Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Meeting Minutes

VIEWS: 41 PAGES: 13

									                   City Council Chamber
                  735 Eighth Street South
                   Naples, Florida 34102

              Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
                    Chairman Hole called the meeting to order and presided.
ROLL CALL ...................................................................................................................... ITEM 1
Present:                                                          Beverly Grady, City Attorney
Stanley Hole, Chairman                                            Brenda Blair, Senior Administrative Specialist
Charles Kessler, Vice Chairman                                    Donald Pickworth
Bill Boggess                                                      Dawn Jantsch
Carl Kuehner                                                      Philip McCabe
Robert Navarre                                                    Anita Jenkins
Amy Rego                                                          Dougall McCorkle
Mary Lynn Stahnke                                                 John Passidomo
James Black (Alternate)                                           George Varnadoe
Also Present:                                                     Sunny Fore, Service Worker
Ann Walker, Planner                                               Karen Kateley, Administrative Specialist
Cory Ewing, Planner                                               Dr. Le Sheid
Molly Reed, Planning Technician                                   Other interested citizens and visitors.
Ron Lee, Planning Director

APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................................................................................. ITEM 2
            MOTION by Navarre to APPROVE the December 13, 2000 meeting minutes as
            amended: (Page 7, Line 11 – location elevation; Line 14 – it); seconded by
            Stahnke and carried without objection (all present).
.............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 6
Public Hearing: Alley Vacation Petition 00-AV3 (00-129)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
Petitioner:                  Arthur Allen
Agent:                       Michael Kraus, Esq.
Location:                    South of Fifth Avenue North between 11th Street and Goodlette Road
Request to vacate an unimproved north/south alley between Lot 10, River Park Plat No. 2,
and Lot 14, Seaboard Downtown Subdivision (south of Fifth Avenue North between 11 th
Street and Goodlette Road) and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement located at the
southern boundary of Lot 14, Seaboard Downtown Subdivision.
.............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 7
Public Hearing: General Development and Site Plan Petition 00-GDSP9 (00-134)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
                               Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
Petitioner:                  Shelton Imports, Inc., DBA Shelton Jaguar-Porsche-Land Rover
Agent:                       Len Berlin, General Contractor
Location:                    900-950 Ninth Street North
Request for approval of a specific general development and site plan for property located
at 950 Ninth Street North.
.............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 8
Public Hearing: Residential Impact Statement 00-RIS10 (00-133)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
Petitioner:                  Shelton Imports, Inc., DBA Shelton Jaguar-Porsche-Land Rover
Agent:                       Len Berlin, General Contractor
Location:                    900-950 Ninth Street North
Request for approval of a residential impact statement for property located at 950 Ninth
Street North in accordance with Section 110-135(a)(3) of the Code of Ordinances.
.............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 9
Pubic Hearing: Conditional Use Petition 00-CU11 (00-119)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
Petitioner:                  Shelton Imports, Inc., DBA Shelton Jaguar-Porsche-Land Rover
Agent:                       Len Berlin, General Contractor
Location:                    900-950 Ninth Street North
Request for Conditional Use approval for an automobile dealership in accordance with
Section 102-413 of the Code of Ordinances.
It was noted for the record that Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 (above) were continued to the 2-14-01 PAB
meeting. (Formal action on the continuance appears later in the meeting on Page 6.)
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 10
Public Hearing: Text Amendment Petition 00-T14 (00-089)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
Petitioner:                  City of Naples
Request to amend Article II of Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances in order to provide
guidelines and standards for political signage.
It was noted for the record that this item had been withdrawn by staff due to a need for further
drafting.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 11
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Petition 00-CU12 (00-120)
(Withdrawn)
Petitioner:                  Port-O-Call of Naples, Inc.
Agent:                       Wilson Miller, Inc.
Location:                    550 Port-O-Call Way
Request for conditional use approval for a Parking Needs Analysis at Port-O-Call Marina.
It was noted for the record that this item was withdrawn by the petitioner.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 14
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Petition 01-CU1 (01-002)
Petitioner:                  Cape Town Development
Agent:                       John Passidomo
Location:                    1400 Gulf Shore Boulevard North
Request for conditional use approval for residential dwelling units in the C-1 Retail
Shopping District.


                                                                         2
   Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                               Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
In response to Member Kessler, Planning Director Ron Lee explained that this item would be
delayed while awaiting input from the City Attorney. Member Boggess cited a discrepancy
between the 111 parking spaces shown on the site plan and the 133 required. It was determined
during discussion to continue this item to a Special Meeting on Friday, January 26 at 8:30 a.m.
(It was noted that a workshop would follow the special meeting.)
            MOTION by Kessler to CONTINUE Item 14 to the 1-26-01 PAB Special
            Meeting; seconded by Navarre and carried without objection (all present).
Member Kessler noted for the record that City Attorney Beverly Grady was present.
ITEMS TO BE ADDED .................................................................................................... ITEM 3
None.
.............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 4
Public Hearing: Rezone Petition 00-R14 (00-131)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
Petitioner:                  CRF Gateway Limited Partnership
Agent:                       Donald Pickworth
Location:                    2101-2184 Tamiami Trail North
Request to amend a previously approved Planned Development Document in order to
permit the monument sign on Parcel 1 to identify up to seven, rather than four, major
tenants.
(9:08 a.m.) Planner Ann Walker reported that this is to amend the existing Planned Development
(PD) in order to increase the number of names on the existing monument sign to seven as
permitted by the Code of Ordinances. Chairman Hole then reviewed the procedures to be
followed in deliberations and an oath was administered by Notary Public Brenda Blair to all
those indicating an intent to provide testimony; all responded in the affirmative.

Petitioner’s agent Donald Pickworth confirmed that specific language in the existing PD limits
the number of names to four, and that new lettering had been ordered. Mr. Pickworth also noted
that the petitioner would grant a sidewalk and landscape easement not included in a prior PD
amendment but covered only in an internal memorandum.
Public Input: (9:16 a.m.) None.
            MOTION by Boggess to APPROVE Rezone Petition 00-R14 including the Code
            requirement for size of letters, and staff’s recommendation for the petitioner’s
            granting an easement; seconded by Kessler and unanimously carried all
            members present and voting (Rego-yes, Boggess-yes, Kuehner-yes, Stahnke-yes,
            Kessler-yes, Navarre-yes, Hole-yes). This item will be heard by City Council on
            February 7, 2001.
.............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 5
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Petition 00-CU14 (00-132)
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
Petitioner:                  Philip McCabe
Location:                    675 4th Avenue South
Request for approval of a conditional use for property located on the NW corner of the
intersection of 7th Street South and 4th Avenue South to permit a swimming pool accessory
to a hotel.
Planner Ann Walker reported that the original site plan (approved in 1996) depicts a swimming
pool on the second floor (over parking), which had not been built. The petitioner instead plans to
demolish the existing drive-through bank facility in order to construct a pool, spa, restrooms,

                                                                         3
   Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                      Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
changing rooms, storage room, and a small meeting room, all of which will occupy
approximately 8,000 of the 27,000 square foot lot. This will not affect the ingress/egress to the
property, and a walkway consisting of brick pavers will be installed across 4th Avenue South.
However, no modifications are planned regarding the parking, loading, service, and refuse
container areas. The only conflict found on the plans, Ms. Walker noted, is the proposed use of a
42” high fence located within a ficus hedge whereas a 48” fence is required for pools,
necessitating a fence and wall waiver petition to City Council. Staff recommends approval with
the conditions outlined in the staff report (Attachment 1), Planner Walker concluded.

Planner Walker further clarified that a Collier County interpretation of State regulations requires
a barrier defined as a fence or a wall 48” in height; she also noted that the legal description for
the hotel property will be altered to show the property where the pool is now being proposed.
She also confirmed that the Planning Department had not received a survey of the property,
additional elevations, or landscaping plans.

Member Kessler ascertained from Ms. Walker that the neighbors (Mr. & Mrs. John Szilagyi)
who had submitted correspondence in opposition at the December meeting had not been notified
of the hearing date change; Member Rego pointed out that in December the PAB had directed
Planning staff to do so.

Member Rego then questioned whether private memberships at the pool facilities would be
offered to non-guests. Planning Director Lee clarified that the conditional use petition had
indicated the pool would be for hotel guests only via an entrance card issued at check-in.

Petitioner Philip McCabe offered to show members a survey, landscaping plan, and site drawings
and reaffirmed that the pool would be restricted to hotel guests who would gain entrance by
electronic hotel door key. Other amenities will include a cabana, restrooms, storage space, and a
small meeting room; hours of operation for the pool will be dawn to dusk in accordance with
State law, he added. There be lights inside the pool, and indirect lighting located on the
surrounding landscaping. He then reviewed the site plan noting the location of the pool, spa,
walkway, and existing trees. He also displayed a rendering of the north elevation of the proposed
building. Member Kuehner expressed discomfort in assessing the site as a whole without all four
applicable elevations. Petitioner McCabe explained that the tile roof of the proposed 500 square-
foot building would be visible from all sides, with similar architecture on the east and west,
although the north elevation facing the parking area would have fewer architectural
embellishments. Mr. Kuehner observed however that the rear of the building would nevertheless
be visible to the public.

Mr. McCabe then clarified that a specific landscaping plan would be submitted to City Council
and that the petition under consideration is to amend an existing conditional use in order to
relocate the pool.

Member Kessler pointed out what he described as an increase in density from the original
submission represented by enlargement of the pool and deck. Petitioner McCabe, however,
explained that in 1996 when the hotel was permitted, NationsBank, the prior owner, had had total
control over the subject property requiring the hotel pool to be confined to the hotel property.
Mr. McCabe also noted that the Code allows for the construction of an office building on this

                                                      4
  Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                      Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
particular site. Member Kessler questioned the need for changing rooms for hotel guests and
questioned whether this site would in the future be used as a private club. Petitioner McCabe
pointed out that in a luxury hotel such as this one changing rooms are provided as a convenience
to guests, reiterating that the site would not become a private club in the future.

Member Black noted what he described as inconsistencies concerning the pool hours and
proposed decorative lighting, when the petitioner indicated that private parties would be held at
the pool facilities at night. Petitioner McCabe stated that although the dawn to dusk use of the
pool is a State law, the meeting facility may be used after dusk. During continued dialog,
Petitioner McCabe stated that he had in fact signed the application, although the architect had
most likely handwritten the pool hours (9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.).

In response to Member Rego, Petitioner McCabe assured the Board that the façade facing the
parking area would not be blank. Member Boggess questioned whether the petitioner would
request from the Staff Action Committee (SAC) authorization to use the street right-of-way.
Petitioner McCabe said that he did not intend to do so since the property in question is not within
the Fifth Avenue South Special Overlay District. Chairman Hole then read into the record
correspondence from neighbor Mr. & Mrs. John Szilagyi (Attachment 2).

Member Navarre complimented Mr. McCabe on what he described as the outstanding
architecture and landscaping of his projects, citing Mr. McCabe’s Park Shore facility.
Nevertheless, he noted, the PAB performs an advisory service for City Council to ensure that
what is being presented meets Code requirements and portrays what actually will be built.
Member Kessler questioned whether the petitioner is required to submit elevations and
landscaping plans to the PAB. Planning Director Ron Lee clarified that the role of the PAB is to
evaluate the appropriateness of the use and that the petitioner had at that point exceeded
submittal requirements. He further clarified for Member Kuehner that the Code does not require
review for the appropriateness of the architecture and landscaping, but does allow review of the
screening and buffering which the petitioner has adequately addressed through the use of a fence
located inside a ficus hedge. Member Stahnke, however, took issue with off-site auxiliary
facilities, particularly in relation to noise.

Member Boggess then proffered a motion to deny (see below), seconded by Member Stahnke;
however, further discussion ensued.

Mr. Boggess also said that the original approval by City Council had been based on the pool
being within the confines of the hotel, and that noise from the pool could disturb neighbors.

Chairman Hole then proffered a motion to continue the petition to the 2-14-01 PAB meeting
(overriding the motion to deny) in order to allow the petitioner to address the concerns
expressed; the motion was seconded by Member Rego. Member Boggess however declined to
withdraw his motion to deny. While urging that the petition move forward, Petitioner McCabe
nevertheless said that he would supply the PAB with the information requested, such as the
proposed architecture for the wall facing the parking area, and would render in writing the dawn
to dusk pool operations. City Attorney Beverly Grady confirmed that the petitioner had the right
to decline a motion to continue and the right to accept the outcome of a motion to deny.
Petitioner McCabe then requested that the PAB vote on the motion to deny, and Chairman Hole

                                                      5
  Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                              Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
subsequently withdrew his motion to continue and Member Rego withdrew her second of
Chairman Hole’s motion.
        MOTION by Boggess to DENY Conditional Use Petition 00-CU14; seconded by
        Stahnke and carried 4-3 (Kuehner-yes, Rego-no, Navarre-no, Kessler-yes,
        Boggess-yes, Stahnke-yes, Hole-no). This item will be heard by City Council on
        February 7, 2001.
During the roll call, Member Kuehner said he felt that the guidelines and standards in Section
86-203 of the Code had not been satisfied by the applicant; Chairman Hole concurred. Member
Rego commended the project, but expressed a desire to review the elevation facing the parking
area. Member Kessler said that although he felt this was an improvement to the property, certain
objectives had not been met, reiterating the Board’s concern with the proposed dawn-to-dusk
hours. Member Boggess explained that his motion to deny had been based on the fact that the
former pool area could now be used for a higher intensity use. Member Stahnke said she felt that
the pool should be within the confines of the hotel.

Recess: 10:30-10:40 a.m. The same members were present when the meeting reconvened.

The following motion was then approved to account for items noted earlier in the meeting as
continued.
            MOTION by Kessler to CONTINUE Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 (see Page 2) to the 2-
            14-01 PAB Meeting; seconded by Navarre and carried without objection (all
            present).
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 12
Public Hearing: Rezone Petition 01-R1 (01-001)
Petitioner:                  Neighborhood Health Clinic, Inc.
Agent:                       Wilson Miller, Inc.
Location:                    120 Goodlette Road North
Request to rezone the property at 120 Goodlette Road North to the Downtown District for
the purpose of the development of the Neighborhood Health Clinic.
(10:45 a.m.) Planner Ann Walker reported that the subject property had been rezoned to PD in
1987 to accommodate a car wash on Goodlette Road and a commercial warehouse on 12th
Street, in the general location of Cascade Waterworks and a vacant parcel to the north. This
portion of the PD had not been completed and portions subsequently sold, severed and rezoned
to accommodate the Olde Naples Self Storage. Preliminary studies indicate that a building
approximately 11,000 square feet in size can be built within setback and parking requirements on
the remaining area; therefore staff recommends approval, Planner Walker said.

In response to Member Kuehner, Planner Walker explained that the semi-circle shown on the
map had been a prior railroad turnaround located on privately owned property and would not
impact development of the subject property.
Public Input: (10:51 a.m.) None.
            MOTION by Kuehner to APPROVE Rezone Petition 01-R1; seconded by Rego
            and unanimously carried all members present and voting (Stahnke-yes, Rego-
            yes, Navarre-yes, Kuehner-yes, Boggess-yes, Kessler-yes, Hole-yes). This item
            will be heard by City Council on February 7, 2001.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 13
Public Hearing: Text Amendment 01-T1 (01-009)

                                                                         6
   Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                      Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
Petitioner:        City of Naples
This is a text change involving amendments to: Chapter 82, Definitions; Section 86-204
regarding nonconformities; single family districts in Chapter 102 to add guest units and
recreational facilities as conditional uses; the R3-12 multifamily district to add group
homes and bed and breakfast inns as conditional uses; all of the commercial districts listed
in Chapter 102 to add maximum lot coverage and minimum open space requirements and
to delete parking garages from the lists of conditional uses; Chapter 106 to delete valet
parking options and parking needs analyses; Chapter 110 to delete references to parking
garages and to add maximum residential densities in all commercial zoning districts.
(10:53 a.m.) Planning Director Ron Lee explained that these amendments were directed by City
Council in order to embody items from previously proposed Charter amendments. The staff
report, he noted, includes a table depicting all changes, along with text amendments containing
strike-through and underlined text. After polling the audience to determine the presence of
interested persons, the PAB agreed to commence with review of parking garages.

Planner Ann Walker cited the specific charter amendment referendum language regarding
parking garages: “Multilevel parking structures including garages or decks shall be prohibited in
all commercial zoning districts…” Staff therefore reviewed all commercial zoning districts and
eliminated that option. Section 110-126 of Chapter 110, Supplemental Standards, setting
guidelines for parking garages had been deleted in its entirety, and other minor references to
parking garages throughout the Code had been deleted. Member Kuehner questioned whether the
language also included parking needs analyses and valet parking, which were not part of the
original proposal. Planner Walker explained that those deletions had been contained in another
proposed charter amendment, which had stated that City Council shall not authorize a reduction
in the required number of parking spaces to support a commercial or mixed-use project. She
explained that the Code typically recognizes that parking requirements may not be applicable to
a specific project, allowing a parking needs analysis to establish parking standards either by
physical count, or by submittals from the Institute of Transportation Engineers or other specific
organizations. However, since this provision allowed for reduction in parking, all references to a
parking needs analysis had been eliminated. There was also an option in the Code for valet
parking where a portion of a parking lot could be restricted for this purpose, and the City had
waived all dimensional requirements allowing as many vehicles to occupy such area as was
physically possible. That section will also be deleted since it permits a reduction in the number
parking spaces required. There were provisions for shared parking in the Fifth Avenue South
Special Overlay District which also have been deleted because it, too, allows for a reduction in
the required number of parking spaces. Planning Director Lee clarified that the net result of all
these changes is that parking must be provided on site.

Member Kuehner noted the absence of the traditional staff recommendation. Planning Director
Lee explained that since this was a directive from City Council, staff therefore forwarded it to
the PAB based solely upon that direction.

Citing Council’s withdrawal of the issues from referendum, Member Navarre questioned
whether the PAB was being asked to approve something that the Council is unsure. Planning
Director Lee pointed out, however, that this is an opportunity for the PAB to review and make its
recommendation to City Council as to the appropriateness of these changes; and that Council had
requested this review in January in order to allow input from seasonal residents. Member

                                                      7
  Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                      Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
Kuehner said that it was impossible to perform a comprehensive analysis of the 41 pages of text
presented to members on Friday of the prior week, particularly due to the cross references to the
Code and suggested that the proposals be continued to the January 26 workshop. Member Black
expressed his opposition to removing parking garages from the Code of Ordinances. Member
Rego said that if parking garages and parking needs analysis are the only portions of the Code
affected by Council’s direction, she would be comfortable with making a decision at that time;
Members Boggess and Stahnke concurred.
Public Input: (11:10 a.m. to 12:07 p.m.) Dawn Jantsch, Naples Chamber of Commerce,
represented the opposition of businesses to the proposed restrictions, particularly with regard to
parking, citing the unique parking needs of the 41-10 area. The charter amendment limiting
heights had already affected redevelopment of the 41-10 area, she said, and cautioned that these
further development inhibitions would result in the area remaining the same. She also noted that
many plans for the 41-10 area would soon be reviewed by the newly appointed Heart of Naples
Committee and urged the PAB to vote against the proposal. Member Rego questioned the
statement that the 42-foot height charter amendment had limited redevelopment when in fact no
redevelopment had taken place prior to it. Ms. Jantsch said that laws can make redevelopment
economically unfeasible; and Member Kuehner noted that the Bayfront development is an
example of a structure in the 41-10 area built higher than 42 feet prior to the charter amendment.
Ms. Jantsch stated that more flexibility is needed to allow redevelopment and confirmed an
assertion by Member Kessler that she felt it premature to effect changes prior to activities of the
new Heart of Naples Committee. Anita Jenkins, speaking for herself, and Richard Woodruff
of Wilson Miller, read Dr. Woodruff’s written statement into the record (Attachment 3).
Member Kessler cited Dr. Woodruff’s vocal support of various redevelopment measures during
his tenure as City Manager. Member Rego noted that although she had voted for the extension at
Coastland Mall because a movie theatre was proposed, she took issue with the assumption that
parking garages are necessary for redevelopment to occur. Dougall McCorkle, representing the
Lutgert Companies, stated that Lutgert opposes the proposed changes to parking and the
parking needs analysis in that the current system adequately preserves the best interests of the
City, requiring several levels of controls. The parking needs analysis is critical in the many
zoning classifications to distinguish needs based on different uses, he said. Member Boggess
noted, however, that over time, uses change resulting in deterioration. Member Navarre said that
marking of valet parking at Venetian Village creates disputes requiring Police intervention and
that parking on bike paths and walkways occurs daily; he suggested that staff perform a parking
needs analysis there. Member Kuehner said that it was wrong to allow the residential component
to grow unrestricted while curtailing commercial and therefore recommended comprehensive
review of the entire Code. Member Rego noted, however, that there are over 100 restaurants
currently serving City residents. John Passidomo, attorney speaking in a legislative capacity,
pointed out various buildings that could not have been built under the proposed standards, and
highly commended planner Andres Duany for redevelopment of 5th Avenue, which had
incorporated on-street parking. He also took issue with the elimination of parking accessed from
alleys and elimination of valet parking, suggesting that it be permitted as an amenity. He
questioned the advisability of limiting residential to 8 units per acre in commercial districts while
the medical district permits 12. He also noted that the redevelopment of 5th Avenue could not
have gone forward if lot coverage had been limited to 65%.

Member Rego said that she had received a number of calls on these issues and said that
downtown redevelopment must be market driven, not business driven. She said she hoped that

                                                      8
  Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                      Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
the new Heart of Naples Committee would consider demographics to determine who will be
served, rather than viewing the 41-10 area as a mirror of 5th Avenue or Venetian Village. She
urged that this issue be continued in order to study whether parking garages are essential in the
41-10 area. Member Black stated that removing parking garages from the Code would eliminate
flexibility, suggesting instead that they be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Member Kessler
received confirmation from Attorney Passidomo that he was concerned that limiting residential
to eight units per acre related to providing housing for individuals in the area such as hospital
workers and whether a sub-district was desirable to accommodate labor-intensive businesses.
Mr. Passidomo reiterated his recommendation for more study to thoroughly assess the impacts.

Member Navarre addressed additional issues relative to valet parking, stating that various
establishments at Venetian Village park vehicles illegally and absorb up to 50 parking tickets per
day; he also took issue with establishments using public parking spaces for valet parking, urging
further review of this particular process.

Member Kuehner asked Attorney Passidomo to expound on nonconformities that could be
created by the proposed regulations. Mr. Passidomo said that these properties should be
specifically identified along with the implications regarding liability to the City taxpayers,
property owners, and lenders. He urged further review prior to forwarding to City Council.
George Varnadoe, attorney representing Neapolitan Enterprises and the Estate of Dorette
Fleischmann, stated that his clients own a variety of properties in various zoning districts. In
order to prevent future lawsuits, he said, a comprehensive review must take place to address
rendering property nonconforming and suggested that the Board discuss this with the City
Attorney. He also suggested review of ways to control density other than regulating parking.

Member Stahnke requested that staff provide the Board with the information on parking
structures already permitted but not built.

Member Boggess noted that he had attended one of the 41-10 area meetings held several years
ago at the Naples Daily News and had come away with the feeling that property owners with the
encouragement of City staff were initially promoting 5-6 story buildings, high intensity and
parking. This, he said, had resulted in property owners over assessing the value of their land,
which has in itself established a moratorium on redevelopment. He said that the problem is not
with intensity, but density and cited what he described as an enormous increase in traffic on 10th
Street without redevelopment, and before the Bayfront development had been completed. The
City, he said, is being overwhelmed by commercial developers who have no regard for the
community, some of whom come from out-of-town as well as overseas. Mr. Boggess also
requested additional time for review of the proposals before the PAB.

Member Rego suggested a continuance to the January workshop meeting. Chairman Hole
expressed confidence in the 41-10 process about to begin and suggested that flexibility be
maintained until a future vision is made evident.

Member Kuehner called it foolhardy not to benefit from the experience of litigation because of
the wording in the height referendum. He noted that while the focus had been on the 5th Avenue
parking garage, a garage critical to redevelopment at the corner of Broad and Third Streets would
thereby be eliminated. Planner Walker clarified that this particular parking structure is located

                                                      9
  Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                      Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
beneath a building and would not be prohibited and that parking garages as described in the
proposed ordinance refers to multi-level structures. Member Kuehner pointed out however that
the word ordinance should not be applied to a referendum. Planning Director Ron Lee explained
that staff relied on this information to draft legislation and it had been in ordinance form when it
was forwarded to City Council.

During further discussion City Attorney Beverly Grady clarified the review function of the PAB
which includes the comprehensive development code, comprehensive plan and the code of
ordinances, forwarding its recommendations to City Council, whose responsibility it is to
determine when and how these recommendations will be applied, effective dates, and the
impacts on property. A discussion ensued regarding when the PAB would meet to further discuss
this petition; Board action appears in the motion below.
        MOTION by Rego to CONTINUE Text Amendment 01-T1 to the 1-26-01 PAB
        Special Meeting; seconded by Kessler and carried without objection (all
        present).
Planning Director Ron Lee articulated direction from the PAB regarding the following elements:
·     Determine number of approved PDs with unbuilt parking garages
·     Study financial consequences regarding properties rendered nonconforming
·     Determine number of establishments currently using valet parking
·     List existing parking garages
·     Recommend appropriate density to serve the needs of labor-intensive employers
·     Provide a breakdown of outstanding valet parking conditional use permits
·     Summarize reductions in parking requirements granted utilizing the parking needs analysis
      mechanism by (1) the planning director, and (2) City Council
·     Provide graphic illustration of the effect of the imposition of the green space and
      maximum lot coverage modifications to a small lot in the Downtown District while
      satisfying all other Code provisions
·     Furnish a breakdown of existing developed properties within the Fifth Avenue South
      Special Overlay District which would be rendered nonconforming by the proposed 65%
      maximum lot coverage provision
·     Provide information concerning how the elimination of the shared parking and the parking
      garage provisions within the Fifth Avenue South Special Overlay District would have
      effected its redevelopment (e.g. a large portion of the residential development would not
      have been allowed)
·     Analyze parking requirements for multi-family dwelling units in commercial zones in
      other Florida municipalities (e.g. Coral Gables, Palm Beach, Venice, etc.)
·     Provide a similar review of residential densities permitted in commercial zones in the same
      municipalities
·     Follow up on Attorney Passidomo’s points, and provide an illustration of the instances in
      the City, and adjoining Collier County, where multi-family or transient lodging zones are
      contiguous to commercial districts and are less restrictive concerning density of
      development than the proposed modifications
·     Include a definition of parking garages in the material under review.

Recess: 1:01-1:11 p.m. The same members were present when the meeting reconvened.



                                                      10
  Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                              Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
It is noted for the record that Items 15, 16, and 17 were considered concurrently.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 15
Public Hearing: Subdivision Petition 01-SD1 (01-003)
Petitioner:                  Estuary at Grey Oaks, Ltd.
Agent:                       John C. English, Wilson Miller
Location:                    North of Golden Gate Parkway, east of the Gordon River and west of
Airport Pulling Road.
Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide certain portions of the Estuary at Grey
Oaks, known as the Core Road.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 16
Public Hearing: Subdivision Petition 01-SD2 (01-004)
Petitioner:                  Estuary at Grey Oaks, Ltd.
Agent:                       John C. English, Wilson Miller
Location:                    North of Golden Gate Parkway, east of the Gordon River and west of
Airport Pulling Road.
Request for preliminary plat approval to certain portions of the Estuary at Grey Oaks,
known as Tract D.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 17
Public Hearing: Subdivision Petition 01-SD3 (01-005)
Petitioner:                  Estuary at Grey Oaks, Ltd.
Agent:                       John C. English, Wilson Miller
Location:                    North of Golden Gate Parkway, east of the Gordon River and west of
Airport Pulling Road.
Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide certain portions of the Estuary at Grey
Oaks, known as Tract F.
(1:11 p.m.) Planning Director Ron Lee reported that this is a request for three preliminary plat
approvals for Core Road, Tract D, and Tract F, based on an interlocal agreement between the
City and the County. This will ensure that the subdivision plat regulations would conform to
Collier County standards in order to provide uniform street rights-of-way, sidewalks, all utility
issues, and common types of infrastructure. The City’s involvement is for the PAB to review the
preliminary plats to ensure that the plats are consistent with the PD site plan which had
previously been approved by the PAB and City Council, and to ensure that the lot area, width,
and depth as noted on the plat is consistent with the standards as outlined in the approved PD.
Correspondence is also included from the County indicating that the plats conform to all the
technical requirements. Staff recommends approval of all three plats, he said, including the
conditions outlined in the staff report from the Engineering Department (Attachment 4 – A.2.).

In response to Member Kuehner, Petitioner’s Engineer, John English of Wilson Miller, explained
that the traffic control at the intersection of Estuary Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway is
being coordinated and permitted through the County. Mr. Kuehner noted that one of the
conditions of the approval by City Council had been that the applicant provides right-in/right-out
controls on Golden Gate Parkway without compensation; Mr. English confirmed that this is
being done. Mr. Kuehner also requested clarification regarding the Florida Power & Light
(FP&L) easement. Mr. English stated that there is an existing 110’ FP&L right-of-way in the
northernmost corridor, which he noted on the site map displayed (a copy of which is contained in
the file for this meeting in the City Clerk's Office). He also pointed out the area that is being set
aside for the future expansion of Golden Gate Parkway.

                                                                        11
   Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                              Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
Agent English then clarified that the construction plans, which are currently being reviewed by
engineers, depict a temporary turnaround at the end of the road for emergency vehicles. Member
Kessler questioned when plats would be recorded following approval. Planning Director Lee
explained two scenarios: (1) obtain approval by the City and County of the construction
documents, build the project, and record the final plat; or (2) after the construction plans are
approved, a bond be posted for 110% of the value of the infrastructure to obtain a final plat with
construction to follow. This is not based on a specific timeframe but on how the developer
chooses to execute the final plat, Mr. Lee explained. Member Kessler questioned what would
assure that what is being presented would actually be recorded. Mr. Lee clarified that staff will
review the preliminary plat to ensure consistency prior to the developer recording the final.

Member Black questioned whether there would be a traffic light at the Airport Road entrance.
Agent English explained that consideration is being given to the build-out rate for this project
along with the commercial section of Grey Oaks in order to determine whether a signal is
warranted. Planning Director Lee further explained that internal traffic circulation will be
addressed through the GDSP process and will be reviewed by the PAB.

In response to Member Stahnke, Agent English clarified that the distance from Golden Gate
Parkway and the entrance on Airport Road is approximately 1500-2000 feet; Mr. Lee added that
the road had been moved farther north than shown on the plans previously approved, and staff
felt it represented better traffic management. He also clarified that the permitting process for the
lake is through the South Florida Water Management District.
Public Input: (1:27 p.m.) None.
         MOTION by Navarre to APPROVE Subdivision Petition 01-SD1; Subdivision
         Petition 01-SD2; and Subdivision Petition 01-SD3, including the Engineering
         Division’s recommendation for inclusion on the final plat (Attachment 4 –
         A.2.); seconded by Kessler and unanimously carried all members present and
         voting (Navarre-yes, Kuehner-yes, Boggess-yes, Stahnke-yes, Rego-yes, Kessler-
         yes, Hole-yes). These items will be heard by City Council on February 7, 2001.

It is noted for the record that Items 18, 19, and 20 were considered concurrently.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 18
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-CPASS1 (01-006)
Petitioner:                  City of Naples
Location:                    40 Ninth Avenue South
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from Public,
Semi-Public and Institutional to Low-Density Residential in accordance with Policy 6-6.1 of
the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 19
Public Hearing: Rezone Petition 01-R2 (01-007)
Petitioner:                  City of Naples
Location:                    40 Ninth Avenue South
Request to rezone property located at 40 Ninth Avenue South from “PS,” Public Service to
“R1-15,” Residence District in accordance with Policy 6-6.1 of the Future Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 20
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Petition 01-CU2 (01-008)

                                                                        12
   Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.
                              Naples Planning Advisory Board – January 10, 2001 – 9:00 a.m.
Petitioner:        City of Naples
Location:          40 Ninth Avenue South
Request to rescind conditional use approval for a cultural facility/museum in accordance
with Section 2(K) of Resolution 98-8424.
(1:29 p.m.) Planner Cory Ewing reported that on November 15, 2000, City Council had directed
staff to process the relevant land use and zoning petitions to allow the subject property to be used
for single-family purposes. This action will rescind the previous action by City Council to use
this land as a cultural museum. Due to recent events, City Council directed staff to proceed with
the current petitions. Staff recommends approval of Items 18, 19, and 20, Mr. Ewing said.

City Attorney Beverly Grady clarified that the City has possession, ownership and control of the
property; she also noted that a neighbor, the Sibcys, had filed a lawsuit against the City, but that
the City will nevertheless advertise and sell the property regardless. She also cautioned Members
to restrict discussion to the petitions before them.
            MOTION by Boggess to APPROVE Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-
            CPASS1; Rezone Petition 01-R2; and Conditional Use Petition 01-CU2 based
            on staff’s recommendations; seconded by Rego and unanimously carried all
            members present and voting (Boggess-yes, Kessler-yes, Kuehner-yes, Navarre-
            yes, Rego-yes, Stahnke-yes, Hole-yes). These items will be heard by City Council
            on February 7, 2001.
During the roll call, Member Kuehner said he felt this action was premature.
............................................................................................................................................ ITEM 21
By-law amendment: Item XII
(Continued from December 13, 2000)
In order to clarify hearing procedures presented at the opening of each meeting.
(1:34 p.m.) Planning Director Ron Lee noted City Attorney Beverly Grady’s recommendations
in the meeting packet. During discussion, it was determined that the PAB would adopt the
language drafted by the City Attorney.
            MOTION by Kuehner to APPROVE By-law amendment: Item XII as
            recommended by the City Attorney; seconded by Kessler and carried without
            objection (all present).
ADJOURN ........................................................................................................................................
1:40 p.m.
                                                                                                            ___________________
                                                                                                            Stanley Hole, Chairman
______________________
Ron Lee, Planning Director


Minutes prepared by:


__________________________
Brenda A. Blair
Senior Administrative Specialist

Minutes Approved: February 14, 2001

                                                                        13
   Roll call votes by Members are recorded in random order, pursuant to Naples Planning Advisory Board policy.

								
To top