Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BCC Minutes 12/17/1990 S
7~enda Mond&7, De¢~ubeF ~?, ~90 6:00p.m. ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. ARY PER~ON W~O DECIDE~ TO APPEAL A DECISION OF T~IS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TJfl~RETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEEINGS IS MADE, W~ICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON W~ICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 3, J'LaD OF ALL, IA CI , &PPI~AL. OF J4'I:MUTFJ t NONI A~V~T~ZD I~JBL/C HIARI~ - SC:C: PETITION R-90-34, COMITY DKVELOPHENT SKRVICES DIVISION REPR.ES~NG THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING A COMPREHENSIVE REZONE OF COMMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT, OR SUCH OT~KR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT DETERMINED BY T~E BOARD OF COUNTY COKMISSIONE]~S TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GBOWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, I~JRSU~ TO THE ZONING REEVALUATION ORDINANCE 90-23 AND POLICY 3.1 K OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWT~ KARAGEP[ENT PLAN. (THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR JAJ{UARY 7, 1990) . ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARI~ Decelber 17, 1990 Petition R-90-34 HEARD before the Board of County Commissioners, commencing at 6:00 p.m., Monday, December I?, 1990, in the COllllll~onet/a Board Rooe, Third Floor of nut[ding Y, Colt/er County Courthouse Co~9[ex, Naples, Florida 33962. Chairman Max A. liana Vtce-Ctmtr-.an ~tchaeI J. V0lpe Coamtssioner Anne Ooodntgh[ Co~lmsioner Burr h. Saundera Coa~isaloner Richard S. Shanahan Net1Dorrtll, County Attorny Mann]er Mr. Tom Olliff, Assistant to County Manager Kenneth Cuylsr, County Attorney Ronald W. McLemore, Assistant County Manager Mr. Robert Blanchard, Growth Planning Director Mr. David Weeks, Senior Planner Connie S. Pot/e, Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Deputy Official Court Reporter OFFIClAL COUR? REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, ~lorida Mr. E. Glenn Tucker, Esquire Ms. hinds Lawson, Attorney at Law Mr. Daniel D. Peck, Esquire Mr. Burdette Metzger Mr. Joel Whlttenha11 Mr. John Brugger, Esquire Mr. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Mr. Perry Peeples, Esquire Mr. James G. Thompson Mr. Rod Macbeod OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 10 14 15 18 3 (WHEREtJPON, the herein meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners having been held at at the scheduled time anC day, and properly and legally advertised, such affidavit(s) being on file, the following proceedings were had.) CI.U%ZRK~N HASSE~ The meeting will come to Wlchael. ugh? Conservation. We've got only h~lf the lights on. rise. Mr. Olliff, will you pray for us? MR. OLLIF£: Yes, sir. (Invocation given; fol~oweC by rec£~ation of the Pledge of A~leg~ance.) CHAIR~t~N HASS~ AI~ ~s la an adver~s~ public hearing ~fore ~he ~ard of County, Pe~lon R-90-34. Who have we ~ot ~o speak X can'~ even see you back there. ~. O~IFF: Tha~ ~y be a blessing. C~I~ ~SSE: Probably As. MR. WEEKS: ~ evening, Co~ssioners. I'm Dave Weeks of your Growth P~anning staff. ~ as you've s~a~ed, we're here ~usL for one reason, OffiCIAL COURT REPORTEItS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Plorlda 33962 1 11 16 4 ~dustrlall¥ properties that are inconsistent with our Growth Management Plan and that are unimproved. As you will of course recall, in April of citizen's 9~oups, your Plnnn~nq Co~lss~on and ~e Gr~th ~nag~nt, a~ngst other things, conLa~ns ~he FuLure ~nd Use ElemenL which estabtshes the l atlon actlv/ty centers, provls/ons for C~rclnl Under Criteria, est~blshes a b~se density of four untt~ ~r ~cre throughout the urban dee~tgna~ed area in Collter County and cont~Ins provisions to ~ncrense or decrease density and also estnbZ~shes c~ps or ~nx~num den. tries In .one areas, most notably the c~mtal ur~n fringe which pro~rttes on the south stdo of US 41E~st, Including ~11 of ~rco Island. ~e l.~rt~nt ~ltcy wtthtn the Future Land Use Zlmnt Is Poll~ 3.1.K, which provides ~or the zoning reevaluation program, esC~bishes Ch~ the county 'vtll revI~ -- excume .e -- will adopt an ordinance which would provide the mechanism for us Co review these Inconsistently zoned ~nd unimproved properties OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE~3 Collier County Courthouse, Naples, ?~orida 33962 iii i, 2 0 21 22 13 5 and the ~eana to go about accompllshlr, g the rezoning of those properties to consistent rezonir;g districts. On March 21st, 1990 -- I know you didn't forget this hearing at Lely High School -- you adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, and that went into effect on ~y 14, a~ that was also alter dozens of h~ra of workshops a~ ~bllc hearlngl, both by this ~ard and the Planning Co~issien as And the ZRO, Zoning Reevalu~,tion Ordinance, does provides the s~cific mechanism as to how we go a~ut this rezoning process; requires us to send out notices to the pro~rty ~ers by cort. ified mail, in accordance with the current tax roll, advising that pro~rty ~ner of the county's iptent to rezone their twenty days In which to object to thif~ praised rezonin9 ~ su~itting one or more of the applications provld~ for In the ~onlng ~eevaluation Ordinance; and also provides the procedures for ua to go to public hearing aa we're doing tonight; and also included the r~ulre~nt to hold workshops within ~ach of tho planning c~unitles, which we have done. The total nu~r of notices that we sent out ~ck In -- on July 30th and shortly thereafter, Au~st, was approxi~tely iourtaen hundred. That OFFICIAL COURT R£PORTEP~ C6U~t¥ e~utthbuse. Naples, t'lorida 3.3962 4 6 7 8 9 10 13 19 : 20 2! a shotgun approach. ~e didn't ~ by planning c~unitr ~t, instead, count~lde and for all zoning districts. N~, we are holding a public hearing separately -- the c~ercial and indus%rial now; the residential will c~ later, in 1991 -- but the notices were sent to all affected properties owners at one time, and therefore they all had that name one hundred and twenty days in which to submit applications in an nu t -- al Is n0t In the Executive 8umry, the nu~er of pco~r~ien thai are sub,ecL Lo this hearing, .~o~ect to actual rezonlng, has continued to drop and, also, as we have ~de some determinations that instances, where tho property was improved; that is, where the pro~rty had already been de';elcped but our records did not yet ah~ that. We're d~n n~ to, for the purposes of this hearing, approxl~toly a hundred and forty parcels and dpprosl~tely a hundred and twenty acres. Ail of these -- these other pro~rtiea, from that beginning of a~ut seven hundr~ and fifty ~rcels and a~ut seven hu~r~ a~ thirty acres, the reminder of those, most OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naplos, Florida 33963 7 o! them ate on hold. They were withdrawn from the public heating procee, becau,e we have .ubmitted one ot more of these aDpllcations provided for the ZRO. CO~[MISSIONER VOLP£: Mr. Weeks, how many acres did you say? MR. WEEKS: Approximately seven hundred and thirty were noticed, and we're down no-~ to approximately a hundred and twenty. So we're talking about a lit=le bit over eighty percent u~ the property, commercial properties, that were lub~ect ~o th~s Zonin~ ReevaLuation Pro, ram are withdrawn frcNm the prOCell becaume they have submitted application. So the number that we're dealing with tonight ia small, and as you flip through the ~.%~ps, I think it be¢ome~ a~parent -- wha~ you )u~t see a ~arcel h~re, a parcel there, it may ~ & bit decelvin~l, again, because this is ail we're dealing with at this time and, of course, we will review the application.. Some of those, o~ course, will ba denied and som~ of those, you will then be seeing at a future public hearing Just like this, again to discuss the rezoning o~ those properties to a conslstent zoning district. Alee, eome o~ those propertl.s, ['~ sure you OFFICIAL COURT RgPORTERS c c Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 3 4 6 18 i:i' 22 24 25 will be seeing under a different format, That would be those where we deny the application and the property o%rner files an appeal to that determination. That will come to you during your regular hearings. CHAIFJ4AN HASSE: The second hearing on this will be on Januag~j, the 7th. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That we're discussing onlght, KR. WEEKS= That is correct. The purpose of tonight is to of course present the information to you, give you the opportunity of course to ask us any questions, hear from the public, and to give us any direction that you might deem appropriate or ask for additional information as might be necessary before the final hearing on January 7th. So for tonight we're not asking for, nor I believe can you take, any final action to actually rezone any properties. But we do have, as I'll get to that we do want you to make, direction wQ want you to give ua tonight. ! list In the Executive Summary, also as o£ December llth, the number of applications that we have OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER3 Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 10 11 received of these various tDs. That has increased, ~ust for your information. Vested rights, we received a total of a do=en~ twelve; co~tlble exceptions Il right at two hundred and fifty; and the exemptions, ~uessing, In the neighborhood of about three hundred. One of the provisions In the Future Land Use Element -- I~'B been there since we adopted the plan in January o! 198~ -- la a provision fo: commercial property called Commercial Under Criteria. It's an in-fill commercial provision. This allows for properties of a certain size -- two hundred feet in width or less, unless you should at a public hearing decide ~ha~ a la:get width is appropriate -- prop~£ties of a cectain size and boa~ded on both sides by developed commercial proper~¥ -- I don't like It either, Commlssione~ Volpe, COkJ~ISSION£B VOLPK: ThanX you. cer%~ln ~lle, bounde~l on b~th ~ldee by develop>ed commercial property to be deemed consistent w£th the pLen ~o tha~ ~e don'~ end up ~th ho~ge podges of non-coam~ercl&l property. Again, that's an In-fill provision. One of the requests we do have for you tonight is to 91ve us direction to ~lthdr~w yet a few OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 , 7 13 14 ::' 16 18 21 10 ~ore ~arcels, due to the fact that tha property is situated such that apglications aroun~ it that are pending. If they should be approved, these properties would then be deemed consistent with ~ur Growth Management Plan via this Commercial Uader Criteria provision. That's a total of fifteen parcels, and it's ~ust over four acres. That's -- specifically is one of the items that we're requesting of you tonight, direct us, yes, it's okay for you to pull those properties in the process; wait and see what happens; if the su[*round[ng application should be approved and therefore these properties are consistent, fine, they retain their zoning. And, 0f course, ~f -- %~ ~urr0und;n9 again would become part of this public hearing process to be rezoned. CHA]R~ MASSE: You're going to take each ~eparate unit no~, as soon as you finish here? MR. WEEKS: Hadn't planned to. Certainly, we can do that, and I'm sure some members of the public are going to want to talk about specific properties. We have a general recommendation for this OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 19 2O ¸ 24 11 co~prehensive resorting. As you'll recall, lust a f(,w weeks ago, on Movember 13th, we came beEore you asking for permission to do an Interpretation to account ln ramtructure and open mpace requlrmnts, and you grant~)d the direction and we have done that interpretation, and we're recommending that for most pro$,erties they be rezoned to the RSF-3 zoning district. There's one property out near Corkscrew Sanctuary -- which is on, by the way, on the first very ~ap -- that is in the rule designate¢l area. And so for that property, we're recommending that it be rezoned to the A-2, agricultural district. A residential would not b~ consistent. A rural designation on]¥ permits b~e un~ per t~ve acres. One important point I woul~ like to bring up regarding the single family zoning district and compatibility is that the single fam) ly zoning district, as you know, does provide lot provisional uses, and primarily they fail into a category of institutional or quasi-commercial uses. On the surface, in some ca,es looking at some zoning district would appear lncompatablle with what's around it; the surrounding uses are of a higher OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 12 ~n~enfl~y or denfl~y, i~t ! wo~ld like to egein j~lnt out these provisional uses, it's our opinion that even single tamlly zoning dlstrlct Is compatible with these surrounding zoning districts that pe~lt a higher density or intensity o: use. COM34ZSSZON£R ¥O~P£: Za :hal ~cauae the single f~ily zoning district all~s for these p~ovieione~ provieional uaea7 reason, ~cause of ~he ~tentlal for provimlonal uses. In o~her cases, we're dealing with parcels of large enough size ~ha~ there Is adeq~a%e room ~o develop the 9ro~rty with single family dwellings and ~o ~ c~pm%lb~e, ~here's adequat~ rgom for buffering an0 me~ckm, and so forth %ha~ ~ha~ pro~r%y would be c~a~lble wl~h ~ surrounding duve~op~ent and zoning. The Planning Co~ssion h~d its two public hearings on Nov~r 19kb and then December 3rd, and th~ did raise a f~ Issues for us t9 discuss, as are men~lon~ in ~he Ex~u~ive One of ~helr concerns, mos= ~r~lcularly, to do wl~h ~lden Ga~e CI~y and -- excuse me -- Just OrFZCZA~ COURT RgPORTE.S Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 ? 8 9 10 11 13 14 16 18 :2O 21 22 :24 requires us to adopt a Master Plan both for Immokalee com~unity and Golden Gate City and F-states area. Both of those will be cc~ming before you In either January or early Februar), fei' t;he ad0ptton, One of the concerns that tl~ Plann£ng COmmission had was for the commercial properties in Golden Gate City. There were very f,~ commercial properties that had not submitted any type of application; that is, that potentialLy would in fact be rezoned. And the Planning Commissio.3, from the discuss[on, I believe, may be ~aking a recoeuaendatlon to you In the coming weeks for the Gplden G(~te Master Plan to designate some additional araas for commercial I~ost op~cl[lca11¥, we were dlscusstflq the co~rclal strips along Santa Barbara Boulevard and along County Road 951. Of course, wa won't know until they do in fact review those, the Ma~ter Plan £tself. What they did ask us to do in the m~antime, though, and their recommendation to */GU, in part, dealing with Golden Gate Is to not t~ke any action on any of the commercl~} propeiF1;~e~ Jn ,;olden (;nte City, Hold those out. Pull those out of the proclass until the Golden Gate Master Plan ts adoptod~ Agaln, thz'ough thetz' dlsCU;JSlOn, they seem to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 14 be indicating that they might reco~aend to you that we designate additional commercial arear.. If that ultimately should happen, if the Master Plan should be adopted with additional designation, then of course these properties then might become c¢.nslstent with the Master Plan and, therefore, not be s~b]ect t.o thin process. CHAIRMAN HASSE: In other ~'ords, the regular Golden Gate Master Plan was not In el lect etd -- I mean isn't being proposed? MR. WEEKS,. The Golden GaLe Master Plan that Is being proposed does not designate commercial land uses along Santa Barbara or 951. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Santa Barbara is a long street. MR. WEEKS: Yes, It Is. CNAIRKAR MASSE: It isn't all in the Golden Gate co.unity. I~R. WEEKS: Yeah. But I'm only s~eaklng to COKMZSSZONER VOLPI~: The o;]1¥ Lssue tha~ have aa it. zolatoo t.o Lbo eel,lan OoL~ Maa~o, Plan that the CCPC previously has reviewed, as I recall, the Golden Gate Master Plan, and It was ,ent to the Board OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 12 13 16 17 18 · 19 2O 21 22 23 15 with a recommkmndatlon with respect tc the commercial usage. And I don't remember where that plan Is now. Has It been sent to DCA? )IR. W~EF~ Yes, It ham. We ~ecently ~eiv~ the c~nt~ ~ck {~om ~A. C~I~IO~R VO~ So ~t mounds to me am though It ~y ~ a little blt too late. It moundm l~ke a~~nt tl~. WR. WII~8~ ~he chang~ could mt111 b~ mad~ n~. Ae you kn~, thle Im th~ body that ultimately ~111 adopt that Maeter Plan In whatever [o~ kt eo ~hoo~m. ~e only question then ~co~m If we ~km ch~ngm~ t0 the ~mter Plan f~0m w~at ~A ham ~evIewmd, would It ~ mubmtantlal onough that CCA might want to ap~al the adoption o{ that, that Mamtor Plan. C~I~ ~SE: Both midge o~ Santa ~bara are not in the city. ~R. WEEKS That's right. Tho wostern side of Santa Barbara is In the Estates, and we're not even discussing that. No properties in the Estatos are affected by this ordinance. And the proposed changed in the Master Plan In the Estates, again, also would have no bearing on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE~8 Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 :2 9 12 14 17 19 ~0 16 the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. Additional recommendations l)y the Planning Co~mission are listed in the Executlw~ Summary. Get b~ck in order here. ~ {irmt one ham to do with propertlem a~ong to County Road and State Road 951. at now? MR. WEEKS Which piece are you looking That's what I primarily brought this ~p for, or one of the reasons, at least. That -- this exhibit shows -- ali of the red on this map is the commercial zoned, the straight, the non-PUD commercial zoning. And PlannJng Commission's recommendation -- let me back up for a second. As I was talking about earlier, there is this provision for in-fill commercial, the Commercial Under Criteria, where if property Is of a ct}train size and it's bounded on both sides b~ develop~d commercial property that it would be conllatent ~lth our plan, But that language goes on further to ~tay, regarding the ~%~ 22 size, that this Board, if it deems appropriate, can j:~ 23 allow that distance to be greater than the two hundred ~, :~; OFF I C I ~ COURT REPORTERS " Collier County Courthouse, Florida 33962 Naples, 15 .: 25 17 three hundred feet for this property is appropriate, then you have the ability to make such a decision. was along 41, all the way from Wiggins Pass Road -- up here (indicating) -- all the way 41 here down to 951, is that for each of these comerclal properties, allow rheim to go up to as much as four hundred feet in width. SO if they're no greater than four hunJred feet in width and if they're bounded on both sides by the developed com~ercial property, that this Board determine that they're cons[stent via the Commercial Under Criteria provision. Th~ actual number of propertie~ :hal we'r~ dealing wi%h is only abou% half b do~en becau.e most of the prc~>ertles al~flg I.~ 41 thaC are subJec: to the reevaluation program have submitted one or more applications, so they have been withdrawn from the consideration. As we've identified in the Executive Summary, we, your staff, have great concern about this. Not because of the nu~b~r of properties affected. As I Dust stated, £t's very few and the aczeage is very small. But, %hen, again, we're only talking about a small portion of the property tonight, or lust seven hundred and fifty parcels. OFFICIAl. COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 4 5 7 13 14 17 22 18 Our concern lm the mtep that thl. takem, c~rc~al t~t'. up to four hundred f,)e~ In width to ~ consistent w~th the plan, thab's teK,fig the s~ep that we're going to presu~bly do the additional pro~rt~es as they come before 7ou, and the fle~ result could ~ tha~ we do vo~ little to rid this Itr~p c~rc~al pabtern along US 41. And ~s you can c~rclal corridors In the county. And as you recall, as well, ~,hen we adopted the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance in the first place and provided Poli~ 3.1.K In the Futur(, ~nd Element, co~ercial zoning was the driving force. Also, there's concerns for densities, and they are identifi~ In the Reevaluation Ordinance aa findings, the pur~ae. But the co~erclal zoning, tho sbundance of it a~d its l~atlon, was the driving force behind the zoning reevaluation process In the fir.t place. CO~ISSIONER VOLPE: That wa~ -- what was the reason for expanding the width to four hur,drad feet? ~R. WEEKS: Concern for incomparability. The Planning Co. lesion, }us~ a~ ~ou are doing -- except si course their ~pl h,~d ~re parcels OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 19 before additional applications had been received and so forth. They were looking at the maps just as you have, flipping through, looking at the spacific pieces of property that are affected -- excuse me. That's not quite correct. Not looking at the individual maps. The first hearing, they were looking at larg;~ exhibits of maps, and then later, the second meeting, looking at these small maps here. And, of course, seeing properties one at a time, here and there, I think from their comments, they were thinking this stands out like a sore thumb; we . have one parcel sitting here but all around it, we ye got this commercial zoned property. But we keep reminding -- we want to remind you, as we did them. If applications are pending, that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to be approved. So when you look at a piece' of property and sure enough it's standing out like a sore thumb, in this case, highlighted in yellow, it stands out bright, and all around it might be the striped pattern of additional property subject to this process, those applications potentially could be denied. If we should approve this greater width for these properties, that affects our review of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Napl,~s, Florida 33962 3 2O applications that are pending. And then, also, should they ultimately come to you, some of these properties have their application dendied ultimately come to you, I would have to think it's going to affect your recommendation as well. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, the process that you described was that in this instar, ce you are withdrawing from our consideration tkis evening those parcels where there are compatabiltty exceptions that have been filed. So should we make that decision or should we be making that or should we be discussing that this evening? MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure if I followed that. For those properties with an application submitted, they are withdrawn. The ordinance clearly provides for that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Ail ri]ht. MR. WEEKS: What we're requesting from you, amongst other things, is that for those properties that did not submit an application -- they're highlighted in yellow; we're discussing them here tonight -- that huve applications submitted around them, and if those applications around them are approved, then that subject property becomes consistent with the plan. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 18 21 Those are the ones that we are asking you to direct us, yes, it's okay; pull thosE, from the process; let's wait and see what happens with those surrounding applications. Those properties are identified on the revised ordinance that was submitted to you tonight with the asterisk by them. Again, there's fifteen, a total of fifteen parcels, a little over four acres. But the short, simple answer: I think the Planning Commission was flipping thrcugh the maps. Some of these properties are Just standing out like a sore thumb, inconsistent -- incompatible with the zoning around them. The second recommendation of the Planning Commission -- going back in order, is Item One-B on page four of the summary -- was for those properties along US 41 -- again, that whole strip of 41 that are on the south side of 41 East, which are in the coastal urban fringe -- which are limited to a maximum of four units per acre. If those properties that exceed that four hundred feet in width or if they don't have the commercial on both sides of them, developed commercial, so that they would become consistent with the criteria, the Planning Commission's recommendation was -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: RMS-16. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Floricla 33962 12 16 17 18 22 MR. WEEKS: I didn't state that right. For those properties on the south side of 41, they're limited to four units per ac~fe. So they suggest we Just rezone them as we're proposing. I'm sorry. It's on the no~rth side of 41 East. Those properties that are eligible for up to sixteen units per acre, that don't comply under criteria -- that is, they cannot keep their commercial zoning -- they, Planning Commission, said rezene to RMF-16, go to the maximum density. One of the provisions in the Future Land Use Element density rating system is that when we're rezoning from commercial to residential, you can rezone to up to sixteen units per acre. additional eight units per acre. of sixteen units per acre. Yoga get up to an Exiuse me. A total And that was their recommendation. Rezone those to the maximum; if they can't keep commercial, they're Going to residential, rezone them to the maximum. And then Item C is where the Planning Commission is stating, well, if they're in the coastal urban fringe, they're on the south side of 41 East, and they don't comply with their recommendation in One-A to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 23 maintain their conunercial zoning, then rezone them to the single family district, permitti:ng as close to four units per acre as possible. There is an amendment to the Future Use Land Element for Marco Island, which also will be coming to you with the master plans and the other plan amendments in January or early February, and th.it would allow for properties on Marco that are zoned commercial, that are being rezoned to residential, that they be allowed to rezone as high as eight units per ac:~e. Planning Commission's recoi~nendation was to rezone properties certain properties on Marco Island to eight units per acre. CHAIRMAN HASSE: that? ME. WEEKS: of lncompatability. What was the rationale on Again, I think it was the sense To take these -- those properties from a commercial zoning, and where ]n many cases they have a higher intensity zoning around., they have commercial zoning around them or a higher density residential or RT zoning around them, that rezoning them to a single family district just seemed incompatibile. It just didn't seem to make sense to them. CHAIRMAN HASSE: So eight units per acre. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 15 16 18 19 2O 24 Any height or anything else in relation to this? MR. WEEKS: No. Any development standards would be contained either in the zoning district or that plan amendment itself may contain some development standards. CO~?:ISSIONER VOLPE: Well, it's hard for me to Justify °=he distinctions that are being made on the one side. On the north side of US 41, you're talking about sixteen units an acre; on the south side, you're talking about four units an acre. MR. WEEKS: Four, max. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: fringe area. MR. WEEKS: In the coastal urban That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And I assume that's because of the policy that provides for the direction of population away from the coastal fringe area? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That"s the basis for that. The hurricane evacuation concerns, 9rimarily. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Island, though, it should be otherwis~e? MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It doesn't make And then saying on Marco OFFICIAL COURT REPORTEF~S Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 sense. sense. 25 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That doesn't make any If it's incompatible on Marco Island, then it's incompatible on south side of U~: 41 where hurricane evacuation is not as much of a concern as it is on Marco Island. MR. WEEKS: Let me make sure I'm being clear on the Planning Commission's recommendation. As far as compatibility go(is -- and this, of course, is from their discussion -- their concern for the compatibility was just looking at the zoning on the property and the zoning around it. I don't think -- at least ~[ don't recall any comments pertaining to hurricane evacuation. I think their comments wer,~ solely from a zoning standpoint of: Here is the zoning of the property; here's the zoning of the p:3operty around it; rezoning it to a three or four units per acre doesn't seem compatible with what's around il:. I believe that's the basis of their recommendation to rezone to the eight units per acre, and that's only if this plan amendment is adopted. The timing, though, is that the plan amendment won't come before you -- of course), we don't OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE}{S Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 7 11 22 23 26 know if it's going to be approved or not; you will have not yet seen it. The timing is such that the plan amendment will not come before you until after this January 7th hearing. So if you were to follow the Planning Commission's recommendtion, we would need to likewise withhold rezoning any of these properties on Marco Island until after the plan amendment is heard by this Board to see if you should approve that and then come back and discuss those properties on Marco and see if it's appropriate to rezone those up to this eight units per acre limit. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The plan amendment about which you speak. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Which one is that? MR. WEEKS: That's the plan amendment that will provide an amendment to the density rating system that will provide that rezoning properties on Marco Island currently zoned commercial can achieve a density of up to eight units per acre. Right now, there's that caE of four units per acre, all of Marco and all of those properties along 4] East on the south side, and the proposed amendment is to allow Marco Island only to convert commercial to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 residential and achieve a bonus of up to eight units per acre total. The next series of recommendations, Number Three through Number Eleven, are very specific. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Now, wait. MR. WEEKS: And unless you ~{ant me to go through those, I will assume that you have had an opportunity to look at these. This is where the Planning Com~nlssion started flipping page by page looking at spec.[fic parcels and saying: I think this should be rezoned to this; I think this should be rezoned to this, and so forth. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Talking about what page? MR. WEEKS: Page five of th() summary. CHAIRMAN HASSE: refer to the page? MR. WEEKS: Right. Would you please Yes, sir. And Item Number Three through Eleven, where the staff has addressed specific parcels. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Does the staff agree with the Planning Commission's recommendtions on Items Three through Eleven? MR. WEEKS: No. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Wou].d you tell us which ones you don't agree with? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER~ Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Flor±da 33962 · ~., 11 12 13 MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. Number Three -- excuse me. 28 Number Three is what we're proposing, so we of course agree with that. That's to achieve that base density of three or four units per acre. Number Four we agree with. Item Six, if you would like, you can delete -- excuse me. Item Six is one of these properties where we're asking you to let us withdraw that from the process. Those lots will become Consistent Under the Criteria if the surrounding applicaticns are approved. Number Seven is the same th/ng. Potentially Consistent Under Criteria. COM/~ISSIONER SHANAHAN: Dave, before you get too far. MR. WEEKS: Sure. You didn't say At least I didn't hear you. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: anything about Five. MR. WEEKS: Number Five, we have no obJecticn. That's the same thing that we're requesting or recommending. Number Eight we would disagree with. That's again ttad in with that recommendation to amend the plan. We would propose the base density of the four units per acre only. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 '7 ""-lC) 15 17 18 22 ;'.':'. 23 i?' 24 25 29 Disagree The same thing with Number Nine. with Number Nine. Disagree with Number Ten. And with Number Eleven. In short, anything that is recommended other than what we recommended, which was to go to that base density of three or four units per acre, we disagree with. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You're in accord with the lower density? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. A couple things I would like to mention. Number one, as far as the process we have been going through, right now it's -- it's a lot easier to manage this number of properties. Again, we're down to somewhere around a hundred and twenty parcels. When we started out, it was about seven hundred and fifty that we noticed. This is a comprehensive rezoning, and we have been reviewing it to rezone these, of course as we're bringing them to you in a patch format, and pretty much across the board rezoned them to the same intensity or density. As you know from a few weeks ago, our discussion of residential property, y¢.u did direct us OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERE Collier County Courthouse, Naples, f'lortda 33962 30 to look at that further and meet with some of the consultants to see if we might come u]? with that -- some type of density overlay that wou~Ld avoid rezoning the property. But for the commercial, we're going on ahead, and as the consultant, A1 Renolds, had mentioned, he didn't particularly have any I guess ~uggestion or either objection to the rezoning ef the commercial properties. His concern seemed to focus around the residential properties. One of the objections of the Zoning Reevaluation Program, besides rezoning commercial property to consistent zoninq districts, is also lowering the density of our residential property, reducing some of the RT and multi-family zoning to a lower density to be consistent with the plan. And that's something that we're keeping in mind as we make recommendations to rezone these properties from commercial, not to ultimately convert them to the maximum residential distzlct because then we're -- in some sense, we're riddinc ourselves of one problem. We're accomplishing one objective by reducing the commercial acreage, but then we're turning right around and increasing the high density residential, and that is something that we're keeping in mind as we make OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE}tS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 our recommendation. The other thing, again, is in looking at these properties and where they're lccated and realizing that in some cases because of their size, residential development, single family would be compatible; and in other cases recognizing that with the provisional use of those, the institutional, those quazi-commercial -- and actually quazi-mu].ti-family is allowed in the single-family district by provisional use, your cluster housing and the grcup housing, the villas -- that with these types of uses possible by provisional use that these properties, ew~n zoned single family residential, could be developed consistent, compatible with what's around them. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Dave, you agree with the statement in Number Twelve? MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And you were particularly concerned about One-A. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The One-A, again, the One-A is back to those pr¢,perties along the US 41, that whole strip of 41. CO~MISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Again, not because of the number of properties, because it's very few, but the steps OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 14 16 17 32 that it's taking us, and it seems to be taking us in the step of leaving commercial alone,, and that's Just -- to us, seems to be contrary to what we're trying to accomplish. In conclusion, the specific direction -- again I want to repeat that because !.t's important to us -- that we're asking for, the direction as to these properties that may become Consistent Under Criteria, depending upon the outcome of surrounding applications -- and again those are identified on that revised ordinance exhibit submitted to you tonight -- that we be directed to withdraw those from t]xis rezone process until after we have reviewed and made determinations on those surrounding applications. That for that one parcel t]~at's out near Corkscrew Sanctuary, on Immokalee Road, that it be rezoned to the A-2 zoning district. There is one other specifi(: parcel that's located just south of Immokalee Road -- it's at the northern end of the Four Seasons Sub(~ivision -- to be rezoned to the RMF-6 zoning district; and then the remaining properties to be rezoned t¢) the RSF-3, single family zoning district. That's our recommendation to you. And the last thing, I guess Just to remind OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 you for tonight, we want to hear pub].ic input, have the discussion, get any direction you might deem appropriate, tell us what further information you would find helpful at your next hearing to make the decision that you think is appropriate. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just a question about -- putting this all back in context now. Now, at the outset you had identified a number of parcels that are going to be affected by zoning evaluation. And you limited ~[t, it seems to me, to something like forty parcels this evening that we're going to be -- MR. WEEKS: This evening, ~{e're talking about approximately a hundred and twenty parcels; and then if we subtract that fifteen that we're asking for, that potentially will be consistent criteria, we're down to Just over a hundred. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And then how about the ones where the CCPC has made a reco~endation, if we were to agree with that recommendati~)n? MR. WEEKS: I believe that pulled out about another five parcels -- it was very :{mall --- because most of these properties (indicating) along 41, that whole strip that they're talking about subject -- most of those properties subject to this ]process have OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 5 6 34 submitted an application, so they are already withdrawn from this process. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That':3 the four hundred foot width? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about the others 23 25 now? We went through Number Thrae through Eleven? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What impact would that have on the remaining number of parcels? What I'm really trying to ]et down to is how many. You know, how many parcels are we actually going to be talking about this evening, the effec'5 of our actions? What will be the number of parcels that will be affected by -- not this evening, Dut after the second hearing on this petition? MR. WEEKS: If you follow 9ur recommendation, we'll be talking about approximately a hundred and five; and with the Planning Conunission's recommendation, approximately a hundred. There is not a significant difference. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Were the~ more inclined to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTSRS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 16 17 18 19 2O 21 :-. 23 "-~i.. 2 5 35 go with higher density? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Conunissioners, your first speaker is Mr. Glenn Tucker. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Tucker. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, 3ir, there is one more thing I wanted to mention. I'll be very brief, Mr. Tucker. There's one project we do need to withdraw from the process. It's the only PUD with commercial zoning in it that is still part of the process; that is, part of the public hearing proce:~s, but now we need to pull it out. We have discovered that we did, in fact, fail to give proper notice as required by the ordinance. Sc we will have to renotice that property the full one hundred and twenty days. Unfortunately, we had a ty])o and significant enough in the name, and these were sent by certified mail, that we believe that's the reason the letter was not claimed. Therefore, they never really got into the process in the first place. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Which one is that, Mr. Weeks? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WEEKS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: revised Exhibit A? MR. WEEKS: 36 That's the Wind Song PUD. Is it a number on the Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What is MR. WEEKS: It's in South Haples. I'll find the page number for you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I know where it is. MR. WEEKS: Okay. It's on page four of that revised exhibit. It's the number on~ on South Naples Planning Community. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Mr. Tucker, maybe you would like to come forward now? Quick, before he stops you again. MR. TUCKER: Actually, that was sort of an appropriate lead in. I'm Glenn Tucker, Attorney, 923 North Collier Boulevard, Marco Island, Florida. He was talking, Mr. Weeks ~as talking about the failure to give a notice, and I'l~ sorry that we have to take up the Commission's tim~ with this, but the client that we represent would have filed a compatibility exception except that through inadvertence, the initial notice did not reach him. We have had a meeting with Mr. Weeks of the OFFICI~L COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 10 11 24 25 37 Planning Department to discuss this with him, and we have also corresponded with him to create a record with respect to this matter. As point of reference -- I ~on't know if it's good or bad to mention this point of reference, but my client's property is immediately north of Del's Market on 951, which I think everyone is familiar with. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yes. MR. TUCKER: It's a small p~rcel of approximately a half an acre. And, as I said, it's next to a commercial property, Del's ~arket, and across are a number of commercial parcels. The owners of the property are Mr. and Mrs. George Bogen. They changed their address --- and I have an affidavit to present; and I'll giv~ it to the Count'! Manager, if that's appropriate -- snd left a forwarding address with their post office. The first notifi -- all their mail has been forwarded through the post office to their new address. The first notification they received was the letter from the county dated November 2nd, indicating notice of the public meeting. CHAIRPiAN HASSE: Where did it go, Mr. Tucker? MR. TUCKER: It went to the New York address OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 and was forwarded to them. It was received by regular U.S. mail and made no mention of the fact 'that their property was being down zoned to residential or that compatibility application needed to be filed. On November 5th, 1990, my partner had a meeting with Mr. Weeks of the Planning Department, and at that time Mr. Weeks indicated that the initial notice had been sent to Mr. Bogen by certified mail, indicating that -- and it was returned by the post office, indicating that the Bogens ha(! left no forwarding address. They had left a a forwarding address. The information that the post office gave was incorrect. And it is so set forth in the affidav!.t of Mr. Bogen that we have submitted to the manager. The fact that the first notification was sent returned to the county and the second notification was not returned perhaps confirms my client's position and did put the county on notice that perhaps there was an inadventence in the failure to delive]~ the first mail at no fault of the property owner. We suggest that these people have not been remiss, that they acted promptly upon the first notification, and that they had no reason to question otherwise in view of the fact that ali~ of their other OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER~ Collier County Courthouse, Naples, ?lorida 33962 · 22 :~ ' 24 25 39 mail had been received, including the tax bills that the county sent them. The county wouldn't be jeopardized by granting the request that we're here to make and that we have already made to the Planning Department, and that is that the Bogens be granted a hundred and twenty days from November 2nd, the date they first received any notice, because the failure to receive the notice was not due to their own fault. And, also, as Mr. Weeks has said, there are already a number of parcels which have been withdrawn from this possess because of the filing of compatibility applications. So I think you have it within your power. The regulations you set down sat forth a procedure of notice and response, but I don't think it'3, as we sometimes deal in court, a jurisdictional matter. I think if you believe the affidavit of the property owner and take into consideration the extenuating factors, that you're not precluded from granting them the opportunity to file the exception. It doesn't have to be a hundred and twenty days from November 2nd; if it was just a reasonable period of time. What my clients would like to do is file the application. They are adJace{%t to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 commercial properties. I don't know what's going to ha~pen to that other commercial property or how many other applications -- or, not commercial, bu'5 that strip property along there -- how many other ap~.lications have been filed; but it may very well }De one of these parcels that Mr. Weeks is talking about anyway. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Weeks, .do you have an answer to that? MR. WEEKS: one I gave when I met with Mr. Nold, M~. Tucker's partner. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I wasn't there. MR. WEEKS: Oh. Well. I think Mr. Tucker has accurately reflected what has occurred. We did send tke notice by certified mail to the New York address, correctly typed and spelled, et cetera. And as he has indi -- Mr. Tucker has indicated -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: To the New York address? forwarded. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. TUCKER: I think it's goiag to be the same I thought it was There was a fo]~arding notice OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, ?lorida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 left with the New York post office. The people had moved recently and had not yet notified -- they didn't have any reason to notify the county, and they had received all of their other correspondence from the county, including the tax bill. MR. WEEKS: The tax notice -- MR. TUCKER: Including the notice of this hearing, but not the notice of -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was just looking at these. I thought they had moved from F].orida to New York and there was a forwarding address on them. But you're saying -- MR. TUCKER: Just the reve~se. And they didn't move to Collier County, they moved to the east coast. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So the not]ce was sent to New York, and the mistake in the post office was made in New York and not in Florida? MR. TUCKER: Yes, sir. It's all one big post office. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Where are we, David? MR. WEEKS: Decision making time. We sent the notice. Our position is that we have followed the requirements of th~ ordinance. We C) c) C) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ~ 10 ll 18 42 sent the notice by certified mail to the property owners' current record -- record of -- address of record on the tax roll. And as Mr. Tucker stated, yes, it was returned, and what was checked off was they have moved and no forwarding address. I should also note -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We now have an affidavit to the effect that he did leave a forwarding address. MR. TUCKER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You didn't have that prior? MR. WEEKS: CHAIRMAN HASSE: an answer. MR. CUYLER: No, sir. Mr. Cuyler, you might have My position will be, for these, that if the county followed the ordinance requirement, then they have satisfied the law, you have satisfied the law. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sir, if we make an exception in individual cases because of the circumstances -- in this case, perhaps it's nobody fault, but the notice wasn't received. If we make an exception for Mr. Tucker's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 43 client, then does that present problems for us on other notices that may not have been received? MR. CUYLER: Potentially. The problem that you have is that everyone who may claim a problem with the notice, from somebody's point of view other than the county's point of view, then they -- say you did everything you need to but they have problems -- they may not be here tonight, they may raise that at another time. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How many -- potentially, how many people are there that did not receive notice? MR. WEEKS: We have about three, maybe four dozen letters returned. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: MR. WEEKS: Dozen. fifty; something like that. Letter returned, the certified mail notices. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't ihave any particular problem in granting some additional time for Mr. Tucker's client or granting additional time for other petitioners who may not have re.:eived the notices for whatever reasons. I'm not sure what that does for our process. I realize that that will extend it, but I think in Three to four dozen? -'--- Yeah. Chir~y to forty, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER~ Collier County Courthouse, Naples, ?lorida 33962 1 4 ? 8 9 10 13 15 '¸ 24 44 fairness, I don't have any particular problem with it, for if it's a limited number of people that we're dealing with. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: limited number. MR. WEEKS: MR. CUYLER: percent. It appears to be Thirty-six to ]:orty-eight. Excuse me. Ii. equals fifty-one That's prectically half of That's the outside CD Have we had any other requests other than Mr. ,~ CHAIRMAN HASSE: the people here. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: potential. Tucker's at this point? MR. WEEKS: Not other than the one regarding Wing Song, and as I explained we agreed with them there because we could clearly see. With the wrong name issued, we could understand why the ~roperty owner would not sign for the letter. CHAIRMAN HASSE: These postmarks and such on that letter -- ! have to depend on M~. Cuyler for that -- are all prove that this is w?at happened? MR. CUYLER: The county kncws when it sends the mail certified that it has complied with the ordinance requirements. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE}i,S Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 9 lO 45 So, you know, at that point. -- there are a lot of different situations where yo~ comply with the law if you send it appropriately. You can't guarantee that people are going to receive documents. All you can do it guarantee that you send it appropriately. And if someone has a claim that you failed to do your duty or to meet the requirements of the ordinance by failing to send by promptly, then they can come in and make a claim. If they have extraneous ar~tuments outside of the sending process, the verified mai. ling process, then generally that's not the county's fa[llt, that's not something the county is responsible for. CHAIRS~N HASSE: Even if it's an indication that our fantastic Postal Service made a mistake? MR. CUYLER: to make mistakes. CHAI~4AN HASSE: The post office has ])een known They do? MR. CUYLER: A mistake or I don't know that you want to take on the responsibilities of errors in the co'Jnty sy~tem which are always potentially, and probably, in th.~ U.S. mailing system. So far -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 6 7 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: recommendation, Mr. Cuyler? So what is your 46 MR. CUYLER: My recommendation is to comply with the requirement as set out in the ordinance, and then to consider it appropriately. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What does that do to these clients, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: That's to be resolved. MR. TUCKER: We -- may I make one additional comment? We're not suggesting any fault on the part of the county and -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We're not assuming any fault. MR. TUCKER: While I hear Mr. Cuyler's strong recommendation, I don't hear him say that the law requires you to do what he's recommending, and we wouldn't ask you to deviate from a requirement or a standard. What my clients are asking you is to consider extenuating circumstances and an obvJ.ous in~ustice and to exercise your discretion in favor of one of your constituents or one of your property owners, who is a taxpayer, within the right that you have to do that. Also, in the context of what Mr. Weeks has said, you have already withdrawn the majority of these CD OFFICIAL COURT REPORTE:{S Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 6 · 8 12 15 21 23 24 25 47 properties from consideration becausE, of timely filings. If you would tell us to get. this-filed within fifteen days, we'll get it filed witkin fifteen days, and it can be considered with all of the other properties. There is no prejudice to your process, except for perhaps what Mr. Saunders has said, you may have other people come forward, but I would suggest that it is discretionsry with you, and you could certainly require at least the same kind of di].igence and proper showing that my client has presented. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Cuyler, I'm going to suggest that based on the unique circumstances of this petition, where the appropriate forwarding addresses were provided to the post office and then apparently the post office was the sole entity that was wrong in the handling of the mailing, that under those circumstances that Mr. Tucker's client be given an additional fifteen days to file the appropriate paperwork. And that's based on Mr. Tucker's indication that that would be a sufficient amount of time. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Is that a motion? MR. CUYLER: Let me mention two things before, if you want to accept it. But I need to put OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 13 · 16 19 :' .? 21 24 25 48 two things want on the record. First of all, I can't guar~.ntee that other people who claim different circumstar.ces and yet that they were not notified are not going to be able to come in and ask for the same relief and ultimately be granted the same relief, either administratively or Judicially. And the other thing to remember is that, you know, with all due respect to Mr. Tucker and his client, you have no independent evidence of this. You've got an affidavit, so if the affidavit is supplied by the person claiming the error, you're always going to have -- they'll alway3 be able to have someone come in and supply the affidvit. CHAIRMAN HASSE: There isn't any proof we have, in other words, from the post office? MR. CUYLER: Well, this is sworn testimony from Mr. Tucker's client. CHAIN24AN HASSE: office. MR. CUYLER: the post office. No. I meant from the post No; no, there is nothing from CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ail right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: May I ask Mr. Tucker just a couple of questions? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 ~~:?..... 2 5 MR. TUCKER: Yes. .:, .;: ' OFFICI ~ Co li r County Cou~ 49 You did say, Mr. Tucker, that your client did receive the notice, the November 2nd notice of the hearing before the CCPC and this subsequent hearing; is that correct, and to represent -- MR. TUCKER: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So you still had twenty-five days in which to file the application. MR. TUCKER: Well, he didn't know the first notice had gone out setting out the hundred-and-twenty-day time frame, until he conferred with us, which was too late, whereupon my partner contacted Mr. Weeks, and that's the dialog. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So the client didn't have a chance to contact you before the 27th of November. MR. TUCKER: The hundred and twenty days had run, and Mr. Weeks I don't think has the authority to grant an extension. MR. WEEKS: MR. TUCKER: authority. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: question would be: Right. I think only you have the And then the next The notices were sent out on July OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 8 13 14 15 17 18 ? 22 .?:::- 25 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And this was sent according -- regards to that, it was sent to your client in New York City or New York? MR. TUCKER: Right. COM~4ISSIONER VOLPE: And you said that your client had moved from New York and relocated to the east coast of Florida. MR. TUCKER: Correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: When did your client moved? 50 That is And that was obtained front MR. TUCKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Volpe. I don't know the exact date they moved. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Sc, I mean, they -- MR. TUCKER: But the envelope that went out -- we do have a copy of it attached to the affidavit -- shows that the post office stamped it "Moved; No Forwarding Address." That was the envelope in which t.he notification as to the time limit was sent.. attached to the affidavit. Mr. Weeks, not from our client. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I would second Mr. Saunders' motion. And I think there's enough evidence here to make an exception, and I'm willing to take the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 51 risk of taking others as well. CHAIRMAN HASSE: My only problem is that our our attorney is advising us of something here? Is that correct. MR. CUYLER: That's correct. Mr. Tucker said that I had not told you what you cannot do it, and I haven't told you that you cannot do it. I'm just telling you that I don't know who else can come in and claim the same thing under very similar situation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This could start a dangerous trend if we start paying attention to Ken now. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is Mr. Tucker's client going to be prejudiced in anyway, though? I mean he still had the opportunity this evening to make a formal presentation at this hearing or at the hearing which is going to be held on January 7th to debate a presentation as to why your clients' should not be rezoned. So where is the prejudice to your client? MR. TUCKER: Well, you have adopted certain procedures, and the way I read your zoning ordinance and your rules relating to the filing is that if you don't file the exception, then you don't have a basis c_--) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florl. da 33962 18 '~ 9-0 21 29_ 23 24 52 for pursuing your claim. And, also, you have already withdrawn the properties from consideration now where the requests for exceptions have been filed. So I think there is a considerable prejudice there. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was just thinking, Mr. Tucker, that if you made a presentation this evening, and your argument would be, you know, essentially that this particular piece of property should not be rezoned for the reason that. MR. TUCKER: I have sort of already said some of those things. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's something that I thought we were going to be considering parcel by parcel this evening, if need be, that there may be a circumstance where you would find that it would be inappropriate to rezone this particular piece of property. And that's what the CCPC has done. There have been a number of instances where they have taken an individual parcel and said no, we don't think that parcel should be rezoned. MR. WEEKS: Planning Commission -- MR. TUCKER: More specifically, the prejudice OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 · ~;.-~:~:;.~ 1 is that my client would be in the position of not ~~:i:: : 2 having followed your administrative procedures and ~.~ .... i 3 won't have the right to appeal or resort to any other ~.~.. ' · ~.':'~.'i' 4 correction or plea that he might make to you at a later .'.','. 5 date, and then I think the record will prejudice him. f~il."~ 6 He hasn't filed this. .. 8 MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, let me make one 9 more comment, as one in a long line of county attorneys'~!~ ~i/":i'i 10 that nevertheless tried to make themselves heard, and CiD l~?~'.;.~'?::i;''':-' ll get on the record. The same thing as usual. ~]~.~,.":': 12 CHAIRMAN HASSE: As well as Mr. Saunders, CiD when he was attorney, we didn't listen. MR. CUYLER: You may want to add on that the proof submitted is submitted either at this hearing or the second rezone rehearing to again try to limit those parcels. Of course, if somebody is going to claim they didn't have notice, they're going to claim that they didn't have notice of these hearings. But at least that is one more thing that may differentiate Mr. Tucker's client's situation from the other situations. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Is the envelope attached to it? MR. TUCKER: A copy of it, Mr. Hasse. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 7 54 MR. CUYLER: Because the county cannot engage in a system where people are coming in three and four and five months and six months from now and claiming they didn't have notice and trying to start a new process essentially. The county is not going to be able ever to accomplish any purpose. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I don't have any problem with that addendum on that at all. I want to really listen to you on those big issues. MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Chairman, this discussion brings to light one additional issue that I think needs to be discussed. And we'll have to rely ¢.n Mr. Cuyler probably for the response to this, also. .2_~ But it begs a question of what happens to those properties that already have rezone action taken, that may in turn come back and petition this Board that they never got notice either, because they had moved and provided a forwarding address. David has indicated that we've got three or four dozen letters that were returned, which isn't a bad percentage out of the number that we sent out; but the fact is that within the next three or four weeks, this Board will be taking action of rezontng action, where the rezoning will actually be accomplished. So it begs the question, I think, by making OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 14 15 55 this type of exemption, whether that is going to affect those properties also. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Thank you. I'll call for the motion. All those in favor of extending the time? (Affirmative responses.) MR. HASSE: Opposed? Aye. MR. CUYLER: And, Mr. Chairman, that was with the addendum that the evidence has to be provided at this hearing? CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And that was based, in this instance, on the fact that proper notice had not been received by the property owner. ~?"-': · 16 MR CUYLER: And that an affidavit was · ~:~ ~ 17 supplied ~ ' 18 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It was based on all ,:,~:~,,., 19 of the facts that were presented at this hearing. ~: .:'-' 21 ii~: 20 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Whatever the,.[ were. .... i! 21 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I don't think we have ~:['~ 22 to reiterate every one of them. ~ll~],: 23 CHAI~N HASSE: All right. Let's not go ~,' 24 into that. ~~[}~" 25 CO~ISSIONER VOLPE: I just want to clarify ~~~'~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS l~j~{"~.;'" Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 16 18 21 · 2 3 in my own mind. MR. OLLIFF: is -- MR. OLLIFF: is Linda Lawson. CHAIRMAN HASSE: 56 Mr. Chairman, your next speaker CHAIRMAN HASE: All right. MR. TUCKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, your next speaker Ms. Lawson. MR. CUYLER: One other thing. Did we set a time period in which that application is -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: here. Fifteen days. Fifteen days from CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ms. Lawson. MS. LAWSON: Good evening. Linda Lawson. 5811 Pelican Bay Boulevard. I'm here representing Andy Pearson who was the order owner of Lot Six, Block 184, Unit Seven in Marco. On your summary, that property is identified on page five. It's Number Eight. So this is one of the parcels that warrant discussion tonight. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, Linda. That would be on the ordinance that was passed out, with an astrisk? ¢_-3 .Lq OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 13 i ;~ 16 20 :22 24 Is that what you're referring to? mentioned the summary. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: though. MS. LAWSON: earlier, David. MR. WEEKS: MS. LAWSON: list of property. MR. OLLIFF: 57 You Not on page five, The summary that you discussed Thank you. And where you went through the Number Eight of the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HASSE: page and where is it? MR. OLLIFF: Summary, Mr. Chairman. You have lost me now. What Page five of your Executive Number Eight. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Map M-B, 7-B? MS. LAWSON: Right. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Go ahead. MS. LAWSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm here tonight also on a notice issue. I talked to the property owner in afternoon at three o'clock, and was at that time first made aware that she has not previously gotten notice. I inquired cf her whether she had gotten her OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 14 15 16 17 18 58 tax bills this year, knowing that Mr. Weeks and the county would have used the tax rolls for purposes of this notice, and she indicated to me that she had not gotten her tax roll, so I think that there is a bona fide issue of notice involved in her situation. I am not prepared tonight to discuss it in depth. I do know that if she is granted additional time to apply for the exemption, she will be applying for -- under the zoning ordinance 2.4.2.1 --- where you've got a site plan approved and then you are going to go under construction within a foreseeable time after that. This property, I had an opportunity to be involved in a zoning issue several months ago. It is currently zoned C-3, and the issue at that time had to do with the setbacks. It's a fairly unusual, piece of property, having been platted a number of years ago with an alley on one side and essentially at one point, there was a concern that there were three front yards on this property. So the parcel has been actively under site plan review. It's been well known over the planning Tile record owner is a California resident. a Collier County resident. She makes staff. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 20 .:~ -.. 2 l 22 :~:' :" 2 3 :24 59 occasional trips to Collier County to deal with matters affecting the property. I know in regard to the zoning problem, she had various consultants, architects, engineers involved who were working on that, and my general impression of the situation at this point is that she herself did no'5 get the notice and none of her consultants until this late date happened upon the information that this was one of the properties that was being down zoned. points. as he does. I think that the general provision in the zoning ordinance for the certified mailed notice and the policy and the procedure that was followed was a matter of administrative convenience for the county, and that's all well and good, but when you're talking about the deprivation of property rights, as we are in this case, you're talking about a need for fundamental due process. And I don't want to say that too loudly, but that's really what's at issue here. And I think we have to have some kind of notice; and if we don't get them by certified mail, we're going to have to go back So I'm here tonight to raise the issue. If I could Just speak to Mr. Cuyler's I don't see the legal issues quite as the same c~ C~ C~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 60 to each one of them and make sure that they got some kind of a notice. CHAIRMAN HASSE: It bothers me a little bit that our Postal Service didn't give any kind of indication. Did you get anything returned by them or anything? MS. LAWSON: Commissioner Hasse, I'm not prepared to speak on that point, because I only learned about the notice issue this afternoon at three o'clock in a long distance phone conversation with the client in California. And at that time, I was able to ascertain that she has not received any notice and she also indicated she has not received her 1990 tax bill or any notices of tax bill, and we all know several notices have been sent. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Weeks, have you any indication of a tax bill not going to these people? Have you checked on that in any way, shape or form? MR. WEEKS: Not the tax bill, but as regards the notices that were sent out, I'm not -- I can't verify or substantiate that we did or did not send them. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 6 8 lO 11 14 15 16 17 ~ 19 20 '~'.:' ' 2 1 22 24 F: 25 61 My suggestion to you is that you take no action on this request until the next meet[ng at which time I will be certainly be prepared to advise you yes, we did or no, we did not send the notice. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I would have liked to have done that on the last one. MR. CUYLER: Let me put one thin] on the record as Ms. Lawson and I do clearly disagree on what is fundamental due process. I think the county has provided fundamental due process by the certified mail system to the last known address according tax rolls. And that is -- there are a number of instances and statutes where that is fundamental due process. And the county does not and cannot have the obligation of tracking down people nationwide and worldwide, for that matter, to make sure that they get notice in order to assure fundamental due process. MS. LAWSON: At the risk of getting a quick education, Mr. Cuyler, do those cases invclve down zoning? MR. CUYLER: property foreclosure. MS. LAWSON: again. They include tax me. tters and But let's bring out. that word Do they include down zoning? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 6 11 15 16 18 . 19 21 ':23 62 MR. CUYLER: They include loss of your property; not Just loss of certain property rights. CO~4ISSIONER VOLPE: Did you get -- was there mention made of the fact that this notice that was sent was returned, or is that the question we need to address? MR. WEEKS: I'm not familiar. That's what I'm saying. MS. LAWSON: Mr. Volpe, we don't have any information. I talked to Mr. Weeks at five o'clock this afternoon, and he was very helpful in terms of indicating that this would be an appropriate forum for me to at least raise the issue, but I don't have any specific information. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And did you say that there was also a site development plan for this property that's being reviewed? MS. LAWSON: It has been been approved. It's been through the mill this year, and it's been one that has had a few snags. We've had a lot of discussions down at the staff. I was brought in on some of those after it was already a problem, and resolved a matters with Mr. Baginski and others. I think Mr. Brutt has been OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 63 involved in the planning matters on this property. So I think it's Just a matter of the client being an absentee owner, having perhaps used a different address and moving and that sort of thing. That's speculation, and I don't want to go into that any further right now, but I have the feeling it has to do with mail not getting forwarded to her. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You think you could come up with some more information by January the 7th? MS. LAWSON: that opportunity. I would like you all to give me (._-) ¢..~ COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I think that's fair. MR. CUYLER: You have already given her that opportunity, based on your last motion. You said the evidence either has to be provided at this hearing or the next hearing. So she's got until the January 7th. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So we want to bring it back. CHAIRMAN HASSE: So January the 7th. MS. LAWSON: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HASSE: And please come in with an answer for us so we don't have to meditate. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And, David, you're going to also research the mailings, et cetera, make OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 15 2O 23 64 sure that they have gone out, as best you can, and that they have not been returned. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HASSE: And I would like for you, if it's feasible, to check on the tax bill to see what's going on. Thank you. MS. LAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Daniel Peck. Following Mr. Peak will be Burdette Metzger. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peck ks going to speak about a client that our firm represents, so I'm going to exclude myself from this discussion as a conflict and from voting procedures on this matter. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Certainly. Peck and Peck and Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Something like that. MR. PECK: My name is Daniel Peck. I practice law at number 203, 801 Anchor Road Drive in Naples. I have some documents that I would like to make part of your file. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Give that to Mr. Baginski. MR. PECK: I have three different groups of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 CD C."D C,~-~ (.3"1 ~-,t ~ ~"'-~ii~,'(~:i':'~i" I property owners that I represent, all concerning 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 ~ 13 14 '~" 15 ~' 16 17 18 19 · "': 20 ~ "~" 21 22 23 24 Pineland on the Trail property in East Naples, which is roughly opposite the Lakewood entrance near Outer Drive. I am speaking on behalf of items which are on pages seven and eight of your list of properties affected, Numbers Thirteen through Eighteen, specifically Lots Eight, Seventy-eight, Seventy-nine, and Eighty, owned by for Doris Francini, Leonard Scalzi, Marilyn Antinozzi and John Gentile. Also on behalf of the adjoining Lots Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eighty-one, Eighty-two, Eighty-three, Eighty-four, and Eighty-five and Eighty-six owned by Sam Romano and Anthony Romano. And, finally, on behalf of the owners of Lots One and Eighty-seven, which property is held by Philip Keyes as trustee for Doris Francini and Leonard Scalzi, Avis Scalzi, Hugo Racchia and Delores Racchia. I would like to point out, if I may -- and I have given you little diagrams attached to my documents identifying the property, but I would like to take a minute and try and identify for you. Across the street is located J. Emmet's Restaurant and Lounge, Plaza Travel. Immediately west of that, NCNB. Behind that, Manor Care Nursing home. ~D CD C'; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 66 Further west, the Exxon station, Patriot Square Shopping Center, a vacant parcel and then the East Naples Shopping Center. As you head eastward on the opposite side of the street, you have the Great Western Bank, Bill Smith, Perkins, Ryan Homes Model, Great Western Steakhouse and Shoney's. On the same side of the street, immediately west, is Ted's Sheds; next to take is vacant property which is held under a PUD, which I understand is just beginning to be developed at this time. Further west Grill and Fill, Home Design Center, Sherwin Williams Shopping Center. To the immediate east of the property on the same side of the road would be Two wicked -- Wickered Women Interiors, Tru-Value Hardware, State Farm Insurance and Price Realty. Further east, Johnson- Pittman Funeral Home; and east of that, Rex Audio and Video, an office building and Century 21, then Speedway as you go further east. I think the identification of the surrounding use indicates something quite clearly about the subject property. CD CD CD CD CD 15 , '~:. 17 ~'~'i' ' 18 ~~?:~' 25 which is surrounded by so-called co~erciai use. ~'-"~.~?;:~'::~" OFFiCiAL COURT REPORTERS {~4~:~ Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 67 I would respectfully submit that the subject property is not property that you would want to live in, being both on the Trail and being adjacent to the commercial use and is not something that you can really say is suitable for residential use for someone else in that there has been reference tonight about the thought, well, let's make it residential and then there are a couple exceptions to residential and perhaps those will still be in existence when the property is being developed and perhaps we can do something with that with that complimentary residential use. And I would submit that that is ducking the question. Those criteria may not be availab].e at that time, that criteria also may not be suitable for the subject property, and it should be zoned for some type of commercial use. You may also at some point hear arguments to the effect, well, let's have that zoned for office buildings. And I would again respectfully submit that that, to put it mildly, is not prime office location which would be salable or readily usable for someone, ~-~*; .... 22 and that that also would not be appropriate use for the /~*~*:':: ;;' 23 property. ;;3~ 24 In short, the subject property is not -- ~;' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS ? (~¢' Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 commercial area, and the present zoned commercial use lB clearly compatible with the surro,nding area. I think if you further consider the whole scope of the Tamiami Trail the way to from Tampa all Miami and so-called urban centers where there is adjacent commercial use, I think you would be hard pressed to find any or more than a few exceptions where you would have residential use, and it clearly is not appropriate along that area. Commercial use would not be more intense or dense than the average of the intensity or ¢lensity of nearby uses. It would be in keeping with the surrounding commercial development. It would not impose any greater significant burden on infrastructure than would residential use. I think you have also heard that little property would be stmtlar!y situated and would need to be changed. In addition, the commercial use would not affect the character of any residential neighborhood. I didn't point out, but I should, perhaps, that behind the adjoining lots would be the Grace Community Day Care and School and dentist office immediately to the east of us. I should also make another point, and that is: If you look at my little maps, the different OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 69 property owners all have property on the Trail, they all have property one lot removed from the Trail. Obviously, it was purchased with the thought in mind that it would be developed as Trail frontage and that with the frontage to the Trail and with the property immediately behind the Trail lots, we could have greater setbacks and more advantageous use than trying to cram everything on a limited sized lot. If the land was rezoned to residential use, the properties owners would not only have the reduction in property value from commercial property to residential property but above and beyond that, they would practically be left with property which, for all practical purposes, would be useless because no one would normally be expected to buy such property for residential use. If office use were allowed, again, it would be inappropriate. Continued commercial use would not adversely impact surrounding properties, but: the subject property would be adversely impacted if it were zoned residential and had the surrounding commercial use around it. The traffic impact would be minimal over residential use. As I understand it, the Tamiami Trail, which is four lanes, is going to be expanded to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 70 six lanes in that area. There is also an outer drive which could be used which has very little traffic on it at the present time. And if you look at the other side of it, the existing traffic on the Trail would be advantageous for commercial use which would enhance the businesses as opposed to residential use where it would clearly be a detriment. It seems clear that the subject pi~operty as a commercial property is the same or less intensive use than the existing property within three hundred linear feet of the subject property and that the conur, ercial use would not be more intense or dense than the average intensity use on the use of the subject property. In conclusion, not only would continuing to allow commercial use in the subject property be more in character and in scale than the surrounding land use, but it would also more fully meet the needs of the nearby surrounding neighborhoods which would have the benefit of such commercial use available. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. P~ck. ~ MR. PECK: Thank you ~ · ~) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Weeks. ~) MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. ~. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Realizing that this property is evidently surrounded by wicked -- Wlckered Women, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 10 '24 71 would perhaps comment on this? MR. WEEKS: I guess my only comment is that we're mandated by Policy 3.1.K of the Future Land Use Element to rezone properties that are inconsistent and unimproved to a consistent zoning district. And the remarks I'm hearing from Mr. Peck all would deal with compatibility and the alleged appropriateness of the zoning to remain as it is right now, but that does not address the requirement to rezone the property to a consistent zoning district. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Even though it's virtually surrounding by business properties, commercial property? MR. WEEKS: Yes. I hope you won't be asking me tonight to take a look and off the cuff give you a response as to, yes, we should or no, we shouldn't approve this application or yes or no, we should leave this one alone. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Well, frankly, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HASSE: anything I want to ask you. MR. WEEKS: Well, I'll respond as best I can. I'm going to ask you certainly try to CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 18 .20 72 MR. PECK: I would respectfully submit the response to what's been said that you have before you the opportunity to rezone the property, and you should consider whatever is relevant in accordance with proper legal requirement criteria and that if a residential use is in your minds clearly inapproprite, that you should not be held there like blind dogs to say -- and I'm sure you wouldn't be -- to say yes, we're going to do that. You should obviously exercise wkat you always have, your fine discretion and decide what's appropriate. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess we get called all kinds of things. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yeah. CO~4ISSIONER SHANAHAN: CO~4ISSIONER SAUNDERS: to see it. That's 8 new one. CD As long as I was here~ I think we're going to hear the same kind of argument on every piece of the property; that there is a reduction in value. And if you consider down zoning property, that's sort of the nature of down zoning, and I'm not persuaded by the argument. So, you know, I think that staff is -- i OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 73 think Mr. Weeks is correct, that we can't be asking staff to evaluate every single piece of property tonight. That's not what we're here to do. MR. PECK: I would respectfully submit that the thrust of my argument was not on the reduction in value. That is a side consideration. The thrust of my argument is toward the appropriateness of the rezoning of the property, particularly in view of the surrounding use and the location on the Trail. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Peck. Anybody else, Mr. O? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Burdette Metzger, followed by John Brugger. MR. METZGER: My name is Burdette Metzger, and I have been a resident of Golden Gate for the past twent-four years, and we purchased a couple of commercial lots on Santa Barbara Boulevard back 1966. These were Lots Two and Three, Block 188, Unit Six. Now, that is in the City of Golden Gate. That would be on the east side of the Boulevard or east side of the Santa Barbara. Now, we have paid tax on this commercial property and have it kept it mowed in the past twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six years, and I feel CD CD CD CD CD ~C- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 6 ~ 16 .7.. 74 that it's certainly an injustice to reduce this to residential because there is no question about it, the value of this property will greatly decrease by putting this into residential. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Where is that, Mr. Metzger? MR. METZGER: It is Lot Two and Three, Block 188. It's on Santa Barbara, pretty well up toward the north end. There are quite a number of residential buildings or commercial buildings on this area now. There is -- I don't know. It's our home, and on up that other way there, there's a number of commercial buildings in this area. COI~MISSIONER SHANAHAN: Do you have a map in here for that, David? MR. WEEKS: No, there is not. This property, as well as all of the others in that area, have submitted an application of some sort; and as you know, we only presented you with maps for the property still subject to rezoning. Mr. Metzger has submitted an application that is pending. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You have, Mr. Metzger? MR. METZGER: Yes. I have an application here for compatibility exception. CD CD CD C'D (Il OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 75 Now, I have an understanding -- I'm not sure, 2 but I am understanding that they are -- there's an 3 office building being built the side of this lot on one 4 side; the other side of the building, they are trying 5 to -- were trying to acquire a building permit when 6 this came through, this reevaluation. 7 Also, at the time that I received this notification of a reevaluation, I had this property 9 listed and I had several interested parties in it. So I want to make -- state here that I feel that this would be quite unreasonable to take this property and return it to residential. And I thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Metzger. MR. OLLIFF: John Brugger, followed by Joel Whittenhall. MR. BRUGGER: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is John Brugger. I'm an attorney here in Naples representing a number of property owners that are affected by this. Most of ours do have applications for 10 ~:~i",' 22 exemptions, applications for exception pending. But I '~;~:"' ;~::~.,!~;q,:,~',;,..23 think that this evening, you're looking at establishing ~6::::~ 24 a policy which is going to affect all property in the · 25 future, that they don't qualify for the exception, and REPORTERS : :l: ~ ~ Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 23 76 I think those standards need to be reviewed closely. And I think the Planning Commission is trying to do that. You have learned tonight that for almost half the properties you're going to be considering notices were never received by the individuals. So if there is a small group here this evening, half of those properties owners may not even know what's going on with their individual property. I think that the actions you're taking -- and I know that Mr. Whittenhall is going to address this situation -- are going to substantially affect the appraised values of both unimproved and perhaps improved properties, depending on the discussion we had about a month ago before the Commission where you considered that where there is a destruction of an improved building that it would be down zcned to the unimproved compliance standard, and I think that's going to affect the tax base of many of the properties "~ in the county. You're concerned about the budgets -- I see that in the paper -- and the funding of things. What you do tonight is going to affect that, whether you believe that or not. The staff has said that they don't OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 8 '10 11 77 necessarily agree with what the Planning Commission has proposed. They think that property shouldn't remain commercial; as an example, on 41, it should be down zoned to residential and then perhaps a provisional use would apply. How many churches can we have along US 417 It doesn't make a lot of sense. I think that, you know, maybe if you don't want the heavy use commercial, maybe we need to come up with some new co~nerclal classification. I don't see anything wrong with an establishment like Mr. MacLeod just pointed out to me, the Willough out on the East Trail. Something like that that wouldn't fit in with the residential classification and yet it isn't a heavy, intense commercial use. And maybe you need to look at them on an individual basis. I think that the Planning Commission -- I was present at the meeting last time -- they took the time to look at each property on an individual basis. They realized that -- you know, they had a sense of the incompatibility of many of the down zonings being requested and perhaps the unreasonable results that were bein~ obtained because, as Mr. Peck pointed out, 41 is a commercial tract all the way from Tampa to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 23 24 78 Miami and it's not realistic to try to throw residential properties in there. It's going to be six laned; maybe someday in the future, it becomes eight lanes. Nobody is going to build a home there. And even if you do allow fourteen, sixteen units to the acre, that's going to be difficult to use. I just think that you need to look closely at what the Planning Commission did. I think they tried to deal with it realistically on a property-by-property basis. I think they tried to look at the fact that 41 should be commercial because that's the way the pattern has developed. And I'm not sure they even understood the consequences of Commercial Under Criteria or anything else. They just -- they basically felt that it's commercial. It doesn't make sense to use something else there. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Bruger. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, may I make just twc brief remarks. One I think for clarity. I mentioned earlier that of the certified mail notices, that we had had returned back to us somewhere An the neighborhood of three or four dozen. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 8 16 18 79 Somewhere, say, between thirty or fifty have been returned. That's out of the initial mail-out of about fourteen hundred. There has been some reference -- not Just Mr. Brugger, but I think someone else made reference to thE? numbers. What we're dealing with tonight is approximately a hundred to a hundred and twenty parcels of land, and this number of notices that have been returned is approximately half of that. But that's from the initial mail-out that went to all different zoning districts. I don't have breakdowns of numbers of how many of these are commercial or how many of those that were returned were residental. The other comment, just very quickly, is thai. Mr. Brugger specifically made reference to a project like the Willough. That is an example of the type of project that is allowed as a provisional use in the single family zoning district. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Whittenhall, fol.Lowed by Bruce Anderson. MR. WHITTENHALL: My name is Joel Whittenhall. I represent Sun Bank. I have had not had the opportunity to match OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florid.~ 33962 2 ' 8 16 80 up the properties that we're discussing tonight in our existing home portfolio, but as a lender, I do have concerns over what would happen to the value of those properties if in fact we have a mortgage on them and the down zoning did occur. When we originally make loans, we do that based on appraised values, and those appraisals are based on zoning that was in place at the ti~.e. So credit decisions were made, again, based on those figures. To me, that sets a preceden% with the properties that we're looking at tonight that are going to be addressed and a different exemptions that have been applied for in terms of the compatibility. And I think that even though we might only be talking about a hundred and forty properties tonight, that based on the outcome of these individual properties, it is going to affect compatibility tests which will again, in turn, affect us in terms of our lending environment. Thirdly, I think that staff, on page six of the recommendation, does not feel that this is going to have a very large fiscal impact on the county in terms of property taxes. Again as a lender, we have a grave concern over the funds that we need in our county to make sure that our roads, utilities, infrastructure is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 21 81 in place so that we can develop future prop~rties. I think it would be imperative that if you look at the properties that are addressed here, along with the properties that are being pulled out tonight to meet the testing requirements, that if you look at that tax roll, I would think that that would be a significant amount of money. And, going on a forward basis: When we talk about a redevelopment and the issue that will be addressed by the Planning Commission on December 20th, ~.r) that if you include those properties into the tax base oD and what would happen to an assessed value or a reassessed value, I think there would be a grave impact on the tax dollars that flow through the ccunty. And, again, that's an important issue from the banking side because we need the infrastructure to be completed so that we can lend money in Collier County. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't understand your argument, Mr. Whittenhall. I guess, you know, I under understand the economics of it. But I mean I guess the logic of that would be that anytime you've got a piece of property that has a mortgage on it, it shouldn't be rezoned because you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 ,' 7 :',' 8 19 7. 2 4 82 have made a lending decision based upon a certain zoning for the property and you have relied on that and, therefore, any property that has a mo:ctgage on it, shouldn't be rezoned. MR. WHITTENHALL: I guess you can say that. I'm talking about down zoning in general. When you look at specific properties, historically, again dealing mainly on US 41, to us that's a commercial piece of property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand exactly under the compatibility the appropriateness is the resone. I was Just trying to understand. You know, I understand the credit decisions have been made based on current zoning, but I don't know how, you know -- if we were to except every piece of property from zoning reevalution or from down zoning on which there is a mortgage, I mean that -- that, to me -- it would be inappropriate for us to approach each parcel on that basis. And maybe that's not what you're suggesting. MR. WHITTENHALL: Well, I think, you know, in essence you're really -- with the exception of these hundred and forty parcels, you're looking at each parcel parcel by parcel, which is what the staff is CiD OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 4 16 19 21 ? 23 24 83 going to recommend. And I'm Just saying that to make an across the board on a hundred and forty propertie3, additional consideration needs to be made to the lending institutions. We would be looking at loan decisions that could implement (sic) a lot of foreclosures. Again, I haven't had the opportunity to balance these properties against our portfolio; but, you know, there are a lot of borrowers that are not going to be willing to pay us if there is no equity in the property for them, and economically that hurts us. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Sure. I understand that. I guess it's kind of surprising that those people aren't here instead of you. MR. WHITTENHALL: Well, I'm watching out for our interest. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that. MR. WHITTENHALL: That's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, sir. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Bruce Anderson, followed by Perry Peeples. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Con~issioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I Just have a few general comments. I'm not OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 84 here about any specific parcel tonight. COM~ISSIONER VOLPE: You're just representing the public at large this evening? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. In a manner of speaking. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commission. MR. ANDERSON: anybody to send a bill to. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Not representing the That means I don't have That's a strange thing. Just stand here and talk with us. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we do pro bono work once in a while. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Merry Christmas. MR. ANDERSON: The rezoning of commercial CD properties that are proposed along already C~> predomlnately developed commercial corridors is not c3 sound planning, and in many instances, it's going to constitute spot zoning which the courts can strike down. Now, when the City of Sanibel attempted a similar blanket indiscriminate rezoning of commercially rezoned properties. One property fought back, and he won. That case was the City of Sanibel w~rsus Good. 372 Southern Second 181, Florida Second DCA 1983. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 85 In that case, the Court noted that the property was virtually surrounded by commercial establishments, and the Court used a measurement of eleven hundred feet in making that determination. The Court further noted that because of heavy traffic on the adjoining roadway, with its accompanying noise and fumes, that there was no market demand for single family residences; and, therefore, the Court held that by limiting the property owner to a residential use, the City had effectively deprived him of all beneficial use of that property, and the Court ordered the City to return it to some form of commercial zoning. Now, this case was decided in 1983. It predates the landmark Supreme Court decision that said for the first time that local governments can be held liable for monetary damages for temporary takings. the test for taking is whether a property owner is deprived of all reasonable, slash, benefirial uses of And his property. You -- you. get an application in. There may be people that didn't Maybe because they thought it was futile. And you can't be governed or restricted by the narrow confines of what the ordinance time deadlines might be or the consistency requirement that CD C D CD CD CD CO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 86 appears in the State's Growth Management Act because those are only creatures of statute, those requirements. You can't ignore the fundamental requirement of the constitution that there shall be no taking of private property without Just compensation. And there's got to be a way to deal with these properties that don't fit in the nice little pigeonholes that were created either in the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. There has got to be a way to ¢leal with those. You might as well admit it. The staff report says the corridor along US 4! from Wiggins Pass Road to County Road 951 is fourteen miles long. Ten miles of it is already developed as commercial strip zoning. Face it. 41 is a lost cause. You may need to amend the Comp Plan to address it, but nobody is going to build a single family residence along 41 now. Now, I've driven it and I have counted, and I can count on one hand the number of single family residences that front on US 41 along that stretch from Wiggins Pass to 951. And you've got to come up with a way to deal with those or you're going to have another City of Sanibel versus Good all along 41 for those properties. And I Just urge you to, you know, come up E) (2) -~) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 7 15 3- 18 19 2O {!.:¥ 21 22 24 25 87 with something creative to address that. A less drastic alternative is to require frontage roads. If the problem is the traffic impact from commercial along 41, then require people to develop frontage roads if they want it developed. A couple other comments it. The pending plan amendment that applies to Marco Island; it authorizes eight units per acre if your commercial zoning is stripped away. When that comes back before you, that pending amendment should be further amended so that it applies throughout the coastal area, because what. you've got -- as you all were discussing earlier -- on one side of 41, you've got a base, you've a maximum density of four units per acre, and you Jump across the other side of 41 and quadruple that to sixteen units per acre. That's arbitrary because you can't base it on hurricane evacuation, because they're both going to evacuate on 41. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Anderson: Thank you. I might say this COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Sorry. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. (Off-the-record comments.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Olliff. C_~ C~'~ C: ) C~-, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 10 13 ¸17 19 ¸. 25 88 MR. OLLIFF: Perry Peeples, followed by Greg Thompson and Rod MacLeod. MR. PEEPLES: Commissioners, my name is Perry Peeples. I work at Harter, Secrest and Emery, 800 Laurel Oak Drive. Unlike Mr. Anderson, I am here to discuss a particular piece of property. That property being owned by Greg and Norma Thompson, who I am representing. This property is on Immokalee Road. It's approximately fifteen miles this side of I~mokalee, approximately five miles west of Green Tree -- I mean Orangetree. I -- on your maps, you'll see. I believe the property is on the first page. I'm not sure if you have this same zoning maps, but the very top page shows the property zoned C-2. It's at the corner of Big Bend. The reason I'm here is that this property constitutes improved property, and it's our belief that this should not be included within the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. As you are well aware, the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance was instituted to perhaps down zone unimproved properties within the county, and I think it's being improperly applied to this improved OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 4 6 15 16 18 20 21 22 89 property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Have you filed a vested rights application, Perry? MR. PEEPLES: In this case, we have not filed a vested rights determination application. What I have done, instead, is I have petitioned Planning to make a decision regarding the status of this property. I have spoken to Mr. Weeks about it. I also have sent a letter to Mr. Blanchard and copied Mr. Weeks. What I would like to do is give Mr. Olliff a copy of that. I apologize that I don't have the existing survey of this property, as well as the aerial photograph that shows the buildings on this property. Right now, we're -- Planning staff has those documents. In this case, from some discussions with Mr. Weeks, I'm sure he has concerns about the improved status of this property because this property is not being used commercially at the present time. The building on this property was built in 1962. Commissioner Goodnight, I'm sure you're familiar with it. It used to be Frank's, and it has been a convenience store at one time or another. But currently, this property is not being used. © OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 13 17 90 When the Thompsons bought it, they cleaned up the property. It had some problems with it being used as a -- some of it had been used as a junkyard. At that time, they attempted to refurbish the existing building but were unable to do so, really because it had gone a little too far. So what we have done is filed an application for site development plan, take the existing structure and incorporate it and remodel it and reopen it as a convenience store. And that's what they're trying to do here. it. I can answer any questions you may have about. I apologize inasmuch as maybe we're a little premature because, as I said, it's under consideration~_-~ by Planning. But as of yet, I haven't received any word back from Mr. Weeks or Mr. Blanchard regarding th~v/_3 status of this property, and in order to protect Mr. and Mrs. Thompsons' rights, I thought it best to come before you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. PEEPLES: Are there any questions regarding this property? If there are, I would like to take this opportunity to perhaps answer them. COM}4ISSIONER VOLPE: The only question I have; OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 · 4 91 is for Mr. Weeks and Mr. Blanchrd. You are currently making determination as to whether it is improved or unimproved property? Is that the determination that's to be made? MR. WEEKS: That's right. It's in the pile, and we will definitely have a response prep~red prior to January 7th. MR. PEEPLES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Sure. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Greg Thompson, followed by your last registered speaker, Mr. Rod MacLeod. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Go to it. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. My name is Greg Thompson, and I own the property that he's been talking about, and I would like to add to some of the things he said. When we bought that property several years ago, it was in a mess. Trailers were out there, people was living everywhere, wires was running everywhere. The bar which is what was up front in the building that's there now -- it now was a bar. The roof was leaking, and we always had the county out there putting red tags on things, and I tried to keep it going. So what'we did. I decided to clean it up. So while I cleaned it up, I shut it down. And if I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 92 hadn't shut it down, I probably wouldn't be here now, from what they told me, because if I had kept it open, I would have been okay. But in the meantime, I have cleaned it up, and I have hired a local company here in town to clean the lake out. There was a little lake behind the building, which you can't see by the road, and I have spent a lot of money cleaning it up. And I'm by myself. I'm in the trucking business, and I have put ten thousand yards of fill on that property. And we hired a man by the name of Mark Peden (phonetic) to be a consultant with us on this and to get all of these papers done and get the plans and permits and everything for a convenient store, and he has -- had, at that time, came down here and told me that all of the plans and permits were approved. In the meantime, we're in a court lawsuit with him now in another state concerning this property here to an extent, that he was -- in other words, we paid him a lot of money, and he didn't do what he said he was going to do. And the money we had invested to take care of this -- we more or less had to start over again, in other words. And then when we started over, wt~ had more ¢2.9 C7.~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~ 21 23 25 93 plans made up and different people here in town and different contractors and stuff to come do%~n and find out -- tried to work with us to apply for the permits. And we have been since then trying to get -- you know, the property paid for. We tried to get money financed for it. Of course, now with that problem here, we have had a little problem with that. But we definitely have tried our best to do what we could. And Mr. Peden was our -- I'm not blaming it all on him, but he definitely caused us a big financial. burden in the delay part, which we was going through. And we resolved it -- we're still in process with him. But we have been and still now want to put the convenient store out there in the area. And it's five miles from Orangetree, and the place has been there for a long, long time. But now -- it really was a dump. I mean it really was a dump. And right now the grass has grown up, and we've even -- there's an old fuel tank in the ground out there in the ground I know everybody is aware of. We've got the soil test on it. No contamination in the ground. come out. for now. We've had J and L Pump We've went through the whole procedure except We're ready to do something. I say now, it's C_'") CT) C~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ..12 18 24 94 probably eight months ago, nine months ago, after I got part of the fill on the property, part of the fill, until this came up. You can ride by there. You can see that the building is being prepared to be remodeled. The roof is off of it. We've done everything that we were supposed to do before we could proceed. And the people in the area, which were g~ing to be here tonight. You know, we decided -- we heard they better wait until the 7th before they come up and put in their views about being in the area, having a store in that area. Even though we do know there's one in Orangetree now, but that area is five more miles down the road, and it's been there as long as it has, the people that are there recommend to have one closer to their houses. You know, like there's not one on every corner, a convenience store. So, like he said, it's fifteen miles in Immokalee. And I just want everybody to know that we definitely have not deserted the property. I have put a lots of money in it., and Mr. Peden, when he was a consultant in the finances -- not the finance, but he was taking care of all of the different paperwork, he has all the papers. He's got C~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the plans and the soil things from the man and everything that said it was not contaminated. 95 And we -- of course, we're not getting along with him real well, so we'll have a hard time getting these papers. But since then, I have went back trying to get everything again. Well, we have tried. But I just wanted everybody to know it's not a deserted piece of property and I cleaned it up a lot. I mean there was trailers there, people living with wires running everywhere, llke I said a while ago. And at one time, we had the permits approved, and we did not come pick them up because of this Mr. Peden. So I Just wanted to let you all know that it's definitely not a deserted piece of property. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. MR. OLLIFF: The last speaker is Ron MacLeod. MR. MacLEOD: My name is Rod MacLeod. I live at 126 Palmetto Dunes in Lely, and I wanted to Just talk about the suggestion Mr. Anderson made that perhaps someone come up -- not that I'm creative -- but that somebody come up with a suggested so~Lution to the down zoning. Just to tell who I am or where Z come from: As an example, I am with Commonwealth Associates. We CD CD CD C~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 96 have a builder-developer firm. We build and sell condominiums. We've done Eaglewood, the Glenneagles, which is a total of two hundred and twenty-five units in Lely and we're starting -- up, which is two hundred and thirty units. We buy multi-family zoned land and we build on it. We also have a realty firm, which we do little with, but in the course of that, I was talking to a fellow from Connecticut who has a multi-family piece on the Trail, adjacent to the Lely Eabiscus Golf Course. And as a bit of evidence that multi-family zoning with this down zoning Trail fronta?e land is also not a solution, he, as an example, has that listed with -- it's not listed -- an open listing with me now for sale at what he hasn't even finished paying for it, which is $10,000 a unit. I who am in the business and know that he has his back up against the wall still won't ~)ven make him an offer on it. I have absolutely no interest. I know we couldn't sell multi-family units on the Trail -- this is overlooking a golf course -- Just because of the noise and the unpleasantness of being that close to the Trail. So the multi-family is not a ~olution. I also happen to be the owner of a three acre OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 12 15 97 parcel adjacent to Lely R & D Park on one side and a filthy, squalid bar called Club 41 on the other side, which is also about to be rezoned single family. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You mean we have that in this county? MR. MacLEOD: Well, it could be Just over the line into Dad County, but it's next to the Lely R & D Park. I also have a four point three acre parcel right across from Lely Resort. Commercial Loop Road. There's actually a street now called Price Road on the south side of the Trail, which is a quarter of a west of 951, and if you continue that road across, north of the Trail, that becomes this Commercial Loop Rod for Lely Resort. Everything inside that arc, which will start from the Trail and arc over to 951, all that's commercial. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Isn't that an activity center? MR. MacLEOD: No. Unfortunately, the activity center cuts right through the middle of Price Road, and my parcel is on the west side of Price Road. The east side of Price Road is the Eaglecreek Country Club, commercial; across is Lely and so forth. So this OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 · 5 13 17 18 19 23 25 98 will also be single family land. What I wanted to suggest was: In the Executive Summary with the materials that you were given tonight, if I could read from the last paragraph on that page, the second sentence reads --- CHAIRMAN HASSE: What page? MR. MacLEOD: Excuse me. Sorry. They don't have numbers. It's the second one. It's the one right after the agenda. Starts out: Executive Summary. Page one. And they talk about the objectives and the considerations and so forth. And then the second complete sentence in the last paragraph. The line begins "And January 10." But the second complete sentence reads: The Reevaluation Program was to include a mechanism by which to rezone the inconsistently zoning unimproved properties to a -- now, I emphasis -- consistent and compatible zoning district. So what the objective of the planning is is to come up with a consistent and compatible zoning district for these down-zoned properties, or properties proposed to be done zoned. My suggestion is this: That th(} Plan feels that commercial is not appropriate. And :I'm not just OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 24 99 the Trail now; talking about all the land we have in Collier County. That commercial is not appropriate. Fine. The staff also admits residential is not appropriate, and what they're suggesting is that by the mechanism of a provisional use tool in the residential zoning district, that maybe we can find a few things in there that these properties can be used for and as time goes by piece by piece somehow or another we'll be able to fit things in there that will work well. What I would like to suggest is not an increase in those provisional uses because that then allows -- that brings up that issue in other residential areas, undeveloped residential areas that you don't want. What I suggest is that you create a consistent and compatible zoning district; that you modify your zoning ordinance. Add to it a consistent and compatible zoning district -- call it a buffer district, if you want to -- and take en masse all of this land that's being down zoned, dump it into there and come up with what's, in essence, a compromise use between the court suits that Mr. Anderson predicts will arise and the sort of non-solution that we have now of throwing it into residential, admitting that it really OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 CD CL_'T) CZ) C'D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 isn't residential but we'll figure out what to do with later. I suggest that we figure out what to do with it now. So you come up with a buffer district, extract from the provisional uses of the residential district, those which the staff feel are approprite, and maybe pull some out of the commercial, some low intensity office or Willough-like or whatever it is uses, wherever they fit; throw it into this buffer zoning district, and then it too can have provisional uses in it. But that a specific attempt be made to solve the problem and not just s%;eep it under the rug by calling it residential but admitting that residential will never be built there. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think that's a good suggestion. Certainly, it's an alternative. But the discussion as I followed it, though, the focus seems to be that property from Wiggins Pass Road along US 41 through the City of Naples out to 951. That seems to be the focus. Some of the people who have got compatibility exceptions filed for commercial property which may not be on US 41 may not agree with your suggestion. They would prefer to have whatever the existing, C-4 or C-5, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 il, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 zoning might be. So do I understand your remarks, the focus of those remarks being primarily on the US 41 corridor? I'm not trying to say anything th.~t -- MR. MacLEOD: That serves my self-interest. But no, not really. I'm using this as a forum for suggesting that a -- to create a consistent and compatible zoning district would not only solve the Wiggins Pass to 951 problem but the other problems as well. And I'm sure that people would like to retain the use they have now; and if they can prove that they should have commercial because it's commercial on both sides or whatever and as the staff goes through their parcel-by-parcel review, by all means they should get it. But those who are not determined to, to be able to show they should have commercial, that they should be put into some sort of a buffer category countywide, everybody, and address what should those sort of properties be used for. admits it's not residential. COM~4ISSIONER VOLPE: it's not residential. Because everyone Everyone admits that At least the emphasis has been along US 41 corridor. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 5 15 22 ~:~-~ 23 24 25 102 I can't -- my frame of reference is a little bit blurred once we get beyond that, so I'm not sure that anyone admitted that it's not as residential as some of these other areas. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: That's all your registered speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's all there is? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. I'll leaw~ it up to Mr. Weeks to close us off. CHAIRMAN HASSE: else? We need to do anything MR. WEEKS: Well, I, myself, had predicted two hours. So I'm ready to wrap up whatever recom~nendation you might have. If you'd like, I'd be glad to very briefly -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Why don't you do that. MR. WEEKS: Okay. To give, again, what our recommendation to you is. Number One: That we pull these properties that are potentially Consistent Under Criteria from the process until we have made the review of the surrounding applications. Number Two: For the one site I identified just south the Immokalee Road, in the Four Seasons OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 CD 1 2 3 4 12 13 17 18 21 ': i- ~ 2 2 23 24 25 103 Area, that that be rezoned at RMF-6 district.. Number Three. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That Four Seasons Area. Did you mean that? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Four Seasons Subdivision. It's behind the convenient store there on Immokalee Road. There's an undeveloped co~nercial tract there. That's where -- I believe it'~ a Pick Kwik. That this one site that we discussed earlier about possibly being considered improved, out near Corkscrew Sanctuary, be rezoned at A-2 district, and ~-~ that everything else go to the RSF-3 district. ~3 Now, there's -- specifically, we do not need c% a recommendation from you tonight because your action ~3 will be taken at the second hearing. I Just wanted to again reiterate what our recommendation is and, most particularly, %~e're hoping to receive any type of direction or request for additional information you might deem appropriate from us for your second hearing, at which time you will take final action. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: David, any comments at all to the speakers that we have heard from tonight relative to the 41 corridor? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 7 16 17 18 :20 23 ' 24 25 104 And, in particular, thinking in terms of that remaining undeveloped property to being single family residential. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. I would not Just blankly -- that's not the You know, I would not agree carte blanche that word. all the property -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: do that. I'm not asking you to MR. WEEKS: Right. That all of the properties on 41 are not suitable for residential development because they vary in size and what's around them. There are some of those, I do believe, on 41 that it's not unreasonable to develop them with residential land use. Secondly, I know one speaker made -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: For example. MR. WEEKS: Some of those properties -- COM]4ISSIONER VOLPE: Conceptually, I have a bit of a problem. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: going to b-~ an eight lane. MR. WEEKS: Right. It is six lanes; it's CD '"r~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 11 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 105 One area that comes to mind is out on 41 East. Generally speaking, opposite the Lely DRI. There's a strip of commercial in that area. Because of the depth of those properties and because behind them, many of those as currently zoned agricultural. So it's an unknown. It will not be developed commercially because that would be inconsistent with the plan. I don't think it's unreasonable that some of those properties to be developed residential. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just point of reference a reference, David. DRI? center? You said -- are you talking south of the Lely MR. WEEKS: Yes. Pretty much -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Not within the activity Further MR. WEEKS: That's correct -- Where this gentleman's COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Not -- MR~ WEEKS: Further (indicating). towards Naples from the activity center. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: West. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: property is on the other side of the street. CiD ' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 5 6 8 ' 10 11 12 23 ~';-24 25 106 CD CD CD ~D CD MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Right. That's some property located. That's Just one example. And remind you that, of course, some of those properties are within the coastal urban fringe, so they're limited to that four units per acre cap currently, but especially not those properties that are within that area and limited to four units per acre. You know, it's within the actiw~ly centers, those mixed-use activity centers, that we encourage the higher density development. We do see along some of our major roadways, and I have to consider Pine Ridge Road, which is an arterial road -- certainly not the size of US 41, but it is an arterial roadway -- and we do have multi-family residential development there. And we do specifically in the plan, under the mixed--use activety center criteria and text, encourage more than just commercial development. Those are not commercial activity centers; they're mixed use. My point of all of that is that those activity centers are designed around key intersections in the county, specifically the intersection of two arterial or collector or combination road%;ays, big OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, FlorJ. da 33962 107 roadways, and yet we are encouraging, and seeing in some cases, the development of residential uses. And I'm Just drawing a parallel to other locations along US 41 East. I just cannot: sit here and comfortably say to you, yeah, we should Just write off any residential development. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: question. MR. WEEKS: Sure. The reason for my COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Is I have a certain conceptual problem with this as well. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It's hard for me to conceive that that corridor -- and there obviously could be some exceptions where you've got some depth and where you could do some real buffering, et cetera. MR.WEEKS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It's just -- you know, it's just incompatible in my mind at this particular time. So I think that really it deserves considerable, considerable additional analysis. MR. OLLIFF: You have also got to remember that you have the opportunity on all of those that will fall out in terms of compatibility and the other C) C) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 3 4 5 6 7 11 20 : , 23 108 exception processes we have, within those left after being filtered through that process, will coms to you in this kind of a hearing where you can 1].sten and approve those on a case-by-case basis. And those that don't make sense to you, you don't have to vote to rezone them. It's that simple. So you've got that opportunity to make that decision, as a Board, whether or not it's appropriate to bring that property down to residential or not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I tend t.o support the staff's recommendations, but I would like to have some written communication from the county attorney concerning the remarks by Mr. Anderson in reference to temporary takings and payment of compensation. And I'd like to have that by the next hearing, c~ MR. CUYLER: I'll tell you right: now, you CD have to leave a beneficial use, as I'm hearing from staff and as you heard from staff, and I'll give this to you in writing. And it boils down to a factual matter. I also find it -- Mr. Anderson's argument interesting regarding spot zoning, although not unexpected, as I understand Mr. Anderson was part of a group that pushed real hard for exemptions and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~25 109 exceptions, which in effect takes a large percentage of the properties out, and then he tells you that the remainder is spot zoning which means don't do anything. But I'll give you a written memo on those comments. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. ~£ would like to use something combined with staff. around. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ail right. Stop batting COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Wait a minute. I'm not finished. Mr. Chairman, I'm in the middle of a sentence. CHAIRMAN HASSE: is coming up. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Anderson is perfectly welcome to outline (sic). CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. We'll have to -- COM%4ISSIONER SAUNDERS: I forgot what I was going to say. I am particularly concerned about the properties along 41. So, Mr. Cuyler, if you can spend some time with our staff and 'take a look at the maps and the surrounding uses.and give us an opinion on whether we I'm sorry, but Mr. Anderson OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 are going to subject Collier County to numerous lawsuits for short-term taking. MR. CUYLER: Parcel by parcel or something close to that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. No, I don't think we need do to that. parcel. Not necessarily parcel by But you understand we're being asked to deal with a hundred or so parcels at one time here here, and I don't want to generate a hundred lawsuits. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commissioner Goodnight. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Mr. Chairman, maybe you want to wait for my comments because I only want to talk about Corkscrew, and they're talking about -- I'll wait. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How many parcels, Mr. Weeks, are located along the US 41 corrido~r that would be subject to this blanket rezone? MR. WEEKS: Off the cuff. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: A rough est.[mate. MR. WEEKS: Fifteen or twenty maybe. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Of the hundn-ed or a hundred and five, we talking about fifteen or twenty of them? MR. WEEKS: Right. And maybe less than that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Flori¢[a 33962 111 MR. OLLIFF: That have not yet filed exemptions, that we know about. MR. WEEKS: Right. We're only talking about those that are subject to the hearings right now. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The suggestion -- you said single family residential, and certainly it would be appropriate, in staff's opinion, in some of those parcels. You wouldn't automatically exclude them from consideration. There is a suggestion that perhaps -- and you in your opening remarks said something about provisional uses, that there are certain types of institutional uses that would be appropriate. Maybe the problem -- and I don't want to characterize it as a problem. But maybe the issue that we're dealing with is that we don't have a current zoning classification or district that migh% be the appropriate or a more appropriate district. Maybe commercial C-5, C-4 is not, in staff's opinion, the appropriate compatible use under all of the circumstances. But on the other hand, single family residential may not be. And we really don't have anything that we have been able to identify. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 : 4 7 11 14 15 16 18 19 :' 2 0 4:: 22 23 112 So I guess if we were to follow the staff's recommendation and Just rezone them at this point to single family residence or RMF whatever it happens to be, two, four, three, would there be an opportunity to come back, as a part of the Unified Land Development Regulations to come up with a zoning classification that would address some of those parcels? Particularly along 41. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You know, of all the parcels that you have mentioned -- I mean I can think of some, you know, just single family residential which would seem to be a real push. Not that somebody couldn't live there, but it might be a bit of a problem. But we really don't have a district that allows for the institutional type uses or office commercial as opposed to -- or maybe retail commercial is not the answer. So I mean, I just -- that's a thcught. See what you can respond. Just to keep you notified. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Certainly did. MR. WEEKS: And a couple comments, and certainly we'll follow up on this. CD CD OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 6 '7 8 · 9 ~ 10 , ~ 11 12 13 17 Itl .... ' 22 ~.~ 23 113 The first thought is just the idea of creating a new zoning district as part of the Unified Land Development Code. The time frame for that I guess i:3 not -- it's certainly not firm yet for when that code would be together and ultimately come to you for adoption, but it's going to be -- certainly appears to be that it's going to be well after we have accomplished most of this commercial rezoning. It may come a little bit late in the process. The recommendation itself is an interesting one and certainly not unreasonable. The types of uses that are allowed provisionally and that Mr. MacLeod was mentioning are those uses that are -- at least most of them, are identified as community facilities in the Growth Management Plan. They are uses that are allowed in the urban area; such as the churches, the rehabilitation centers, the child care centers, these types of uses, and they would fit well if we had a zoning district, as far as being consistent -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Sure. MR. WEEKS: With our plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And, you know, two years OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 ago we started talking about group homes, and that whole issue has sort of gone away for a while. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But it's out there. And this might be a very, very, you know, supply' and demand kind of thing for those who are the investors in this world. And the community needs that we're going to have identify and address -- and I have as much of a problem of locating those group homes in residential neighborhoods as most people might have. So -- that's a whole other issue, though. CO~4ISS1ONER SHANAHAN: Thank you for bringing it up. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ms. Goodnight, dJ.d you ¥;ant to say something? CO~(MISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Yeah. David, on the Corkscrew thing. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COM24ISSIONER GOODNIGHT: I know that in agricultural land, we really haven't talked about the five mile radius the way that we have in the Estates Area, but I Just kind of thought that staff was going to continue with the five mile radius for commercial in the rural area. And this would be the five mile radius CD OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 115 1,5 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from that. And then we've also talked about the possibility of future commercial area being at the corner of Everglades and Immokalee Road, which would be another five miles. So, you know, I feel like that this would be an ideal location for the commercial and to down zone it and then to have to turn around and rezone it, you know, would complicate them. So I would encourage staff to look at the five mile radius thing because that is something that this Board has been very consistent with. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner Goodnight, I previously measured the distance. That was one of the first things we did because if it were less than five miles, then -- excuse me. If it were greater than five miles, the criteria, referring to the commercial in the rural areas, I believe this property would then be consistent as currently zoned. My measurement showed it was a little bit less than five miles from the Orangetree commercial. I do have my notes here, though, to go back and measure that again, particularly hear the property owner say it was five miles. So I'll definitely go back. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CO~4ISSIONER GOODNIGHT: you in a little bit. MR. WEEKS: again to double check. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: following back, going back. 116 I'll measure it for I'll go back and measure that I just want to -- You know, out in Golden Gate, you know, City of Golden Gate, where we were talking about Golden Gate Parkway. A couple of things. Number one is: As I recall, in the Golden Gate Master Plan it's kind of a compromised position. What we required was we required two and a half acre planned unit development along the Parkway for development in the commercial category. So -- no, we haven't done that? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Did you say that? MR. WEEKS: Bob will need to speak to that. You need to tell them the proposals. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: As a part of those discussions. Maybe that's a way of approaching it is another consideration. MR. BLANCHARD: I think the crux of that issue, and it's one that warrants investigation, and that we could certainly dc the Unified Development Code to bring up another category. But uses are -- Growth -]--3 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: 117 This is -- MR. BLANCHARD: And don't need the commercial and the criteria. It really doesn't matter what your zoning category is, we can't apply it because it's not consistent with the Growth Management Plan. It would take some recognition, as suggested earlier, some recognition that that type of a development is appropriate, and that would have to be in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: amend it. We might have to MR. WEEKS: MR. BLANCHARD: UNIDENTIFIED: MR. BLANCHARD: Not doing anything in the -- We -- just to evaluate. Already went out. Well, what we are doing is -- we're doing the reevaluation consistent with the master plan. What we're anticipating, based on the Planning Commission's comments is that we're going to see a recommended change in the commercial alloction for Golden Gate -- master plan. So we will be doing reevaluation. COM/qISSIONER VOLPE: But the timing of that thing because the plan -- when are we going to be OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 118 adopting the Golden Gate Master Plan and %~hen are we doing the reevaluation in order to review it? MR. BLANCHARD: We have the applications on file now, though, for exemptions and exceptions. So they are automaticlly pulled from the rezoning process. CHAIRMAN HASSE: coming out? MR. BLANCHARD: When is the master plan They'll be ready for the final hearings. tomorrow when the hearings are set. MR. WEEKS: I think it's set. February. Essentially, you're going to decide The 5th of MR.OLLIFF: 4th of February. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you suggesting that part of this may be that these applications might be reviewed against some potential revision in the Golden Gate Master Plan rather than the master plan that's currently before the DCA? MR. BLANCHARD: Correct. based on the proposed edition; it would be on what is adopted in the master plan. COM}4ISSIONER VOLPE: I'm not -- my visceral reaction is that I'm not in favor of doing anything more. I mean we've been through the process. We (_-)~ And it would not be OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 4 6 14 119 had had everyone in the world comment on the Golden Gate Master. There seemed to be unanimity. Everyone seemed to be reasonaly happy. And at this point to start making some last-minute revisions. MR. BLANCHARD: You'll have that opportunity when it comes back to you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. Fine. David, when is the next meeting MR. OLLIFF: scheduled? o'clock. MR. WEEKS: Six p.m., this room. January 7. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's January the 7th, six MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What day is that? MR. WEEKS: That's a Monday also. MR. OLLIFF: Is there anything else you need the Board to do tonight? MR. WEEKS: One thing. We haw~ discussed, several different times, the Commercial Under Criteria. That is one thing we would like to get direction on tonight, to pull these fifteen or so properties, hold them off in the review process until we have reviewed the surrounding applications. COM]4ISSIONER VOLPE: It makes sense to me. Do it that way. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ~ 9 10 !3 4 18 22 that. 120 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Goodnight. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I would agree with CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay? Meeting is adjourned. (Conclude at 8:10 p.m.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Connie S. Potts, Notary Public and Deputy Official Court Reporter of the State of Florida, and the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me, at the time and place as stated in the caption hereto, at Page 1 hereof; that I was authorized to and did attend said proceedings and report the same by computer-assisted Stenotype; that the foregoing computer-assisted typewritten transcription consisting of pages numbered 3 through ]20, inclusive, is a true and accurate transcript of my Stenotype notes of the ~2D transcript of proceedings taken at said time. '-~u ¢7'7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunt() subscribed.__ my name this 15th day of January, 1991. (J3 Connie S. Potts, Notary Public State of Florida at ],arge OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962