. Since then, lot nine has been sold. We have been trying to get in contact for the past 60 days with the new owner, and we have had no luck. I understand he does -- I think he lives here in town. But we have written letters, we've made numerous phone calls, and so he's aware of it. And we have not received anything Page 6 April 20, 2000 from him, so -- but there is no problem. As I showed the previous owner, we can build the dock there without any interference. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any other questions? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. Let us first consider Item B, that is BD-2000-02. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve BD-2000-02. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Urbanik. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion is approved. Do we have a motion on the variance? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll make a motion that we forward Petition V-2000-03, recommending approval to the BZA. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Abernathy, second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Moving on to the next item, we again have two companion items, D and E. First is a variance. It's V-2000-09. And the second item is CU-2000-03. This is the La Playa property. Are there any disclosures relative to this item? I have one. I met with Mr. Morton, Mr. Varnadoe and Ms. Sprowl. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I also. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: I'd like to announce that there are sign-up slips. You neglected to do that earlier. There are speaker sign-up slips Page 7 April 20, 2000 on the podium in the -- I mean on the desk in the lobby. Anybody who wishes to speak ought to sign one of these forms that indicate you wish to address the commission. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Ron. Any disclosures? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have disclosures with Mr. Varnadoe and -- I'm looking right at her. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Sprawl. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ms. Sprawl. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I have the same disclosure. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I also. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So did I. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So did I, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have had a phone conversation with the petitioner also, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, those are the disclosures. For all those wishing to address the Planning Commission on these two items, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, thank you. Mr. Nino, you are -- MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, planning services department. The order in which we ought to address these petitions is the conditional use petition first and the variance secondly, as obviously we need to deal with the -- with the use that is driving all of the changes proposed for La Playa; namely, the introduction of a private club. Under the Land Development Code, the property in question is zoned RT. The FiT district permits as a matter of right hotels and multi-family structures, and permits as a conditional use private clubs. Now, we ought to appreciate the -- that conditional uses are typically deemed to be compatible with the uses permitted as a matter of right. However, they have peculiarities about them that need to be specifically addressed. It's what I call the but for syndrome. If it weren't for these facts, conditions, the use would be permitted as a matter of right. And the opportunity to apply -- the opportunity to introduce those conditions that will make it compatible is the conditional use aspect of the petition. Page 8 April 20, 2000 So we have to start from the premise that basically conditional uses are deemed compatible with the underlying uses. However, because of certain peculiarities, we get the -- we need to introduce conditions to ensure that those areas of potential incompatibility are removed. The TwinEagles beachfront development -- and of course, as Marjorie brought to my attention, there are conditions precedent to approving a conditional use, and those are specifically spelled out in the Land Development Code. So when a petitioner makes -- a petitioner and staff make a showing or finding that the conditions precedent to allowing the conditional use have been satisfied, really, the preponderance of the evidence would support then your recommending the conditional use to the County Board of Commissioners, or in this case, the Board of Zoning Appeals. You might have read in our staff report, we support the approval of the private club on the basis that the private club will not really change, in the opinion of staff, the operational characteristics of the La Playa Hotel. It would be a lot different if we were dealing with a singular -- the only use being the private club, as in the case of TwinEagles, just up the road where several -- about a year ago an approval was granted for a private -- basically a private club. That's a singular private club. But when you introduce a private club into a hotel, it's the opinion of staff that really nothing changes in terms of traffic generation. Instead of the general public going -- please, I am addressing the commission. You will get your opportunity to speak to the commission and disagree with that position. When you -- the La Playa is now both a hotel and is also a public gathering place. The restaurant is a public facility. And members of the public, of course, as you all know, visit the La Playa. That situation will really, in the opinion of staff, will not change by the introduction -- by taking a portion of the La Playa hotel and operating as a private club, that really nothing is going to change in terms of traffic generation characteristics. So we have -- and as we identified in our response to the conditions precedent, we believe that this application for a private club meets all of the conditions that are prerequisite to your recommending the approval of the private club. The details of that I'm going to leave to the petitioners, Page 9 April 20, 2000 because they have some very iljustrative graphics that are going to show you, in fact, how they are going to accomplish that. They're going to tell you that in fact they are going to tear down a part of the three-story hotel and introduce a whole bunch of amenities, in addition to adding the private club space to the existing hotel structure. (Commissioner Rautio enters boardroom.) MR. NINO: Now, as a companion to that, they're going to -- as this petition proposes, and this is not a part of the conditional use. They have the right today to go on the east side and construct a parking garage. The parking garage is a permitted use. It's not a question here. They have that right to do that today. Because that -- under the proposition that that's an accessory use to the hotel, they have a parking structure, a parking garage, a parking lot. And if their parking demands in their opinion justify the investment in a parking structure, they have the legal ability to do that. So that that is not an issue. They also have the ability to enlarge the convention center, or indeed to build hotel rooms on the east side of Gulfshore Drive. That's not an issue here. However, because of the way that they want to do that, they find it necessary to ask this commission to recommend and support certain variance requirement -- variances to setbacks. Now, I need to advise you that even though the staff report in the advertisement indicates that a variance request is being sought for a front yard setback and a rear yard setback, that in fact this petition does not require a rear yard and a front yard setback. And we need to apologize to you by indicating that we did not recognize the fact that indeed the Land Development Code, there are two sections of the Land Development Code that deal with setbacks. And we failed to recognize a little used provision in the Land Development Code which applies different setback requirements for waterfront yards on the -- on the intercoastal where there are seawalls. And I'm going to hand this material out to you. This provision allows you to construct facilities on the intercoastal near the bulkhead line than the minimum setback that is required under the supplemental regulation section of the ordinance that deals with setbacks on a waterfront lot. This is the -- this type of provision obviously is modeled after Page 10 April 20, 2000 the Venetian Village type of development, which allows buildings -- and this applies only to nonresidential types of buildings -- allows buildings in that kind of environment to go near the bulkhead line than they could under the dimensional requirement that is in another section of the Land Development Code. I understand, and I understand talking to the petitioner, that indeed they wish to take advantage of this provision and place the building a little further back sufficient to eliminate the need for the three-foot setback to the front yard. That will put the building about t 0 feet from the bulkhead line. So the long and the short of it is that the major part of the variance request is really not required. However, the -- that part of the variance request for space between buildings is still before you. And to that extent the staff again would reiterate what we said in our staff report, that the space between buildings requirement, when you take it in the context that they could build a singular building across this property, not have -- indeed not have any space at all between buildings, but to construct the development as a unified structure, that indeed we think the splitting the two buildings up into two -- into two structures is preferable in terms of the impact of the massing of buildings in an area that would otherwise be achieved -- would result with one building as opposed to two buildings. So we support the approval of the variance to reduce the space between buildings requirements, and again appreciate that variances have attendant to them criteria which you must find. And we've address that criteria, and we think that the preponderance of the criteria that supports the granting of a variance has been met. Staff recommends the approval of the conditional use, and the granting of the variance, reducing the space between buildings requirement. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do you have any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I've got one, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have one. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Ron, then the only-- under-- the variance, the only issue there is the distance between two buildings? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So when people that are going to Page April 20, 2000 peti -- have petitioned to discuss the issues, the issue they need to discuss is the distance between the buildings? As opposed to other issues. MR. NINO-' In my opinion. Unless Ms. Student-- MS. STUDENT: No, that-- MR. NINO: -- offers the contrary. MS. STUDENT: Based on what I heard Ron say, that the original -- a variance was for three different things. Because of the provisions of subsection 2644 of the Land Development Code, those yard variances, there are two of them, go away. And the only thing that remains is the distance between structures variance. Is that -- MR. NINO: That's right. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So the discussion needs to focus around that Land Development Code -- MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- issue? Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd just would like to apologize for being late, and I need to disclose that I've had a discussion with Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. Morton on this particular issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Nino, going back to the statement you made that elicited a response from some members of the audience, I think it was to the effect that changing from a hotel to a club in the same four walls and so forth wouldn't cause any increase in traffic and those sorts of things? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's my understanding that -- MR. NINO: We're really not changing, we're adding another dimension. The petitioner is adding another dimension by utilizing some of the hotel space as a private club. The hotel remains. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. But I understood you to say that its impact in the neighborhood would not change because you're just shifting around the uses within the four walls. MR. NINO: Correct. Page 12 April 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if there are whatever there are, 137 rooms now and there's going to be 137 rooms afterwards, and the club mem -- and let's assume that all those rooms are occupied on a given day and you have a club operating there whose members are not hotel guests, wouldn't it have to follow that there's going to be some increase in traffic and that sort of thing? MR. NINO: No, because I think there -- they offset the -- in my opinion, they will offset the -- this hotel will -- and these facilities, I believe, will not be open to the general public. So the private club members are what is basically the general public today that's using the facility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So they will -- by excluding the general public and eliminating it to club members, you'll break even on that. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Do you know how many club members there can be? MR. NINO: I don't know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of staff? MR. NINO: But by the same token, there isn't any limitation on the number of general public people -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: General public, that's right. MR. NINO: -- for the building. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being no questions, if we could hear from the petitioner, please. MR. VARNADOE: Good morning. For the record, George Varnadoe, attorney with Young van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, representing the petitioner, La Playa, LLC, which is a partnership between Barron Collier interests and Noble House interests, both family-owned corporations. Also here today to answer questions and address the board, if necessary, are Steve Rossi, of Rossi Architect, the architect for the project, and Ron Tallone, traffic consultant with David Plummer and Associates. As Ron has mentioned, you have before you today a conditional use application and a variance request. I think the logical question is what are we trying to accomplish? Where are we going with this? And the answer is pretty simple. Page 13 April 20, 2000 What we want to do is create a four-star boutique hotel resort where La Playa currently exists. We say four-star, because we don't expect to compete with the Ritz Carlton either in size or in the magnitude, but we do want to approach that in terms of quality coming just below that level with The Registry. Obviously the size is not going to be near the same. In order to accomplish this, we need to make major renovations and enhancements to upgrade and revitalize the existing facilities. Upgrading the existing facilities is integral, not only to the financial viability, but also to the neighborhood aesthetics. Frankly, this property is somewhat tired and dated property. The crescent building goes back to the Sixties. The -- I'll use my laser pointer, if I can, in this location. The tower building, built I think '80, '81. And then later on, the conference center was added across the street. Without some renovation and rethinking, we think this facility could become a detriment to the area in the future. I don't know how many of you have been here long enough to remember Fifth Avenue. And I don't remember when it was, 10 or 15 years ago, but that had gone to a state where Ingram's Hardware was closing up, they were putting plywood in the windows, Baxter Shoes was moving out, and we had can couple of blocks of Fifth Avenue which were -- looked to be doomed for T-shirt shops and the like, without some revitalization. Finally city council woke up and allowed some revitalization in that area, and today we have a very dynamic situation there. But I think the only point I'm trying to make is things cannot remain static. As much as we like to keep things as they are, they can't. They either have to revitalize and have a rebirth, or they go down with the quality and attractiveness to the general public. The type of amenities that are consistent with a four-star resort -- that is, spas, fitness facilities, expansive pools and decks, lush landscape areas -- are difficult to justify with 154 hotels. These are the same kind of amenities that would appeal to guests of a private club. The property is zoned RT, which allows hotels, time-share units and the like, and allows 100 feet in height for buildings. RT district, as Ron has described to you, also allows private clubs as Page 14 April 20, 2000 a conditional use. And that is one of our requests. You've also heard Ron talk about the variance request. And I will get into the justification for that as I go through the presentation and we get to that part of the project. A combination of a private club in conjunction with a hotel is not a new concept in our area. Both the Beach Club and the Registry Resort both have private clubs in conjunction with their operations as hotels. As the comprehensive -- as the staff report notes, we are consistent with the comprehensive plan. I won't spend a lot of time on that other than to tell you that the Future Land Use Element encourages the inclusion of other recreational uses in conjunction with water dependent and water related uses, such as a beach resort. Let me try to walk you through the changes and upgrades, hopefully in a logical manner. I think that's the best way to understand what is planned for the project. As we described, we've got the existing La Playa Resort on both sides of Gulfshore Drive. The tower building and the crescent-shaped building, containing 154 rooms, parking on both the west side and then a parking lot all the way to the seawall on the east side, plus the conference center. As I noted, all built at a different point in time. The -- I want to start with the west side and the plans for the west side. And that's depicted in this site plan here. The modernization of the buildings' incorporation into architectural elements, such as columns, beams, similar roof treatments, we tried to go through and recreate roof elements that will unify the property throughout the project. Probably the use of barrel tiles, similar architectural schemes, some landscaping up on the outside corridors in the towers, trying to unify the property which now, frankly, chose very little architectural similarity. We will also be removing, I don't know, 20, 25 percent of the building in this location, and taking out some 42 hotel rooms. We will take out all of the parking on the west side of the structure. We will be relocating -- and this is one of the points that I'm sure you will hear about. The access now to the hotel is here. A very limited entry and a very limited ability for vehicles. We'll be relocating the access to this position, a greatly expanded access, with a private entry for club members, a private entry for Page 15 April 20, 2000 hotel. As you can see, a greatly expanded area to accommodate traffic and get it off Gulfshore Drive. Also, this coordination will result in the elimination of about four access points on the west side of the street. Now you have the ability to go in here and here and here and here looking for parking. That will all be coordinated to the one access here. Also, when people are at the conference, going to a conference in this location, they're staying over here. They have the ability now to cross the street willy hilly at any location. We'll have a privacy wall here and a coordinated pedestrian access, which will coordinate the pedestrian crossing at this location with the covered walkway and conference center. We think that will improve vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress, vehicular safety and convenience, and also, relieve congestion, such as it is, on Gulfshore Drive. Approval of the parking on the west side and the enhancement will also provide the ability to greatly enhance the streetscape with landscaping and a relocated sidewalk. If that doesn't fall, we'll all be fine. And what we have here is a kind of before and after. And you're looking south along Gulfshore Drive with the east property line being in this location, west property line in this location. Currently on the west side in the crescent parking area, you actually have some parking out in the right-of-way, a little bit of landscaping, sidewalk, a smidgeon of grass, the street, a little bit of landscaping, the covered walkway to the conference center, some landscaping, and then your car is up very close to the road, as you can see on the aerial photograph here. Under the revised scenario, we'll pull everything back behind the property line, we'll have a privacy wall with some landscaping you'll be able to see from the street. Landscaping, a meandering sidewalk, additional landscaping, then the street and then additional landscaping, because the covered walkway would be pulled up against the building under the revised plan. And here we have kind of an elevation of the west side of the street, if you would. You can see some landscaping, the privacy wall, some architectural feature, perhaps some water features. We know we're going to do some parking -- I mean, excuse me, some parking -- some benches for pedestrians along there. Page 16 April 20, 2000 So that gives you kind of a planned view of the proposal we think will greatly enhance the streetscape. This is the site plan view of kind of the streetscape along there. You can see the -- on the west side, the meandering sidewalk. Again, the benches and architectural features; the ability to put some landscaping between the sidewalk and the streets. Except in the location where we cross our entryway there, we do have to bring the sidewalk back out on the street edge, and then the enhanced landscaping on the east side of the street. I know that the Vanderbilt Beach area is going to work on a new streetscape and we think this will fit right into that and perhaps provide the model for them to follow. On the east side -- and I'll skip to the east side, unless you have questions -- we have some serious upgrades and enhancements over there. As you can see from the site plan, we have a parking structure at this location, which is five floors parking above grade with a coordinating entrance to the hotel and private club. Also, a coordinated pedestrian entrance. Again, this was not done haphazardly. This is an attempt to enhance and improve the existing traffic flow, both pedestrian and vehicular in the area. One of the issues we've heard is that when there is something going on at La Playa, it's very difficult for people to get off the street. This will greatly enhance and improve traffic flow and pedestrian flow in that area. We are going to relocate the 42 rooms, remove from this side to a building that's attached to the conference center. The five floors of rooms over a two-floor building. The first two floors will be relegated to breakout rooms, multifunction rooms for smaller groups, backup hotel services, offices, the kind of things nobody sees, but we all know have to be there for this kind of facility. I should go back and mention that all parking in the parking structure will be valet parking. Hotel guests, private club members, will be accommodated on this side and all the parking will be valeted across the street. Before I -- and if you have any questions on the site plan, this would be a good time, because I'm going to go into the variance requests very quickly. Page 17 April 20, 2000 But before I talk about the variance request, I think it needs to be put in perspective. There is the ability, as Ron mentioned, on this property to build one large structure on or very close to the seawall and accommodate all these facilities. Again, I'll join in Ron's apology for not picking up this section of the code that shows that we can build this facility closer to the seawall. Both of us missed that the first time through, which is the reason we had the rear yard and front yard setback. But by moving this building three and a half feet closer to the seawall, which is allowed by your code, will still leave about 11 and a half feet in the rear yard, plenty of room for landscaping, and not require a front yard variance. However, with regard to the building separation in here, we looked at a design with one large building that was connected, and obviously would not require a variance if it is connected. That became a parking structure with rooms on the top. It became a very tall building, and had more mass than the two buildings have. This way we're able to keep this facility to under 60 feet, next to our neighbor, which is 84 and a half, 85 feet. And the only height is in this location here where the rooms are a wedding cake back from the rest of the structure and the setbacks. We think the only impact of the reduced separation is to provide a view corridor. And the only people it really impacts are our property; internal to our property and not external to our property. Again, I guess one of the other features is by having -- not having the units in a single building strewn across the property, we don't have the ability for hotel rooms looking down on condominium properties. I know we've got quite a few people here today that may have questions or issues regarding this project, and I'd like to take just a minute and talk about some meetings we've had. We've had meetings with some 18 groups or individuals, including the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Property Association, and the LeDauphin Condominium Association, as well as -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, repeat that? MR. VARNADOE: LeDauphin Condominium Association. Page 18 April 20, 2000 THE COURT REPORTER: Spell that, please? MR. VARNADOE: L-E-D-A-U-P-H-I-N, I think. -- and single family residents. And I know they all have some issues that they want to talk about. I'd like to talk about how we address some of the issues we've heard and some of the concerns. We met with the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association on several occasions, and their concerns were -- I think the first and major concern was our plan to take this from a hotel and public restaurant/lounge to a resort hotel and a private club where the public would not be allowed. We heard from their members through their president, Dick Lydon, that a lot of their members go there for sunset and dinner, and they asked if there's any way we could accommodate their continuing use of that. We said that we would consider that and try to work with them and that we would leave it open, if the commission approves, for a period at least three years to see if we -- there can be a coexistence between a resort hotel/private club and some members of the public from the neighborhood. If it becomes a conflict, then we will have to have some phaseout of the public from that. The second issue, and I think the one that you've heard some public comments of sorts on, is the traffic or traffic congestion situation on Gulfshore Drive. And I think that's two separate issues. The amount of traffic is one issue, the traffic congestion is another. And traffic congestion, frankly, at this facility has been a -- can be a problem because of the limited access for valet, which is limited to this area here. Plus there are eight curb cuts, as best I can count, on the property currently. Here, as I've said, we've tried to address and control that with one unified entry for members for valet, a coordinated entrance into the parking facility, elimination of the access points along here. There's still some parking under the conference center, so there's still an access point along here. We think that would greatly reduce the -- any congestion problems along the property, even in the event of an event. I'm sure you noticed in your package, you had a traffic impact statement prepared by Plummer & Associates addressing the traffic that would result from a resort hotel and a private Page 19 April 20, 2000 beach club. They actually took traffic counts at both the Port Royal Club and the Miramar Beach Club up in Lely Barefoot Beach. By monitoring the number of trips in and out and comparing those on a square foot basis to the square footage that would be devoted to club members in this facility, they got a participation rate, and by adding that onto a resort hotel, the conclusion was there would actually be a decrease in the number of trips at this facility if it was open only to hotel guests and private club members. And one of the rationales that -- I know that you say, well, we're going to add 5,000 square feet for club members and some dining for them, how can that be? Well, one of the reasons is when you turn this into a resort hotel, people don't pay the extra money to go here, as opposed to the Residence Inn or somewhere else, to then go scouting around town every day. You provide the amenities, the spas, the workout rooms, the pools, the cabanas, all of the amenities here, and they tend to stay on the resort more. And that's what your ITE generation rates tell you, is that the trips go down because of the resort aspects of the facility, and the fact that private clubs have a very low utilization rate. Having dealt with the -- the best we can with the neighborhood issues and really thinking that we're going to raise property values in the area through the great enhancements we're going to make to the facilities, we had several meetings with the LeDauphin residents, which are the two buildings I'm trying to point to. They're directly south of our facility. And they had concerns that were separate and apart, if you would, from the neighborhood concerns. Some of those had to do with what we were doing, and some of those had to do with ongoing operations and concerns they had. We have tried to address those as best we could. And if you give me a couple of minutes, I'd like to run through those, Mr. Chairman. The service area for LeDauphin is in this area here, the south end of the-- MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You're standing in front of the diagram. No one can see it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you look at the TV monitors, what Mr. Varnadoe is pointing at is on the monitors. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: TV monitor. Page 20 April 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: There's monitors in the corners of the room. MR. VARNADOE.' That's why we have all this high technology, so you can see when I'm standing in front of the board. As I was saying, that the service area is at the south end of the tower building of LeDauphin and has been there since the early Eighties, long before the LeDauphin Condominium was constructed or thought about being constructed. However, the service area now, deliveries have to -- that are in a large truck have to back in off the road into this area, and that is a loading dock. It's the access to the kitchen. It's where all the linens have to be delivered, the food stuffs, the beverages, et cetera. So that is not the most desirable, from an aesthetic point of view. We have tried to address that -- Mark, if you'll stick that up there -- by putting a roof, if you would, over the service deck. That roof area is some 18 and a half or 18 -- almost 19 feet by 35 feet, covers the loading area there, if you would. Putting a planter next to it, putting some planting that differentiates the two uses and locating two handicap parking areas there. So we are reducing by about half the loading area in there, and also, covering it so as to hide it from the adjoining residents. That then makes that not work functionally for deliveries, so we have relocated the commissary, if you would, and the delivery to the east side of the property. And as you'll note on the existing facility, there's a drop-off of the conference center here. Same here. We're proposing to get rid of that. As Mark, Vannah White Morton will -- we tried to get him to wear a bathing suit, but he wouldn't do it. What we are proposing in the ground floor, to relocate the commissary and then have a situation where the large trucks can back in, two abreast and, therefore, get that use away from the residents in this area and over in the middle of our property. In addition, the dumpster for the property currently is located in this location here, which is in some proximity to the residential structure. On the east side of the road, we're going to move that and put that in that location there. And I guess the best thing I can tell you, that if these things become a problem for anybody, it's Page 21 April 20, 2000 the problem for us and not our neighbors by relocating them into the middle of our property. So it's up to us to make those function appropriately. The other issue that we heard from LeDauphin residents was the parking structure in this location. The -- as you can see, the parking lot now is at ground location and goes all the way to the seawall almost to the street from property line to property line, almost. And they were concerned that if -- that if this is raised and we have upper floors, that they might hear a door slamming or see lights or things of that nature and asked what we could do about it; could we make the wall on the south side adjacent to them a solid wall. And we said yes, and we have done that. We will provide extensive landscaping on there. There will be planters and trellis on the top floor so it will block any views to cars from the very top unit in LeDauphin, and also provide a more aesthetic building. The -- they had the same questions about access to the property, congestion. I think I've been through that sufficiently. In summary, we think it's an exciting project. It's upgraded enhancement both for this property and for the neighborhood, in our opinion. We think this will provide benefits, not only to the owners but also to the neighborhood in terms of enhanced property values. We've got the people here to answer any questions. I think the best thing to do, unless you have questions now, is let the public speak and then we'll try to respond to any issues or questions they raise. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? If not, we will hear from the public. Mr. Nino, we have some registered speakers? MR. NINO: Dick Lydon. David Rynders. MR. LYDON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Dick Lydon. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. And I've spent my life in the travel and transportation business. And when they came to me with this idea of making a private club and cutting out the local residents, my first thought was that somebody was smoking some funny kind of weed. I have traveled the world for some 50 years, and never before have Page 22 April 20, 2000 I seen a hotel property where the public was not allowed. And it worried us in Vanderbilt Beach. It worried us a bunch, because we're running out of places to go and have a drink and have dinner and watch the sunset. We have two on Vanderbilt Beach. We have the Vanderbilt Inn and we have now the Turtle Club. You can go to the Ritz, that's not on Vanderbilt Beach, if you can afford the Ritz. Yesterday was my 53rd anniversary. We took the time to drive all the way to the Beach Club so we could sit by the beach and have dinner. Our concern was the private factor of that club. And fortunately, they have given us a three-year back-off on that, and I think we can probably live with that. Frankly, I think economically they're going to find that a meeting planner, which I spent most of my life doing, is not going to book a hotel room in a private club. And that's in effect what you're doing, because you're getting no local people involved. Be that as it may, we think it's a lot better than what we could have had, and we could have had some interesting things, such as another 15-story high-rise. We could have had some boat docks sticking out into Vanderbilt Lagoon. And Lord knows, we don't need any more of those. We could have had some better -- some much worse neighbors than the Barron Collier Company and the Noble House people, both of whom have a reputation for being very, very fine people and working closely with us. We know that Vanderbilt -- or that Gulfshore Drive must be upgraded and changed. We do have a traffic problem there. But it's the same problem, ladies and gentlemen, that we have all over Naples. It's a four-month a year problem. And we're doing all kinds of crazy things in this county now to try and support the four-month traffic. And I question whether or not we need to spend all of our money to do that. We can see some other benefits in this. By eliminating the unsightly parking lot, which we over on the other side of the lagoon have to look at. The landscaping and aesthetic improvements on the east side -- based on these pretty pictures that we have seen and we hope it will look something like that -- should help us. And the streetscape upgrade will be of great assistance. Yes, we think Barron Collier and Noble House will be a good Page 23 April 20, 2000 neighbor. We appreciate that they're going to let us stick around for awhile to see what emphasis it has on the club membership. Traffic-wise, volume-wise, they've had a club in there for a number of years. Now, ever since Pelican Marsh came into play they have allowed the people from Pelican Marsh, given them some incentives, as a matter of fact, to come over there and have a drink and use the beach and have dinner. So it's not all that new from a traffic standpoint. The garage I think will help it a great deal. In closing, the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association believes that we are getting a good new neighbor, and we think we can work with them on the private club aspect to keep all of our people happy. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. RYNDERS: Good morning, my name is David Rynders. I'm an attorney and I'm representing Mr. Richard Dubois, who was the original developer of the LeDauphin Condominium Association that George was pointing out a little while ago immediately to the south of the project. Our first issue that we want to point out is that there's not 154 hotel units there, there's 191 hotel units there. The project is there for a nonconforming use. It was built at a time when the zoning code allowed more density. And the history of the project is that the original owner, back in the early Eighties and developer -- or late Seventies, actually transferred some units from the east side so that he could get the hotel units on the west side, which were more valuable and more attractive to tourists, so that the density of the property is at 191 hotel units now, which is some 40 odd units above the permitted density, which is the figure that Mr. Varnadoe made reference to, I think 154 units. And since it's above the permitted density, your provisions within the Land Development Code, Division 1.8 on nonconformities, comes into play. And Section 1.8.1.2 contains a declaration that nonconforming uses are declared by this division to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. And goes on to say that they may not be enlarged, increased, intensified or altered, in Section 1.8.3.1. And section 1.8.3.2 says movement: No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or Page 24 April 20, 2000 parcel, other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or relevant amendment of this Land Development Code. In other words, they cannot move the 40 odd hotel rooms across the street to the west side under your Land Development Code. And your comprehensive plan makes this provision of the Land Development Code mandatory, since it implements your Growth Management Plan, and is the -- the whole purpose of it is designed, as it states, to eventually permit these nonconformities to continue until they are voluntarily renovated or removed, but not to encourage their survival. That's in section 1.8.1.1. So if he they will reduce the number of hotel rooms down to 154 total, where they put them on the property is no problem. But they do have to lose approximately 40 odd hotel units before they can approve this. Now, the conditional use was described just as a private club, but now you're being told it's a private club in addition to the public. And I don't have any problem with that. Because as George said, there are private clubs established at The Registry and the Naples Beach Club Hotel. But those facilities are also open to the public. The private club aspect can only add to the intensity of the traffic at this site. It cannot function in any other way. And an essential thing you have to realize is that two-lane road there cannot be improved. It's not like Airport Road or Pine Ridge Road where you can add a couple of lanes on each side. The only way that road can be approved is if you double deck it. It cannot be widened. You cannot acquire additional right-of-way there unless you move the right-of-way out to people's front door steps. Consequently, that two-lane road will forever have to bear the additional intensity of any uses you approve that increase the impact on that road. You'll never be able to take them back. And the road will never be able to be widened. So the size of the project puts it into the nonconformity category and automatically makes it in -- this proposed conditional use. The existing use is incompatible and, therefore, a conditional use that is going to add to the existing use is incompatible, so that the -- it's not legally possible to approve this conditional use. Particularly you can't consider the conditional use separate from the site plan that's been presented Page 25 April 20, 2000 to you, unless they eliminate the 40 odd hotel rooms that they propose to move to the west side, which would then bring them into conformance. And I haven't done the arithmetic, but 154 units is what's allowed there and what George referred to. 191 units is what they've got. They'd have to move 40 -- they'd have to just remove 47 hotel rooms, which is a little more than they proposed to move across the street. But once they do that, the project can go ahead. And let me say that that would be a real benefit that the Vanderbilt Beach Association and the other people in that area would appreciate. I'm not sure it helps the economic feasibility of their property. The application for conditional use that's submitted by this property owner starts out with the statement that this renovation and change is necessary for the -- an economic return on our investment. Now, that doesn't mean they're going to take the same number of customers they have got now and just double the bill every night. That means they're going to have more customers. There can be no other possible way to enhance the economic productivity of the property but by adding customers. If you add customers, they have to move on and off the site. The road is limited. There simply is no way to improve that road. I go to -- occasionally to functions at the Beach Club Hotel. And I know the county doesn't pay the planning staff enough to go to some of these functions at the Ritz and stuff, so they perhaps do not realize that if you limit your parking access to a valet only and eliminate four other access points, you've got four other places where traffic cannot get off the street. And I have photographs that my client has taken now showing the pileup of traffic on the site from the attempts by people to get into the current valet system. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Rynders, just be aware, if you're introducing those pictures into evidence, we're going to take them from you and keep them for the record. MR. RYNDERS: Well, actually, I'm not going to introduce them into evidence, because I'm going to need them later. And all I can do is put them up here and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, don't refer to them then, because that's -- Page 26 April 20, 2000 to, MS. STUDENT: There's a problem if they start to be referred CHAIRMAN BUDD: If they're referred to, they're ours. MR. RYNDERS: Well, I'll have to make copies and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We can run -- staff can work with you to make copies so you can get copies back. MR. RYNDERS: Yeah, that would be fine. And then, therefore, I'll just stack them up here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That would be fine. MR. RYNDERS: Maybe-- MR. NINO: We have a visualizer here, Mr. Rynders. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Rynders? MR. RYNDERS: I understand your-- my time is limited. There are a number of provisions of the Growth Management Act I don't have time to go into, but because of this nonconformity and density, this application is inconsistent with your plan and with your code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Rynders -- well, no one called me and let me know that this was an issue, so I'm not really prepared to opine to the Planning Commission today. It would have been nice if Mr. Rynders office had given me a call and given me a heads up. And especially considering another attorney in our office reviews conditional uses and variances now. So I am -- this is hitting me blind sighted and I'm not going to be prepared today to offer an opinion to the Planning Commission. I just wanted you to know that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. MR. RYNDERS: I apologize. I've only been retained in the last few days and I'm barely prepared today. MS. STUDENT: Well, that's why especially I want to look into it further, if that's the case. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino, would you be able to address to your knowledge, do we have a nonconforming use with 191 hotel units currently operating here? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, let's establish we have 191 first. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, why don't we do that? MR. NINO: Yeah, Ron Nino, for the record. We're not really dealing with the issue of density. That will Page 27 April 20, 2000 be administratively dealt with by staff when site plan applications are submitted to us. MS. STUDENT: And I was going to observe that -- MR. NINO: I don't really think that density is on the table, but -- MS. STUDENT: -- that we're dealing with a conditional use and a variance, and the density issue and nonconformity would seem to me at first blush -- again, without gone into this -- having gone into this in detail -- that's a site planning issue, as Ron addressed. But Mr. Rynders has made some allegation that somehow this is inconsistent with our comp. plan. And consistency with the comp. plan is one of the items that you need to look at when you're looking at a conditional use. We have some provisions in our plan that deals with property that's totally improved and so forth. And it's sort of, you know, grandfathered in in that way. But it would have been nice to, again, as I said, to have had a heads up on this. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll take the issue at this point in that it is an issue that will be addressed through the permitting process, so that when this -- if this should proceed and is permitted, that you have the proper number of units. And again, to remind everyone, we're going to concentrate on the private club and the side yard setback is the two issues behind us today that we're considering. Mr. Nino, the next speaker, please. MR. NINO: Lloyd Bowein, followed by Darryl (sic) O'Neill. MR. BOWEIN: Yes, I'm Lloyd Bowein. I've lived next door to the La Playa on the north side -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, were you sworn in? MR. BOWEIN: Yes, I was here. And I live on the north side on the beach, and in fact we were there before La Playa was. I believe my mother initially had to approve the original building of the original La Playa. She was living in Miami at the time. And that was in '66, '67, somewhere in there. And, you know, she didn't know what the deal was at that time. So we've come over. And they made us certain promises that would occur, which never happened, but that's neither here nor there. Page 28 April 20, 2000 But I agree with Mr. Rynders. What's going on here, if they're asking for doubling their convention space, doubling their parking -- I believe it's doubling, I could be wrong -- but increasing their parking, then obviously they expect more traffic. And in considering not only the traffic that we have there now, we still haven't even felt the impact of the Regatta or The Dunes, which, granted, are east of us, but those are going to increase the traffic on Gulfshore Drive, which is already heavy, even off-season. And from what I understand from the presentation I got, they're going to be looking at somewhere around 1,000 members for the -- 500? CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would, just address the questions MR. BOWEIN: Okay. Well, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 members. But, you know, if you are going to grant a private club, maybe you could require a cap on the membership. Because from my understanding, and I could be wrong, just from what I know, that they're going to be charging somewhere around 40,000 and up for these memberships. And, you know, if you're going to pay that kind of money, I think you're going to show up and use the facility. And, you know, that could be a year-round thing or it could be possibly seasonal; I don't know. But that's going to increase the use. And they're just getting into the traffic effects. Right now in the season -- and I've lived on the beach for over, you know, close to 30 years, and right now during the season the use of the beach there is -- you know, it's sort of busting at the seams as it is. And if you, you know, put another 500 or 1,000 members, then you're going to have a problem, you know, just accommodating them on the beach without flowing into the residential areas. So that's just another problem I see. And again, I was also concerned about, you know, cutting it off from the public. Although they're willing to give me some accommodations, as mentioned earlier, where they're going to have a certain period they'll allow it. But, you know, being right next door and having used the facility ever since it's been there and then all of a sudden cutting us off, I really don't think that's fair, since it was our understanding that that would be a public hotel and restaurant and lounge and so forth forever. We never Page 29 April 20, 2000 knew anything about this private club concept. And again, I don't know that those changes -- making a private club, it's my understanding they're also putting up like a six or eight-foot wall along Gulfshore Drive, which is sort of like putting it into a compound and really separating it more from the neighborhood. And another thing they didn't bring up is they're going to be having conferences. Now you have the public coming there, you have the private club, you have the hotel guests, but the conferences can include people that are not staying at the hotel. Which right now I know they've had various conferences over there that when there -- I think there was a contractors meeting or something like that a while back, and the traffic was just horrendous. I mean, they were parking in my yard, it was so bad. So I'm just saying that, you know, this change is obviously going to increase the traffic on Gulfshore Drive, no matter how you look at it. Another thing he mentioned -- and again, I agree, the Barron Collier Company and Noble House are good people and I think they're trying to do their best, but, you know, they have needs and wants other than ours. They -- obviously they want a profitable business there and they paid a premium to get that property. But I don't know how closing it off to the public and enhancing it for a private club is going to increase anybody's property values on Vanderbilt Beach and that they won't have access to it. So, you know, their argument that it's going to increase our property values I think is wrong. And that's basically all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. NINO: Darryl O'Neill, followed by Bud Martin. MS. O'NEILL: My name is Darcy O'Neill, but -- MR. NINO: I'm sorry. MS. O'NEILL: -- my infamously bad handwriting has caught up with me again. We're property owners up at Monte Carlo Club, which is towards the northern end on the bay side. And there's a great deal of concern again about the traffic issue, which I keep hearing this referred to as volume on Gulfshore Drive. Volume on Gulfshore Drive isn't nearly as difficult a problem to deal with Page 30 April 20, 2000 than the fact that we already have a terrible congestion problem at both ends. We happen to be closer to the northern end, which is already problematic because of the county park there and the parking and the high density housing that's already there. But we haven't even begun to feel what's going on -- what has already been permitted by the county at The Dunes, in which we have almost 600 units, which have now been given a piece of property at the TwinEagle's project, which they can shuttle back and forth to. So what I want to underline is I feel that this commission is responsible to look at what you've already allowed; the full import of which is not -- the impact of which is not even being felt yet but is already getting to the point of frustration for the people who live in that area. I would suggest that if you want to do traffic studies, that you don't go to Barefoot Beach. Go on up to Fort Myers and Estero, which is where those of us who bought at Vanderbilt Beach thought, you know, this is great, we've got a nice strip that won't turn into those places. Now, we feel -- I feel, I can only speak for myself -- that that's exactly what's going on here. Again, it's got to -- let me underline it. I mean, you've got to kind of tortile when you hear them say that bringing on however many -- which they refuse to seem to want to specify -- new members will not increase any kind of traffic. Why would they need extra parking? Are they planning to helicopter them in? How exactly are they going to get there? This is a beach club which is appealing specifically to people who do not live at the beach. They have to get there. So again, I don't feel that traffic studies that are in low areas and don't take into account congestion, bottleneck problems at the ends of each one of them are an appropriate way of dealing with that issue. In any case, I'm actually surprised to see that La Playa, which is owned and operated by a very luxury end of the hotel market group -- which is not very English, but you know what I mean -- is so unconcerned about this particular situation as well. I'm sure that they understand that the more exclusive this area is, the more that they're going to be able to leverage more profits out of it. They can bring their room rates and their banquet rates up to their neighbors to the south's levels, The Registry and the Page 31 April 20, 2000 Ritz. There are other ways of them becoming more profitable without impacting the living conditions of the people around them. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. NINO: Bud Martin, followed by M.A. Ashpole. MR. MARTIN: I'm Bud Martin, and I'm here for LeDauphin. And I've met with La Playa, LLC several times about these different changes. The first time we met with the group, our condo people said hey, we're going to take a really bad situation and make it a lot worse. Traffic's bad, garbage is bad, more people are going to be in, there's going to be more people eating, more garbage, more traffic, more congestion, more bad, all right? After meeting with the group, they addressed a lot of our specific concerns about traffic backup, hiding garbage, what have you, and have been cooperative good neighbors. And for most people, when we first heard it said no, no, currently whenever they look at revised plans, they say we think we can live with that. There is a continuing concern, though, with traffic, and it's not just traffic counts of cars coming in. It's special event congestion. And we've spoke with them and they're working for extra staging areas. But I think we forget that it's not just traffic we're concerned about, it's safety. This is not just a roadway. This is a very -- I mean, we've got a lot of pedestrian traffic, we've got a lot of bicyclers, we've got a lot of inline skaters, we've got people pushing kids in strollers up and down what amounts to our bike path. We've got one bike path and one sidewalk. I happen to have a couple of those pictures, copies of them, which I can leave with you, showing congestion. And then importantly, I think showing what happens when you get congested. If you'll notice -- it's hard to see, but there's a car here, because of congestion, that is coming around cars stacked there and driving in the bike path. So what we've got is not just more or less cars, we've got cars and people. And we're getting more and more people, and more and more people using the walkways and bike paths. I believe that there will be more traffic. The traffic study Page 32 April 20, 2000 that I've seen compares to beach clubs that are essentially visited by people that live close by. So Port Royal Beach Club, a lot of people that go to that beach club walk over. And Miramar Beach Club, a lot of people that go there walk over. And because of the nature of this beach club, very few beach club members will walk over. But I'm less concerned about the actual peak traffic use during normal beach club operations than special event use where we get congestion stacking up. Perhaps a condition that limits number of special events or attendance at special events could alleviate some of that actual congestion. And then the ongoing concern is not really La Playa, per se, but what are we going to do safety-wise for all of the people using this two-lane road that can't go any wider? Well, we can't do much perhaps for vehicles, but maybe we can do something to work on pedestrians, bicyclers, other people, where we have less chance of fatal accidents. So I guess from the design as shown, our condo association says yes, they've been good neighbors, they've worked to many of our concerns, but we still have a lot of concern about safety up and down Gulfshore Drive. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. NINO: Tim Ashpole, followed by Pat Humphries. MR. ASHPOLE: I would just like to make one comment, and that -- and I know you cautioned anybody making a comment about density. But I heard -- is it Mr. -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Abernathy. MR. ASHPOLE: -- Abernathy, I heard you mention something like 130 some rooms you were under the impression that they had. I heard Mr. Varnadoe say it was 154. I would just like to give to you, sir, what La Playa says they have. They say they have 191 rooms, guest rooms, and four elegant suites. So if this would just be put into evidence, I guess. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MR. NINO: That's it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else that wishes to address the board on this item? Yes, sir, please come forward Page 33 April 20, 2000 and state your name for the record. MR. McDONALD: I'll be very brief. I made sort of a survey of the number, and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me, sir-- MR. McDONALD: -- there are 65 homes on Gulfshore Drive. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- could you state your name, please, for the court reporter? MR. McDONALD: McDonald. Frank C. McDonald. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. McDONALD: We reside at Sandcastle. We're one of the original owners there. There are 65 homes on Gulfshore Drive. And there -- I mean, total homes that use Gulfshore Drive, both the access, the side roads. And then when you add the apartments in the Vanderbilt Towers area, there's about 1,800 condos. And when you add the 205 coming in at the corner of Vanderbilt Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road, that adds up to about over 2,000 that these roads that are already inadequate are serving. And then you add in The Dunes, about five, 600 units up there, and it's I think going to be quite a traffic jam. I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Petitioner wish to make any comments? MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George Varnadoe again. And just very briefly, I think Mr. Grant, Bud Grant (sic), speaking on behalf of LeDauphin, really sums up the issue with traffic. I think that it's not the everyday traffic with this kind of facility that causes congestion where you see people trying to get off the street. It's when there is an event, whether it's a wine tasting that one of your members said he'd been to recently there, or their having a function of a hotel guest or having some sort of function. We -- I'm not going to go back through it, because we think we have addressed any kind of a small function with the coordinated entrance and the ability to get people off the street. If there is a function, we've talked to the traffic engineers, what we would do is actually valet them into the parking facility, just like you do if you go to -- I went over to a Miami Heats game, and you come up the ramp, get to a level, they stack you in there, you know, 10, 12, 15, cars. And then you walk down and they valet Page 34 April 20, 2000 your cars. And I was talking to the traffic consultant, and he said they turn those around in less than a minute because you're already in the facility. Just bang, bang, bang. We're only adding about 5,600 square feet of space, strictly for club members. We're not going to be having, you know, those kind of events. And if you look at -- if you looked at the number of seats, we're adding approximately 160 restaurant seats. We're not adding, you know, that much space or anything with the expanding entryways. And with stacking capacity, we think we can accommodate it. You should also look at the parking capacity. And I'll try to kind of back into this to show you the limitations on the uses. You have anywhere from 60 to 80 staff on board, depending upon whether it's the normal activity or whether you are having some sort of a function where you need additional staff. So you're going to take up 60 to 80 parking spaces with staff. You've got 150 hotel rooms, to the best of my knowledge. And Margie and I will look into that before the board hearing. You're going to take up, with the 70 to 80 percent occupancy with cars, 100 to 120 spaces there. So you're going to be occupying anywhere from 150 to 200 spaces, which with 350 spaces in the parking facility is going to leave you 150 to 190 parking spaces. The calculations are 2.25 to 2.5 people per car coming to, you know, a banquet or to supper or to whatever. So you're talking about a maximum capacity of people, of 300 to 500 people, with only 150 to 190 cars where this will really accommodate. So what I would suggest is between now and the board meeting -- I haven't had a chance to talk with my clients -- that we get with LeDauphin and Mr. Grant and others who are interested, and try to come up with a maximum number of people at any event, which really is what addresses the concerns, not the number of members or anything else. It's just how many people are you going to have there at any one time, which translates into the number of cars, which translates into cars on the road. I'll be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Varnadoe? Page 35 April 20, 2000 Yes. MS. STUDENT: I'd just like to add, I feel, as I stated earlier, that I believe the issues raised by Mr. Rynders are more site plan type of issues, and we're just considering a variance and a conditional use here. And I feel comfortable with you going ahead and taking action to make your recommendation to the board, and then between the Planning Commission hearing and the board hearing, we can deal with these other issues and then come up with a final recommendation for the board. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address this item? Sir? Please come forward and just state your name for the record and -- MR. BOWEIN: Yes, Lloyd Bowein again. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- please address new issues that you haven't -- MR. BOWEIN: Well, he just brought up the thing about the parking limiting the use. What they're doing right now by using valet parking is they close to double their parking. Because with valet use, they don't have -- they're not limited to the parking places. They can stack inside. Therefore, if you double the parking, stay with valet, then it follows that you're going to double again the amount of parking they use. That's the only thing I wanted to address on rebuttal. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. VARNADOE: And I don't usually do this, Mr. Chairman, but let me respond to that. Because that's not -- the parking facility has 350 -- I think 2 -- spaces in it. And that is valet spaces. If you look at the -- and that means stacking. If you look at the parking, this is just the roof. But this is -- this gives you a good example. You'll see, Lloyd, that we have a space here and a space behind it. That is double parking. That's why we call this a valet parking facility. We have made it as small as we can. There is not the room to put 600 cars in that facility. It has a maximum capacity of valeting of 350 to 352 spaces. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Yes, sir. Please come forward and state your name for the record. MR. ASHPOLE: My name is Mike Ashpole, and I spoke a Page 36 April 20, 2000 minute ago. I would just like to point out, because it's not been mentioned today, the acreage for this site is 5.94, or 6, it's in your petition. And if you'd take the maximum capacity of that, they could -- they would be allowed 156 rooms. And you saw what they do have. And they intend to take 40 some of those and move them. And I think that that's in violation of the code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public? Please come forward. Have you been sworn in, sir? MR. HORTON: No, I haven't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Come on, come on forward. MR. HORTON: My name is Bob Horton. H-O-R-T-O-N. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, if you'd raise your right hand, our court reporter will swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. HORTON: I'd just like the commission to use a little Kentucky windage, if you will, with this whole issue. Because I do believe -- just think about this a little bit. You've got a hotel going from hotel to a resort hotel. Most people, I believe that I'd be right here, if it's a resort hotel, there'll be more people flying in. And they've got to know that. Flying in and taking a service to the hotel. So those people that are in the hotel itself probably -- there's no increase in density, okay? That is, the number of people driving in, I would say, would be on the slim side. That is in addition, either addition or subtraction. That really won't amount to very much. However, if you take 360 parking spots, and you don't have that many cars that are moving in and out, they're sitting. The people who stay in a hotel, they rent a car, it sits there. That's fine. Now, how in the world, just using common sense, can you justify the amount of money that they're going to have invested here and not have an awful lot of people coming into the facility? I'm not trying to say how many cars, I'm not trying to suggest that I know anything about the numbers of people that will be using it. But you've got to think about this. And somebody other than the prepared tax care (phonetic), there's -- to me, it's a very, very real danger on that road. People walk right next to cars. If Page 37 April 20, 2000 you would just take a look at the road, look at it in the morning when people are taking their walks and see how many cars are going by, somebody's going to get it. Thanks very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. With that, we will close the public hearing. Before we have some motions and discussion on those motions, I'd just like to remind everybody that we've got two specific issues, and one is the change to a private club; the second is the side yard setback. The rear yard setback originally brought up and V-2000-09 is not longer on the table. Taking these in order of first the variance, that's Item D. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the Planning Commission send its approval to the Board of Collier County Commissioners for Petition V-2000-09, and that it only addresses the 14-foot variance between two buildings. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Second item. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Planning Commission forward its recommendation for approval to the Board of Collier County Commissioners for Petition CU-2000-03. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion? There being none, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Both are approved. We will now be hearing some ordinance amendments. For those of you who are not interested in that, if you'd just clear the room as quickly as possible, we'll continue with our business. If you could have your conversations in the hall and please Page 38 April 20, 2000 clear the room, I appreciate it very much. You want a break? It's a good time for a five-minute break. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we will reconvene the Planning Commission, hear Item F on our agenda, CPR-99-1. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Let me say that Items F, G and H on your agenda this morning are all related to the Administration Commission's final order of last June 22rid of 1999. Before I get directly into Item F, let me tell you that in our opinion that the actions you take today and the subsequent action of the Board of County Commissioners will complete the directed amendments in the over three steps of amendments in the final order directed by the Governor and Cabinet, pending the outcome of the assessments currently being undertaken in the rural fringe lands, which will result in further amendments in about two years or so. Let me start with Item F, if I can, and try to explain to you what we are about today. In Item F, we are seeking to repeal Amendment 99-01, which was directed by the Administration Commission to remove those policies and objectives in the original '97 EAR-based amendments, which were found to not be in compliance. The reason we're before you here today is that as a result of the board's adoption of 99-01, and in its effort to be thorough, the actions taken in the adoption of 99-01 repealed the entire '97 amendments for each ordinance, text and policies. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Everything. MR. LITSINGER: Everything, as someone has added. As a result of that, as you are probably aware, the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society intervened and filed a formal objection. In the meantime, we have been trying to find a resolution to this issue. And through many hours of staff discussion, negotiation with counsel and staff, we have resolved upon an action which we believe will both satisfy the need to amend the comprehensive plan, to take out the offensive language, and also to put into effect those parts of the '97 amendments related to Page 39 April 20, 2000 the EAR report, which were not challenged or not found in compliance, but as a result of the repeal have left us with in many cases plan language which is up to 11 years old. Specifically, Item F is an ordinance to repeal in its entirety Ordinance 99-63. And it's the first part of a two-step process that we're going to recommend that you forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Essentially it's our position that this is a county ordinance repealing an existing county ordinance, and it is not a plan amendment. It will merely open the door for the next item, which is Item G on your list, where we will go back and take the action, which is more specific to the final order issued by the Governor and the Cabinet. Do you have any questions on Item F? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I need to add one thing here. I need to recuse myself. I have recused myself from all issues relating to these three agenda items, and I need to speak on that behalf. My employer owns property that's affected by this litigation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Bruet. Any questions for Mr. Litsinger? Okay, Item G. MR. LITSINGER: On Item G -- well, first, I guess -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're doing separate motions? MS. STUDENT: Yes, we will need to take a vote on F. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. With that, do we have a motion regarding this item, CPR 99-17 COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we approve CPR-99-1 and send it forward to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. Now we move on to Item G, which in effect will be to ask you to endorse proposed Page 40 April 20, 2000 amendments to replace the repealed ordinance that we have just spoken of. Briefly, to outline for you, the proposed ordinance is a new rescission ordinance which will in fact take the place of 99-01, will remove only the offensive policies and objectives and language identified by the Administration Commission in their final order of June 22nd, 1999, and will have the effect of leaving the '97 amendments, which were not challenged, in effect so that we can go forward with our comprehensive plan, knowing what is effective and what is not effective. I would like to point out quickly a couple of corrections to your package that were passed out by Michelle Mosca, in that in the Golden Gate Master Plan we have deleted Policy 223, as it was an error, scrivener's error, that that was included in this package for rescission, as it is not applicable to this particular action. And also relative to the Future Land Use Element language, we have slightly changed the wording of the final language on Page 1, Policy 3.1. You also, I believe, were provided copies of that particular change. In summary, Item 7-G is essentially a verbatim removal of the objectionable policies and objectives that were directed by the -- either directly or complied by the Administration Commission with no other changes to the comprehensive plan. And it's their position by taking this action that it may moot the issue raised by the challenge to 99.01 and also leave us with an effective plan in the interim period. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? Anyone from the public to address the rescission ordinance? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I did have a question. Just out of curiosity, on -- let's see. IV, intergovernmental coordination element, Policy 1.2.6. The county shall continue to coordinate with the Collier County School Board on the site, selection, so forth. What's wrong with that? MS. STUDENT: Mr. Abernathy, there's a long, convoluted history about that where DCA found that in noncompliance, because it had to do with an agreement with the Board of Education about school siting and where it was to take place. It was all over the county, and some environmental concerns got folded into that. Page 4t April 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It was location rather than the cooperating. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And the school board in fact had representation and intervened in the administrative hearing. But that was one of the objectionable parts of the plan that has a lot behind it that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- on its face it doesn't look that way. And we're following the direction of the Governor and Cabinet in removing that and replacing it -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It just looked innocuous enough on its face. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. First a comment, that we did receive documents. We purchased them from the county staff. They were incomplete. And so we haven't had an opportunity to read the complete proposed ordinance that you just passed and you didn't take any public comment on. And so I'd like to reserve our rights on that, because we did get a complete one this morning, just a few minutes ago. A clarification, please, on the rescinding, or whatever the right comment word is -- or the right descriptive word is. Rescission ordinance, excuse me. And it deals with Golden Gate Estates. And I understand, while I look through this and I see lots of strike-outs, and I understand that. But with Golden Gate, there's some underlinings, and if you could just explain why that is. MS. STUDENT: That is incorrect. That was a scrivener's error that Michelle just mentioned that should not have been in there. All right, thank MS. PAYTON: Okay. I didn't understand. you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Do we have a motion on the recision ordinance? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'd like to make a motion that we forward the recision ordinance to the County Commission with a recommendation for approval. Page 42 April 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Urbanik. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. Now we move on to the third step in the completion of the amendment process relative to the final order. In Item 7-H on your agenda, this is your second hearing in your review of the proposed remedial amendments called for in the administrative order, which were originally reviewed by this Planning Commission on October the 21st and forwarded by unanimous vote to the Board of County Commissioners, recommending transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners did transmit on November 23rd, and we received our Objections, Recommendations and Comments report from the Department of Community Affairs on January the 3rd of this year. As you will note in the second page of the staff report, only two objections were raised by the Department of Community Affairs relative to two elements. One being the housing element. They raised issues relative to the plan for providing current farmworker housing deficit in Collier County, and assistance in formulating measures to address that. They also recommended that we include in the plan a policy specific to Iocational criteria that would be utilized by Collier County in selecting suitable sites. If you would like to review the specific language that staff has developed in conjunction with staff at the Department of Community Affairs, we can turn to those in the specific sections of this plan, if you have any specific questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any specific questions on the language? There are none. You may proceed expeditiously. MR. LITSINGER: I'd like to make one note for the record, that Exhibit C that appears under this particular amendment, Page 43 April 20, 2000 both 99-03 as an exhibit to the Golden Gate area master plan, will be moved and adopted as part of the adopted portion of the Golden Gate area master plan and will not be an exhibit. So I would bring that to your attention. And that is the intent of staff, to recommend that we do that. Other than that, we believe that if you forward this 99-03 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that we adopt these amendments, that we will have in effect a method requirements of this stage of the implementation of the Governor and the Cabinet's final order. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public to address this item? MR. NINO: Yes, I believe there are three people signed up to speak. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward, state your name for the record. MR. NINO: Or is it the next item? I'm not sure now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: This is-- MR. NINO: Are we on H? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're on H, CPR-99-03. MR. NINO: Yeah. We have Pat Humphries, Richard Gullehon and Margaret McMillan. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Was this your item? MS. HUMPHRIES: This is Golden Gate Shopping Center on the corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard? CHAIRMAN BUDD-' No. MR. NINO: Okay, that's under I then. It's 99 -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there -- yes, ma'am. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I'd like to submit into the record a letter written by our attorney on behalf of not only Florida Wildlife but Collier Audubon dated March 31st, 2000. And also, I wanted to make a specific comment on - relating to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Objective 10.6 and Policy 10.6.2. It deals with estuarine management. And we recommend some amendments to that -- to those two items. First is Objective 10.6 is standardless. It should be amended to, and I quote, protect, conserve and feasibly restore the habitat, species, natural shoreline and dune systems Page 44 April 20, 2000 contained within the county's coastal zone. Item two is Policy 10.6.1.2. Uses the phrase, quote, undisturbed pristine habitats, unquote. Well, no habitat in Collier County is undisturbed pristine habitat; therefore, we recommend the language be modified to concentrated in the most disturbed land and avoiding less disturbed land. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Ms. Payton, did you have an opportunity to talk to staff about your changes prior to this meeting? MS. PAYTON: Yes. They're contained in this letter of March 31st, 2000. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Stan, do you have a comment on those proposed changes? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, comment on her specific recommendations for this specific item to be forwarded on to the Board of County Commissioners. For the record, we did have a formal negotiation, sharing of ideas and concerns meeting on February 18th with the Florida Wildlife Federation Council, Audubon, Department of Community Affairs and county staff. And the recommendations that she is mentioning were contained in a March 31st letter from Mr. Tom Reese, their counsel, which was extensive in its needs and wants relative to proposed changes to our amendments, as we had developed to implement this process. And it was staff's and counsel's decision not to recommend any of those changes at this time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to clarify, then, the contents of the March 31st letter are not in what we're -- MR. LITSINGER: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -. voting on today. MR. LITSINGER: No, ma'am. MS. PAYTON: There were recommended changes, but -- this is one of them. That's why I'm submitting it into the record. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. About how many recommended changes are in that letter? MS. PAYTON: It's a 14-page letter. Page 45 April 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, I don't think I want you to read it. MS. PAYTON'- No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? MS. STUDENT: Just for the record, they're quite lengthy, and they were part of settlement discussions that we had in this regard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Urbanik? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Is there a window of opportunity for them in the next amendment cycle to bring forward these, if they cannot be addressed now? MR. LITSINGER: I'll let Marjorie -- MS. PAYTON: If they didn't like them now, why would they like them six months from now? MS. STUDENT: Well, again, this was a little different than recommendations during the normal planning process. These were recommendations as a result of settlement discussions that we had. I think the county is always open to looking at ways to better its plan, and I don't know that we can just say that we would ever foreclose the possibility of doing that. But since this is in litigation, it makes it a little different scenario. MS. PAYTON: And be assured, we won't go away, we'll keep promoting our recommended changes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions on this item? Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to address this item? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm appearing here on behalf of a number of property owners, and I just wish to object to the admissibility of that letter. That was submitted in the context of settlement negotiations and is therefore inadmissible. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anyone else from the public who wishes to address this item? Any questions for staff? Start, is there any further-- MR. LITSINGER: Yes, there -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- background material relative to that Page 46 April 20, 2000 item? MR. LITSINGER: No, other than to request that you forward this set of amendments forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt these amendments into the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Do we have such a motion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So moved. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I've got both making the motion at the same time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Rautio was one decibel louder. She wins. And Commissioner Urbanik was second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion carries. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Item I, ordinances to amend the comprehensive plan. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. This item deals with the 1999 cycle of comprehensive plan amendments. These are those that have been submitted by the public, paid their fee to have their amendment go through the process, and it also includes a couple which were initiated by the county. Because you've seen these before at transmittal hearings, I'll be very brief in my presentation. There are seven -- I believe it's seven different amendments, perhaps six. We'll need a separate vote on each of those. The First Amendment is located in Golden Gate City. It is an amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan, Petition No. CP-99-01. Affects approximately seven acres, and it's a proposal to amend the Golden Gate Parkway ~Professional Office Commercial District to allow some retail uses within that area. At the transmittal, staff did not -- staff recommended not to transmit this amendment. Our concerns primarily were we felt that there was not a demonstrated need for retail uses in this Page 47 April 20, 2000 area, and secondly, concerned about some changes in the character of the district. The trans -- Planning Commission voted to transmit that amendment, that was your recommendation, and the County Commissioners did in fact transmit that to the State Department of Community Affairs. There were three changes made which are reflected in the staff report and the accompanying ordinances that the Board of County Commissioners made. One was pertaining to food stores, which is on the staff report. It would be Item No. 4, next page, Item No. 8 regarding miscellaneous repair services, and finally, under heading B on the second page, a provision regarding fast foot restaurants, providing some shielding from view for the area where orders are taken. The State Department of Community Affairs had no objections to this amendment. Staff's recommendation is still the same as it was before, of course, that it not be adopted. But you previously again did vote to transmit it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public to address CP-99-017 Any questions? Close the public hearing. Take a motion. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we forward CP-99-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? There being no discussion, all those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. CP-99-2. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Next petition is CP-99-2. This property comprises approximately 6.8 acres. This is located at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway within Golden Gate Estates. When this was before you previously, staff had recommended not to transmit the petition -- let me back up. This is to change this property to a commercial designation that Page 48 April 20, 2000 would allow for some office uses when it was transmitted. Also included a provision for some conditional uses on the western portion of the site, and also a bank and pharmacy on the eastern portion of the site. Staff had recommended not to transmit this petition. Our concerns had to do with, number one, a lack of demonstrated need for the commercial provision; secondly, a change in character of the Estates area, and compatibility concerns; and third, pertaining to transportation impacts. The Planning Commission did recommend transmittal, and the Board of County Commissioners did transmit this to the state agency. DCA had no objections to this amendment. Since this petition was transmitted, the petitioner has submitted amendments which are reflected in the staff report. The first of which is to eliminate the provision for conditional uses on the western 25 percent of the site and instead to allow office type uses, the C-1 zoning district uses on the entire site. Secondly is to add some additional retail uses on the eastern 75 percent of the site. That was previously limited to C-1 uses. And then a bank and pharmacy on the eastern portion of the site. They've added the uses identified in your staff report: Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores, general merchandise stores, hardware stores with no outside display of merchandise, and security and commodity brokers and dealers. The third change is on the eastern 75 percent of the site, which is where the non office and in addition to office uses, the uses I just stated, are also allowed is to allow two-story buildings. However, the height is still capped at 35 feet, so the end result, as far as the building height goes, has not changed. And finally, allows an option, decorative parapet walls on all buildings instead of the tile or metal roofs. That's a decorative topping on the building. The Board of County Commissioners, when previously viewing this, as I stated, I think, did transmit this to the Department of Community Affairs by a vote of 3 to 2. For this amendment before you now for consideration of adoption, we've received seven letters of opposition, six from private citizens and one from the Golden Gate Civic Association. And to summarize, the concerns are, number one, no need for additional commercial or the specific uses of bank and drug Page 49 April 20, 2000 store, there's not a need for. Secondly, concern about the increase in traffic. Also, safety concern about adding traffic at this particular intersection. Third, an opinion that the site is usable as a single-family use, as the current zoning and comprehensive plan designation would allow, and that the current zoning is sufficient at this time. And finally, the statement position that the owner/purchaser wants to make money through this development of this property at the public's expense. But again, the staff recommendation then is not to adopt. You previously transmitted this, and so did the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anyone from the public to address this item? MR. NINO.' Yes, you have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. state your name for the record. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: question. Please come forward and Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Rautio had a CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You rattled off -- before you got the objections so fast that they didn't sink in. Would you say them to me slowly again? MR. WEEKS: Yes. I apologize. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Who objected. MR. WEEKS: Well, you want the names? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The seven -- yeah, just -- MR. WEEKS: Sure. Mr. Richard Vetter, Mr. Lee Arnold, Mr. Steven Cirou. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Cirou? MR. WEEKS: Cirou. C-I-R-O-U. Mr. L.R. Cirou. Marie Robinson. Jenny Barber. And then the Golden Gate Civic Association. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Golden Gate, thank you. MR. WEEKS: Do you want me to go over the objections? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No, I pretty much paid attention to those, but I missed who we were dealing with. Thank you. Page 50 April 20, 2000 MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Did you have a speaker name, Ron? MR. NINO: Pat Humphries. MS. HUMPHRIES: No, next one. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Next item. MR. NINO-' Next one? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Your number will come up. Is there anyone from the public to address this item? Yes, ma'am, please come forward and state your name for the record. Please come forward and state your name for the record. MS. CIROU: My haree's Talitha Cirou, and I just want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter today. My family lives on the property directly north of the proposed project site. Therefore, we will be most impacted by what goes on there. For the past 18 years, we have lived a very private, peaceful life there. We have a natural barrier of trees and underbrush that provide a secure living area. If the corner lot was left residential, agricultural as it is now, it would be highly unlikely that every existing tree on the lot would be plowed down. But because we are faced with the possible commercial center, 15 feet away from our bedroom window, I might add, I'm afraid that this is very possible. I have yet to see a commercial site leave any natural vegetation, so the day the bulldozers show up, we will go from total privacy to having every person traveling on Golden Gate Parkway looking in our windows. This is the nightmare that I'm faced with, thanks to Mr. Jassey's project. I know that he's just trying to make a dollar at my family and the public's expense, which is why I'm here today, to once again ask you to reconsider allowing this project to go forward. At this time, I would like to point out that the plan you see before you today is not the one that was approved by the state when it was transmitted. I can only guess the reason being that the developer knew it wouldn't be approved, had they sent it like this. I was told at the last planning meeting that the project was looked at that there would absolutely not be an egress off of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Now today on this plan there is one. On the plan transmitted to the state there were no two-story structures, and now there are. I had originally thought that a Page 51 April 20, 2000 seven-foot wall along the length of our property would be enough to protect our privacy and our security. Now I wonder if the people in the office building on the second floor are going to be able to see what we are eating for lunch that day as they're looking down on my dining room. I wonder -- I honestly believe that this is not the right place for these buildings to go. We have plenty of undeveloped commercial properties, which I'm sure this sort of thing would be much more appropriate. I just wonder how many other Golden Gate Estate residents have to live next to a commercial infill site. There's probably none. At this time I'd like to submit a copy of the wall that we had engineered that we felt would be sufficient, if this does go through, to provide us with the security and the privacy that we're accustomed to. We did give a copy of this to Mr. Jassey, and we never really heard back from him. I don't know who I should give this to. This woman here? MS. STUDENT: I'm the attorney for the board, so I'll just pass it along up to the board. MS. CIROU: In a nutshell, I guess that's all I really had to say. I just hope that this doesn't go through and that we're left as the Estates, which we are now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for this lady? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I should make one point on the record regarding the changes that have been made. There is always some risk when changes are made after transmittal, at the adoption stage, if those changes are not made in response to comments or objections or recommendations from DCA. And particularly if they are increasing the intensity. Now, do I think -- DCA's next step, if this amendment is adopted, will be to review it and make a compliance finding. They've had their transmittal review where they can make some comments to it, but they haven't -- at this point it's kind of an all or nothing approach. They either say yes, it's in compliance with state statute or no, it's not. Do I think DCA will object to this? Probably not. And my opinion is based on the fact that this is a relatively small parcel. I think the DCA's perspective is this is small potatoes, it's not a Page 52 April 20, 2000 big issue. If some changes are made, that's more of a local issue. But that's just my opinion. I wanted to put on the record that there is some risk involved in making changes after submittal. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Weeks. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing the petitioner. I feel like I need to clarify a few comments that were made by the previous speaker. First of all, the representation that there's only a 15-foot buffer is not correct. It's a 50-foot buffer by the single-family home. Secondly, the ability to look in and peer into what they're eating for breakfast, lunch or dinner, the height has not changed on the building, it is still 35 feet on that section of the property. And I don't believe -- I don't know if you still have the aerial photo that we showed you at the last hearing, but I'll pass this down. You will see that on their own property, there's already sufficient trees blocking the home. And unless they plan on removing the trees on their own property, I doubt we're going to be peering in on any property. And meanwhile, there will still be a sufficient buffer, because it's a 50-foot buffer in that area. So I just wanted to put that in the record. And this was -- this was in the previous agenda item that you did review and approve. And she did speak at that meeting. You know, we have offered a rather substantial buffer between our proposed uses and the single-family home to our north. Also, I do want to point out that one of the letters was obviously related to Mrs. Cirou. The letter from Mr. Vetter and Mr. Arnold, they happen to be the owners of the commercial project across the street from us. The other letters -- I have not been provided copies of any of the letters. This was the first I'd heard that there were any objections to the project. The uses have been discussed -- the change in uses have been discussed with the civic association, both the Estate Civic Association and the Golden Gate City Civic Association. That dialogue is ongoing. The access issues are really site planning issues. It has nothing to do with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We would again request your transmitting your approval of Page 53 April 20, 2000 the proposed amendment to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions for Mr. Yovanovich? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Has your client tried to work with Ms. Cirou-- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- to get her to understand what's happening and what you do plan to do for her? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we have. We've had those conversations. And I don't want to rehash history about, you know, they did make an offer to buy our property at a price that was unrealistic. And they did also offer to sell their property to us at a price that was unrealistic. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So you have told her of buffers -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We've had these dialogues. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- setbacks, you've had that discussion. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: You made the comment about site plan changes. So what we're talking about here is really site plan -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, she was talking about the access off of Santa Barbara, which is really, you know, if we get it, we get it. If we don't, we don't. But this comprehensive plan does not give us access off Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I wanted to clarify. I mean, you haven't given us any access. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What was the bit with the wall? Are they asking you to pay for the wall, or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- I mean, I believe we're happy to build a seven-foot privacy wall. You know, we'll do that. I mean, we'll give them a seven-foot privacy wall, if that's what they want. I think the first request was they wanted a cinder block wall. I don't think they need that. But we'll give them a seven-foot privacy wall, if that's what they want. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question on that. Is this the place to discuss that? Page 54 April 20, 2000 MS. STUDENT: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's -- MS. STUDENT: You wouldn't put a provision like that in the comp. plan. It would come up in a rezone or something like that, or a site plan. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to clarify that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. But these are the types of arguments she's making. She's really making site plan arguments in front of you. And I believe -- we will be coming to this board with a PUD, and at that point we'll be happy to take care of that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. And the other question was, would you clarify once again, from what you've said, it would sound like you had no further discussions about who might wish to purchase the property, whether they want to buy the property from you all, your clients? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not discussing that. I mean, we're going forward with, you know, our comprehensive plan amendment. You were not on the -- I don't believe you were on the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I was. And I just wanted to make sure that nothing had happened further -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- since the time I first came on this board -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- and listened to those arguments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich. Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Being none, we close the public hearing. Do we have a motion on CP-99-027 COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we forward CP-99-2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? Page 55 April 20, 2000 COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a comment. And I realize things change. I mean, I'm going to support the motion, but I just don't like to see all these changes this late. You know, I think they should have been up front. But I will support the motion. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a comment. I am sympathetic to the family that lives north of this site, and I don't see anything right now and from my previous experience that would really permit me to say no, I can't vote on this, so I'm going to support the motion. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Well, we have heard a comment from the petitioner that he is willing to work with them on the wall. We know the setbacks, we know the buffers. And certainly at this site plan period when staff is reviewing it, I'm sure all those items will be addressed. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think that's the appropriate time, and that they really can coordinate with one another to become good neighbors. And that's my, of course, wish. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next item, CP-99-3. MR. WEEKS: This petition is also to the Golden Gate area master plan, and it is to amend the neighborhood center provision at the southeast corner of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. This location is presently designated as a future neighborhood center, and this amendment is to make it an existing neighborhood center. The site is a little over seven acres and they're asking for five acres of commercial development. When it was presented to you for transmittal, staff recommended that it not be transmitted, based upon, in our opinion, a lack of need in this particular area. We do not dispute a need for additional commercial opportunities in the Golden Gate Estates area east of 951, but our opinion is within the specific study area, that is, the Golden Gate Estates area broken down to five different areas, that there's not a need in this particular area. Page 56 April 20, 2000 The appropriate location, in our opinion, probably would be farther to the east. Our concerns had to do with the appropriateness of location and the lack of need in this particular portion of Golden Gate Estates. Also, part of our recommendation that ultimately went to the Board of County Commissioners was asking for direction that staff go and look at the Estates at the commercial needs, at the same time, in particular, as the MPO will be doing their transportation study out into the Estates area. Because with that transportation study, there would be the potential for access changes, for road changes, possibly some canals being bridged, which could change the nature of the Estates as far as which vehicles are going in which direction. But the board did not give that direction. You previously transmitted this, voted to recommend that it be transmitted, and of course the board did transmit it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have a question. The attorney -- do I have to say at this point that I own property very near here? Is that relevant to this discussion? MS. STUDENT: Well, these are legislative matters. I don't really think it's relevant. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is anyone from the public to address this item? Come forward and state your name for the record. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, as she's approaching, one comment again, please. This is the only petition that we're hearing today that DCA had any comment on. I'll say it's a minor comment. It was not an objection, but it was relative to soil testing, the fact that this property will be limited to well and septic. And one of the agencies was saying there's no documentation that in fact this site will perk, that it could accommodate septic tank for the type of development here. Our response is that that will be addressed at a later stage in the process. And, of course, if the site won't perk, if they can't get septic tank, they won't get their development. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward, state your name for the record, please. MS. HUMPHRIES: Pat Humphries, from Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Board of directors, Golden Gate Estates Civic Page 57 April 20, 2000 Association. Last year Centrafund made two presentations to the Golden Gate Area Civic Association regarding a proposed shopping center at the intersection of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard. On both occasions they promoted Publix as their anchor store. They even went so far as to say they would not pursue this project unless it was a Publix; and during one visual presentation displayed a large poster with a grocery store marked Publix. Based on these presentations, the Golden Gate Civic Association membership voted in favor of construction of the shopping center. When Publix decided to build on another site in Golden Gate Estates and Centrafund could not guarantee a grocery store or exactly what would be placed on that site, the members of the association withdrew their support. The developer then asked that we send out a survey to the total membership of our association, which we agreed to do. Unfortunately, the survey was compromised by unauthorized phone calls from the developer/owner of the property, and we therefore do not recognize the results of the survey. Since we do not know what this project entails, we are not in favor of proceeding with this project. This will be the first large commercial project in that area and will set a precedent for other projects. It should, therefore, be a first-class development. Also, there are two sites in the Estates already zoned commercial that will be developing in the future. These sites are already equipped with water and sewer. The Wilson/Golden Gate Boulevard site would entail private well water and septic tanks. And bear in mind, we are widening that road. If you feel you must approve this proposal, at least wait until the road is finished. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Other speakers? MS. McMILLAN: We have been sworn in. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Please come forward and state your name for the record. MS. STUDENT: There's no need for swearing in, because this is legislative. MS. McMILLAN: My name is Marge McMillan. I'm here to speak for myself. I am a member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic. Page 58 April 20, 2000 I live at 121 29th Street Northwest, which is about .2 -- not even .2 miles off Golden Gate Boulevard. The Golden Gate Estates is a very unique area with a very diverse group of homeowners. From millionaires, doctors, lawyers, teachers, all the way through the whole workforce, white collar, blue collar, retired people. There are some beautiful homes out there. It's a very misunderstood area by those who feel that just a bunch of rednecks live there. This is very untrue. Drive through the Estates on Golden Gate Boulevard, up and down each side street, and you will see the homes that are there, which are -- some of them are the most beautiful homes. Some are modest -- some sit on five to 10 acres, some are modest, sitting on one and a half to two acres. But you won't see a duplex when you drive through that area. These homes in the Estates, the people who built them love the land, they love the wildlife, the peace, the quiet and the country type living, with space to enjoy what we have here. There are areas in the Estates set aside for commercial purposes. Put the commercial facilities in these areas. Please do not rezone what was residential land in the Estates to be changed to commercial. Centrafund misrepresented themselves when they came to our civic association to ask our feelings on building on the corner of Wilson and the Boulevard. They were all wearing "1 love Publix" buttons. Everything they touted was Publix, Publix, Publix. The majority of people from the east end of the Boulevard, they need a store. There is a store going in, Publix, in a designated area, but it won't be built for a couple of years. There is another large shopping area on Vanderbilt Beach, on the northwest side, as I have been told, along with carriage homes and other homes that will be available. But Publix will not be at the corner of Wilson. The people, when they knew it wasn't a Publix, they were no longer interested. We have seen what happens in other areas where there are different standards of stores. We don't want that happening in our unique area. And as Pat said, when Centrafund was pinned down, did they have a commitment from Publix, their answer was no. And Page 59 April 20, 2000 they did say -- when the people said no, we want Publix, we want Publix, they did say, if we can't build Publix, we won't build. Make them keep their word, sir, and please turn down this development. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Do we have another speaker? MR. GULLEHON: My name is Richard Guilehon. I belong to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. And I'm here to talk about this -- these people who -- developers everyplace are looking for a pristine nature place, a home place out in the country. They're looking for a place to spoil, and they found one, right in the middle of everything. And that's the reason that most of us have moved out there, because that's what we want. We want the quiet, we want the nature, we want a nice place that's not cluttered with traffic and commercial enterprises. And if this is approved and they get a change on their voting -- their zoning, it will be opening Pandora's box for Golden Gate Estates. And once you lift off that lid, you'll never get it back on, and you will ruin Golden Gate Estates. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You were opposed then when it was a Publix as well? MR. GULLEHON: Yes, I was. The people who approved of this to start with, they took the rest of the stores and so forth they said they were going to put in because they wanted a Publix. They didn't want the rest of the stuff. But that was part of the bargain they were making. Now, there is no Publix, so they said well, we'll just -- if we don't get Publix, we'll just put in a hardware store. So in essence, what these people did, they just want to develop, they don't want to stick with any of their promises. Everything they've said has been -- what can I say? I'm at a loss for words. Everything they've said has -- none of it has ever come true. And I think it's very sad that we allow this to happen. This area has been around for over 40 years and no one's ever paid attention to it. Now they're running out of land here, so they want to come out there and they want to drag the city. They want to come out and build houses, but they want to drag the city behind them, so pretty soon it becomes a city. Thank you. Page 60 April 20, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Actually, I have two comments. I remember when you all were here and we looked at this once before. You were very much in support of the change we were discussing then because you wanted a Publix. So you feel like you've been misled. I felt like that's what was going to happen, too. Okay, and the other comment is this gentleman just made the remark about if we approve this particular comprehensive plan change, that it's going to start snowballing? Don't they have to come to us each time to do this, Marjorie, to make changes? MS. STUDENT: Through any kind of comprehensive plan amendment, it has to either be brought by staff or brought by a private individual to have a comp. plan amendment considered. So it's not something that just happens. It has to go through Planning Commission and be approved by the County Commissioners and then approved by the Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And then you have to worry about rezoning, right? MS. STUDENT: And then you do your implementation through rezoning. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Weeks, as currently worded, this comprehensive plan amendment, is it restricted to just a grocery store, or is there a wide range of retail commercial uses there? MR. WEEKS: C-1, 2 and 3 uses. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So does the developer have the option for a hardware store or some other use, or will they at least be required to come back in the plan review and zoning process? Will we see them again? MR. WEEKS: You'll see them again. If this is approved, their next step would be to rezone the property. This neighborhood center provision allows for C-1, 2 and 3 uses. That does include hardware, grocery store, gas station, convenient store; a wide variety of office retail and personal Page 61 April 20, 2000 service uses. Because it will come back to the Planning Commission Board in the rezone stage, there is the potential for some uses to be restricted. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I have a question. Has the community character meetings come up with any sort of decision yet on this particular area that we're discussing today, that you're aware of? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I can only just pass along my experience from the meetings I attended, as obviously they support small neighborhood centers. It reduces traffic, of course, as we know -- COMMISSIONER URBANIK: In this particular location? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I can't say it was exactly this, but situations like this there was a lot of support for. (Commissioner Wrage exits boardroom.) MR. WEEKS: I can say from reviewing some of the preliminary drawings over at the Beach Club Hotel that week, a week or so ago, as Mr. Bruet's saying, they did show commercial areas within the Estates. And actually, it was very similar to where we started. When the master plan was adopted in 1991, there were neighborhood centers located throughout the Estates. There were about four or five of them. And I found it interesting that one of their proposals was essentially to put that back in place. They were looking at additional commercial locations out in the Estates. As I stated earlier, and I want to make sure I'm clear on it, staff is not saying there's not a need for additional commercial in Golden Gate Estates. Our issue is, number one, on the size of this project that changes the character. The neighborhood center provision that presently exists limits the neighborhood center to a maximum of five acres of commercial at a neighborhood center. So if you have four quadrants, five acres is your maximum. Period. What is being proposed here is five acres of a commercial development in one quadrant. That's in addition to the other approximately two acres where the existing G's Grocery Store is located. We're certainly -- staff certainly is of the opinion that there Page 62 April 20, 2000 is a need for additional commercial provision out in Golden Gate Estates. We're just taking that issue, exactly where should that be. If this is approved, if it's developed, certainly it can be serving part of the Estates further to the east. Our position is well, maybe we should place additional commercial provision further to the east, perhaps where they originally were located; one of which was at Golden Gate and Everglades Boulevard intersection. There's a wide area of the Estates that needs commercial service to benefit traffic, because it will not force all of those citizens out there, which is going to get into the tens of thousands as the north Estates builds out. It's all going to force all those to go into the urbanized area. And the other commercial sites presently approved will not accommodate all of the future growth. I'm referring to Orangetree, Randall Boulevard center; any of the commercial provisions presently in place at build-out will not accommodate that population. So we say yes, there's a need for more, we just question its location and size. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Hoover, did you have some comments? MR. HOOVER: Yes. For the record, William Hoover, Hoover Planning, representing the petitioner. Couple things I wanted to touch on. On March 28th, there was an agenda item, 10-D. And the County Commissioners discussed this survey that the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association put forth. And Commissioner Constantine mentioned there was some comments that maybe the thing should be thrown out, because he had mentioned there's four or five people that ended up voting on this that were not actual members of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. There was some phone calls made by one of the property owners, not Centrafund, who's the applicant, had nothing to do with that. But one of the property owner's sons did make some phone calls to people that were members of the association, requesting their support for the survey. I think that only went forth for about a day or two. But the results of this survey showed that -- here's the first question. There was 173 responses. Are you in favor of a Page 63 April 20, 2000 grocery store/shopping center on the southeast quadrant of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard? 127 voted yes, 39 no. Number two, are you only in favor if the retailer meets with your approval? 68 yes, 85 no. Then it went on to which of the following grocery stores would you consider for this location? 75 Winn-Dixie, 98 Albertson's, 35 Wynn's, and several others with just one vote. Number four, in the event a grocery store would not be located at the site, would you favor another anchor store such as a hardware store, drug store, professional office, et cetera? 81 voted yes, 65 no. And then what kind of store, if the grocery store was not there? 77 said hardware or drug store, four went down to professional, five any type of service, and then there's quite a few listed with one, two or three uses. Tony, would you put on the yellow diagram here? And what this shows is -- one of the things the county has a problem with is traffic, as we all know. And I think that's the reason this project was approved by the Planning Commission and the board previously. But the Publix that's going in at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, or formerly 951, that's eight miles away. And as you can see on there, each one of these sections of land is a mile. So that's eight miles to that store from where this particular store is. And generally, our activity centers in Collier County are located anywhere from two to four miles apart. The nearest grocery store, the people -- if somebody had a house right next to this, they would be driving nine miles to the Publix at the Vineyards, or nine miles to the Winn-Dixie and Pack 'N Save in Golden Gate City. So what this project does, it produces employment and services in retail opportunities for people in their neighborhood, as well as a place to meet your neighbors when you're down there. And we also showed a trade area map. It's the one with the red boundary. And what that shows is that this is rather centrally located. And most of these people that are -- would be coming here, we found there was a shortage of 22 acres of commercial need out there, and there's two acres of commercial. This particular one is right here. It goes three miles to the Page 64 April 20, 2000 west. It does not even go to 951. So we didn't push the limits of this trade boundary at all, and it showed there were 22 acres shortage of commercial. Is there any questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question on that. You're saying there's 22 acres shortage of commercial, and we were talking about neighborhood centers that the staff is discussing. I don't think I understand the connection. Are you talking about 22 acres of shortage? MR. HOOVER: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In that area. How does that relate to the five acres per quadrant concept? MR. WEEKS: Bill, let me ask the question, I think for clarification. I think your point is that there's a 22-acre deficit of commercial in your service area depicted on that map. MR. HOOVER: Right. MR. WEEKS: Okay. That boundary, their service area is different from the Golden Gate Estates study area. So we're not talking apples and oranges. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I guess that's my question. So we're not talking apples and apples and oranges. MR. WEEKS: No. But again, you know, to be fair to Mr. Hoover, we don't dispute that there's a need for additional commercial out in the Estates. And if you're looking at this service area, the majority of the people are located -- the majority of the land area, which translates, of course, into houses and people, is to the east of this location. And our point is we need to take a look at the Estates area as a whole and then break it down into the pieces. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have some commercial provisions such as a neighborhood center further to the east, maybe at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. We don't want to get tied into a specific location, but somewhere further to the east, closer to this population center. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But given your correct location, your model is an acre and a quarter on each of the four quadrants, is that it, for a total of five acres? MR. WEEKS: The total of five acres, it could be all one parcel. It's not divvied up in any particular way. So one property Page 65 April 20, 2000 owner potentially could have a five-acre development and that's it-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The first guy that gets there and takes five acres, that preempts that corner -- that intersection. MR. WEEKS: If they took all five. But what the neighborhood -- what the provision says is a single project can have no more than 50 percent of the allotted acreage, which translates -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY'. Two and a half. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Two and a half. MR. WEEKS: -- to two and a half. But the board has the discretion to increase that amount. It's not set in stone no more than 50 percent. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And this project is five. MR. WEEKS: Five acres of commercial development. Total parcel of about seven acres. (Commissioner Bruet exits the boardroom.) MR. WEEKS: In the neighborhood centers, the other uses allowed besides the commercial are conditional uses and single-family homes. So once the commercial is allotted up, I think the first thought is oh, my gosh, you mean everybody else just gets a house. There's a potential for conditional uses. Your churches, child care centers, nursing homes, et cetera. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Any other comments, Mr. Hoover? MR. HOOVER: Yeah. One thing, the trade area is only 24 percent built out with the part that sticks out to the left there. More so probably around 45 percent built out. And the east part is probably around 10 percent. But if we already have 22 acres shortage of commercial, it's 24 percent built out. You can multiply that by four. That's about 88 acres of shortage of commercial. So whether we put commercial here, I think down the road there's probably a very good argument to add some commercial, maybe through another comp. plan amendment, and adding -- so this has been a future neighborhood center designated on the comprehensive plan. What we're trying to do is just activate that that's already been approved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But that's only two and a half Page 66 April 20, 2000 acres left. If G's takes up two and a half acres, then you've only got two and a half acres in this little quadrant where this piece of property is. MR. HOOVER: We disagree -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You disagree, but is that what's happening? MR. HOOVER: -- with the -- our intention, the way we understood the comprehensive plan all along, was that half of the land would be for commercial, half could be for conditional use. And your typical neighborhood center is 20 acres. The only one that's actually limited to five acres is the one at Pine Ridge and County Road 951, or Collier Boulevard, because it's only 10 acres total size. So half of that -- that's why they put a cap of five acres commercial on there. And what we feel is the county staff is sort of interpolating that and extending it out and putting it on all of those. So that would need to be a decision that would actually be interpreted by the County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: If I could, for the record, Tony Pires, working with Bill Hoover, representing the applicant. I guess one aspect that -- from the standpoint of the analysis and studies that were performed when this first came before you and first came before the County Commissioners, nothing has changed from the standpoint of the data. Possibly there are more people living out there now as time has goes by. But from the standpoint of the result of that analysis, and the standpoint that it results in the showing of the need, that is the same and probably even greater now, as more people move out into that area. And I think also from the standpoint that what is being approved here, requested for approval, is the concept of having, you know, the five acres for that commercial center, without identifying the specific uses. Again, that comes back through the rezoning process. And I think when Bill mentioned the County Commission discussion on March 28th, my understanding is the board didn't have any real difficulty with the survey, based on the discussion of the board that day. And Bill, correct me if I'm wrong on that. Page 67 April 20, 2000 MR. HOOVER: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public wishes to address this item? Yes, sir, you have new evidence, new comments? MR. GULLEHON: My name is Richard Guilehon. And the gentleman, he's talking about the different stores around the perimeter of the Estates, he neglected to tell you that there's a big Publix going up in -- around Randall, which is the northern section of Golden Gate Estates. He's leaving these things out because he tells you we need it. And when we moved out there, when we bought property out there, we knew we had to sacrifice to keep this pristine atmosphere, keep it going, not spoil it. We were willing to go 10, 15 miles for -- to get groceries. Other people work in the city, they bought their groceries, came home and put them in the refrigerator. They don't need a store -- you don't need a store behind every house or every block. But unfortunately, these people think -- are telling -- snowing you with paper telling you we need this. We don't need it. We have enough shopping areas around. We don't need them to come in and spoil it for us. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else to address this item? Okay, if we can just have new testimony, not to go over any previously stated facts. MS. McMILLAN: My personal opinion is the people to the east of Wilson are the ones in need of the store. This is right on the east corner. Further east is where they need the facilities. And I don't believe there would be a lot of opposition to staff's recommendation for the store by Everglades, because that's the center of where the east area lies, and these are the people who would support the store -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MS. McMILLAN: -- in that area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. And before we take a motion on this CP-99-3, I just want to reflect my own personal comments, which is that I think there are other quality groceries stores other than Publix out there. I don't think that either technically or even emotionally this should be tied into a Publix Page 68 April 20, 2000 approval. I do think there is a need for service. And I do remember when this came before us and we had a line of people stacked up, complaining about having access to groceries and having their ice cream melt into a pot of soup before they got home. So while this particular issue obviously is not well advertised, because we're not getting a big turnout, I still remember all the people who spoke up very loudly in favor of something. As far as the architectural details, the appropriateness to the community, the exact store, how it's going to be laid out, if we approve this comprehensive plan amendment, it will be back again and we will have plenty of opportunity to review it in detail as to how it's built, what kind of structure, architectural appropriateness, who the final user is. And I would also comment that having some familiarity with the development process, the chances are slim and none of any grocery store or major retail establishment signing a contract, putting in a store where you don't have the zoning, you don't have a comprehensive plan, you don't have a deal. This is the first step that I believe is necessary in order to interest a viable grocer into that area. There will be plenty of opportunities to reject or modify the proposal as it comes into focus. But I think this is a necessary first step so that it can go forward and a quality grocer can be brought into the area. So obviously I am in favor of it and I'm looking for a motion on this. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we send CP-99-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I will second that motion. We have a motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Budd. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I want to comment. We're very sympathetic with some of the comments that are made. It sounds like the survey that the Golden Gate Civic Association rejected shows very clearly that people want additional commercial out here and that this spot was a place that they focused on. And as you said, Chairman Budd, it was real obvious to us when we heard this before that a lot of people wanted something Page 69 April 20, 2000 there. And unfortunately the emotional tie to Publix is not relevant. So I can -- I'm going to have to support this change. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just wonder if the staff doesn't have the better part of the argument insofar as the size of this one parcel and its relation to the intersection. So I have my reservations about it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? We will take the vote. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Aye. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If we could have a roll call for the court reporter so we can get it right. I think Mr. Abernathy is against? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm against. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Urbanik is against. COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I'm against at this time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Pedone is for, Budd is for. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: For. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: For, with reservation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's 4-2, the motion carries. The motion is approved. Next item is CP-99-4. MR. WEEKS: This is the last of the publicly -- or I should say private amendments, those initiated by the private sector. This property is located at both the northeast and southeast corners of Orange Blossom Boulevard and Airport Pulling Road. This is a new commercial provision for those two sites. The -- at the transmittal stage, County Commission recommended -- excuse me, staff recommended not to transmit. Similar reasons, lack of commercial need, in our opinion, and also some concern about the proposal as far as being a neighborhood commercial and severing the close by neighborhood, yet with the inability, in our opinion, to make connections to those neighborhoods. Certainly transportation interconnections don't appear to be viable. But lack of Page 70 April 20, 2000 commercial needs was perhaps the biggest issue. The total site is about 14.4 acres. Planning Commission previously voted to transmit, and the Board of County Commissioners did transmit this to DCA. DCA had no comments or objections. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public to address this item? Any questions on the part of board? We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we approve CP-99-4 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' We have a motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by Commissioner Pedone. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD'- Motion carries. Next item, CP-99-6, capital improvement elements. MR. WEEKS: No staff comments, unless you have questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Anyone from the public to address this item? There being none, are there any questions of the staff? Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: I move we approve CP-99-6 and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Urbanik, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. CP-99-7, amendment and update to the transportation element. MR. WEEKS: No staff comments. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any public comment? There's none. Page 71 April 20, 2000 Any questions? There are none. We'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we approve CP-99-7 and send it to the County Board of Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? There is none. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One quick reminder, if you would, please, allow us to collect these binders after your meeting's over. We will reuse those again. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Urbanik, you had mentioned you wanted to make some comments? COMMISSIONER URBANIK: It is my intention at this time to step down from the Board of County Commissioners (sic) because I plan to run for the District 1 seat for county commissioner, and there is a county ordinance, I believe, which says I have to do that. I've enjoyed working with all of you very much. I've enjoyed the conversations and the great wisdom from all these conversations that we have to benefit the public. I hope that you can wish me well on my campaign. I'm looking forward to it and to bringing good public policy to Collier County. And I hope to work with you in the future. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Karen. MS. STUDENT: I just want to state for the record, Commissioner Urbanik just brought that to my attention this morning, and we're going to verify what the provision of the ordinance is and so advise, and I'll have some more information about that at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. Is there any other new business? Any public comments? Any discussion of the agenda? We are adjourned. Page 72 April 20, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:25 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 73 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION May18,2000 Planning Services Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Miles L. Scofield Scofield Marine Consulting 3584-B Exchange Ave Naples, FL 34104 REFERENCE: BD-2000-02, George Kellogg Dear Mr. Scofield: On Thursday, April 20, 2000, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and approved Petition No. BD-2000-02. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 2000-08 is enclosed approving this use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Planner II g/admin/BD-2000-02/RG/im Enclosure Mr. George Kellogg 242 Barefoot Beach Blvd. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Land Dept. Property Appraiser M. Ocheltree, Graphics Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI) File Phone t941) 403-2400 Fax (941) 643-6968 www. co.collier. fi.us CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-..08 RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2000-02 FOR AN EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED 1N COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance 91-102) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected and constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a public heating after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20-feet to allow for a 40-foot boat dock facility in a PUD zone for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 2.6.21. of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County, Florida, that: The petition BD-2000-02 filed by Mr. Miles L. Scofield, representing George C. Kellogg, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 10, Bayfront Gardens, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, as described in Plat Book #14, Page 114-117, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for a 20-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow for a 40-foot boat docking facility in the PUD zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes the greater into the water, regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides. In order to address the protection of manatees, one (1) "Manatee Alert" sign shall be permanently affixed to the pilings and shall be visible from the waterway. -3_- All exotic vegetation as defined in Section 3.9.6.4.1 of the Land Development Code shall be removed from the site and the property shall be maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number BD-2000-02 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this 20th day of April ,2000. Executive Secretary Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Marni 19I: Scuderi'"--"~ Assistant County Attorney g:/admin/BD-2000-02/RG/ts -2- I Exhibit "~" N