Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/10/1985 S .. .. .. Haple., Florida, DeceMber 10, 1985 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that in accordance with action taken on NoveMber 5, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier ~et in SPECIAL SESSIOR on this date at 7s00 P.M. in Building ·F· of the Courthous. Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following .embers pr.s.nts CHAIRMANs John A. pistor VICE CHAIRMANs Anne Goodnight Frederick J. Voss Max Ha.se C. C. -Red- Holland ALSO PRESENTs Maureen ~enyon, Deputy Clerkt ~en Cuyler, AssIstant County AttorneYt vicki. Mullins, cOM.unity Developøent ~.inist~4tort David Pettrow, Pl~nnin9/Zoning Director: Barbara Cacchione, Ann McKim, Planners: Jeff Perry, Chief Tran_portation Planners Charles Gauthier, Long-Range Planning Chief: Nancy Israelson, Administrative A.sistant to the Board: and, Deputy Bob Melin, Sheriff's Department. lOOK 091PAti£'290 rage 1 ,.'- ... , ~, . ~ '4 , .f~ .¡ ~:; ; 6~ ~'.~:~";";~ . . /,', ..' ~0 ~¡.;, ~~:,~ .. - .. December 10, 1985 ORDINANCE 85-74 AMEKDINa ORDINANCE 83-54; THE COMPREHENSIVE FLAB; BY AJŒJJDI.a THI FU'1't1RE LA1m 081 ELEMEJI'1' AIID THE TRARSPORTATIOtI ELI!:M!1IT ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on November 8, 1985, and December 4, 1985, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publications filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider aMending Ordinance 83-54, the Comprehensive Plan for Collier C~unty, Florida, by amending the future land use ele~ent and the transportation ele.ent. Charles Gauthier, Long-Range Planning Chief, stated that there are four proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, adding that these are the first plan amendments under the normal amendment cycle since Dece.ber, 1983, when the plan was first adopted. He stated that these amendments were all staff-generated and heard by the Collier County Planning Commission on May 23 and July 11, 1985, adding subsequ~nt to that, they were sent to State and Regional Agencies and no adverse comments were received. He indicated that on November 21, 1985, the Collier County Planning Commission again heard the four amendments and voted affirmatively to pass them to the BCC with a positive recommenda- tion. He stated that the BCC needs to take final action on these amendments. He noted that on Page 24, the Future Land Use Element needs to have one change .ade that was overlooked, adding that the .erbage needs to reflect the fact that the Tigertail Beach parking facility was expanded in 1985. He reported that he received only one letter on the proposed aMendment., noting that it was from Mr. Wooten who expressed his concern with reference to any restrictions that may be imposed on his land or his business expansion. Planner Cacchione stated that the first amendment, CP-85-3C, is an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, specifically the point system which rates the servic~s and facilities and deter.in.s density ranges for projects in the County when they come in for a rezone, adding that a part of the point system is an option that can be used by the developer to increase his density by committing to affordable housing. She stated that the way the plan is currently set up is that if lot of the project is dedicated to affordable housing, 10 points are received: if 20\ is dedicated to affordable housing, 20 points are received, which in turn increases the density substantially for projects. She reported that it was felt at the time that the plan was adopted that this would provide an incentive to build affordable housing. She noted 600K 091 PAGE 292 Page 2 ".---......--,-.- 1m 091pAr.t293 December 10, 1985 that as projects came in for rezones, it was determined that the language in the plan was not specific enough to guide an afforðable housing program, adding that the language does not adequately define what affordable housing is, does not provide for a screening of incomes from the people that would be residing in the moderate income housing units, nor does it provide for any control or monitoring to see that certain sl.ndards are being met. She noted that an attempt was made to amend the 1 . ~g Ordinance and found that the same problems were encountere'!, ......i.ch were basically dealing with enforcement and monitorin. She stated that the Public Housing Authority in the County is only lj~ ve in the I.mokalee area at this point in time and there was no group to oversee any type of a program that this might entail, adding that Staff then recommended that the language be amended to use an existing part of the zoning ordinance which would be the multi- family entry level housing, to award 20 point. for 100\ of the project being multi-family entry level as provided for in the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that this particular zoning category provides for reduced square footage, adding that smaller units can be built but there are also caps on t.he Maximum square footage per~itted, and that it was felt that the smaller unit would more li~ely r~main affordable than the larger unit. She reported that there are n~ price or rent controls attached to the entry level multi-family in the zoning ordinance and it would provide for ease of enforcement, adding that this is more of an interim solution and addresses only the rental multi-family and not the ·For Sale- housing which is still an area of concern. She noted that this is a preliminary suggestion in hopes that she will be able to provide more input and study th~ whole issue further. She stated that they also need input from the private sector as to what can be done to increase the stoc~ of affordable housing. Commissioner Voss questioned how affordable housing is defined, to which Planner Cacchione stated that there are several methods that can be used, but one general method that financial institutions use as rule of thumb is 2-1/2 times the median faMily income would be considered an affordable house or a median priced house. She stated that for Collier County that is around $71,000, which means that half the people in the County can afford that and half the people cannot. She noted that this is based on $28,000 as the median family income of Collier County. She stated that with reference to a rental unit, 28-33\ of the gross faMily income would go for rent and utilities. Pag" 3 -,. - - - ;__·..........,,~""<____,·_,.__w....,_.....'_""·"""',··"·..',""""~.,.~.'..~'"" .. .. .. December 10, 1985 Commissioner Pistor .tated that this is a step in the right direction, encouraging affordable hou.ing. Planner Cacchione stated that this particular amendment addres... only .ulti-fa~ily rental hou.ing and there is no program for -For Sale- affordable units, which is something that needs to be looked at. co..i..ioner Voss moved; .econded by Co..is.ioner Goodnight and carried unani~u.ly, that the pUblic hearing be clo.ed. Co..issioner Voss .eYed; .econded by Co..i..ioner Goodnight and carried unaniaously, that Petition CP-S5-3C; Collier County Planning/ Zoning Depart.ent, requesting an a.end.ent to the Future Ioand O.e Zle.ent of the Coaprehensi.e Plan by a.ending the Affordable Hou.ing Option of the Point 8yste. be adopted and Staff be directed to look into a program for -For Sal.- affordable units. Planner Cacchione stated that in January, she will begin loo~ing into -For Sale- affordable housing, also noting that with the new legislation that has been passed, the entire Comprehensive Plan ~ill have to be revised by 1987. Chief Tran.portation Planner P.rry .tated that this item i. in reference to petition CP-S5-4C, requesting an amendment to the Transportation EleMent of the Comprehensive Plan, adding that this has two signficant ele.ent. to it, one i. a narrative change or change. to the text of the document which is bringing it up to date, a. in the past two year. there have been a lot of new road. built and added ga. taxes. He noted that in addition to that the future network portion of the element has been changed in two ways, one is the timeframe which i. now a 1985-1995 and a 1996-2005 timeframe. He referred to an overhead map indicating that the majority of the roadways that appear on the map are in the current Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, adding that 80me have been shifted from one time frame to another. He .tated that the project. that have been completed .ince the plan was adopted in 1983 have been deleted from the li.t and several project. have been added a. a result of the MPO 1995 need. plan. He reported that .everal projects have also been added to the 1996-2005 timeframe. He said that along the norther~ perimeter of the County, a proposed connector has been added between Vanderbilt Drive and u.s. 41 to provide better circulation. He noted that in the second time frame there have been several roadways added, like the exten.ion of Logan Blvd., C.R. 951 into Lee County, and the road halfway between Logan Blvd. and C.R. 951. He noted that since this particular amendment was a~·;K 091 PAGE 294 Page 4 .. . aOOK 091mE295 December 10, 1985 proposeð, a development known as -The Parklanð.- was submitted anð approved which Means that he is asking that the one mile north/south segment as indicated on the map as Logan Blvd. Ext. be deleted, otherwise it would bisect the Parklands Development into two pieces through the middle of their golf course. He stated that through negotiations, the one mile collector or arterial was moved one mile further to the east. Commissioner Voas questioned what is the northern most east/west road, to which Mr. Perry referred to the map, noting that it extends from C.R. 901 all the way across~ adding that the first part of it is a special taxing district. He stated that it is being shown a. a completed project in the timeframe 1996-2005 which will run east/west approxiMately 2 miles north of Immokalee Road. He referred to a north! south road indicating that it would eventually hook into Santa Barbara Blvd. and run from the northern most part of the County to U. S. 41 on the southern end. He reported that existing roadways like Golden Gate P~rkway, Airport Road, and pine Ridge Road are designated in re~ which means that there is a need to reconstruct them to a 6-lane capacity. He atated that ~ne area that does not appear on the map is the propoaed interchange at State Road 29 and 1-75, adding that DOT is not in a position to support an interchange at that location for fear of jeopardizing the federal funding for the project that they are trying to get underway in the next couple year.. Commissioner Holland stated that there were representatives at the Port of the Islands Governor'. Conference that were openly discussing this interchange. He stated that everyone dealing with law enforcement or emergency service has been fighting to get the interchange. He stated that the Commissioners have been in support of this matter. Commissioner piøtor stated that DOT is afraid of jeopardizing the federal money for Alligator Alley if they do anything about it, because there was a deal made with the Federal EPA that this interchange would not be put in, adding that no one wants to discuss it at this point. Mr. Perry stated that it is not a big issue to put in an interchange after the roadway ia constructed, adding that another environmental study will have to be done to prove that it can be built without significant environmental impact. He stated that the State is concerned that if they try to reopen the issue now and get another environmental study underway, it will pU8h everything back and they could lose 80me of the funding that ia scheduled for use in Florida. Page 5 .. - - - - - December 10, 1985 Mr. Perry stated that in other parts of the text of the element some insignficant changes have been øade primarily to update the numbers: traffic count statistics, accident statistics, changing the names of roads that were renamed, and housekeeping correction.. Mr. George Varnadoe, Attorney, representing the developers of the Woodlands, referred to the segment of roadway that Mr. Perry w~nts to delete, noting that the rest of it should be deleted. He indicated on the map where the Woodlands and the Parklands are located, adding about three years ago when the il~ue of the Woodlands first came up, the Regional Planning Council indicated that they wanted to lee a bi-county corridor on the property. He noted that in the land plan, there is 120 feet to be dedicated to the County for a bi-county corridor on the east aide of -The Woodlands-. He noted that -The Parklands- dedicated 75 feet on the east side of the project for a road, adding that he did not know of the proposed roadway going through the golf course of the parklands at the time of develop~~nt: He stated that Mr. Perry i. recommending that this portion of the roadway be deleted as it cuts into -Parklands-, but it would also cut into the eastern edge of -The Woodlands- and they have not made any plans to accommodate another road of that magnitude on their property. He stated that he would recommend that instead of the one mile segment of Logan Blvd. Ext. be deleted, the whole portion which is about 3 miles should be deleted as this size road has not been accom.odated within the Woodlands. He noted that Jack Barr, traffic consultant, indicated that the major arterial in the area, which he pointed to, would accommodate the traffic for the foreseeable future. He stated that the Logan Blvd. Ext. that Mr. Perry wants to delete is only one mile from the major arterial and there is not a need for it. Mr. Perry stated that his concern is that it may be premature if it is taken off the long-range side of the scale at this time; adding that he is simply asking for additional setbacks through the projects as there is nothing developed there at this time. He noted that it would provide a circulation pattern that may be found to be suitable in the year 2000 or 2005. He said that he would rather see the co~pletion of the modeling for the year 2015 before this is prematurely deleted at this time. He stated that he is suggesting that the Woodlands preserve 50 to 75 feet on the western side of the property and they have suggested 120 feet on the eestern side of the property, also. Hr. Varnadoe stated that the reason that 120 feet is being given ðOOK 091 PAG£ 296 Page 6 .~ . .. 09f r 297 December 10, 1985 ;;;; . 'At;. . is because the Regional Planning Council said that is what is going to be needed to accommodate one major arterial, adding that they du not want to give 120 feet, but they will. Re stateð that if the County wants 120 feet on one side and 75 feet on the other side, then ~hAt is asking too much of one developer and one project. He noted thbt the only parcel that will need to be accommodated in the future is ~ 600 acre parcel in the northern end of the county, and with a density of less than 3 units per acre that would not be a substantial amount of traffic to warrant two major arterials. An unidentified speaker stated that he is concerned with the State Road 29 intersection, adding that there is going to be a tremendous economic impact if that intersection is not put in. He stated that he would like to recommend that the Commission do its own economic impact study while everything else is in the process. Commissioner Pistor stated that there have been many recommenda- tions sent to Tallahassee in the last few years and nothing is being done on it at this point. He stated that by pushing the issue now it may do more harm than good, as the federal funding is needed for the construction of Alligator Alley. He stated that they have gone on record many times indicating that Collier County wants an interchange there. Com.issioner Rolland stated that the Commission has been tolð that when the road is completed, then the interchange issue will be brought up again and it will be there, but for the time being, due to an agreement with a former Governor, the State is not going to put that interchange in at this time. Coaaissioner Voss .oYed~ .econded by eoaaissioner Goodnight and carried unaniaously~ that the public hearing be closed. Coaaissioner VO.. .oved; seconded by Coaai.sioner Bolland and carried unaniacusly; that Petition CP-85-4C~ requesting an a.end.ent to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; be adopted and the three .ile section from Lee County line south to I..okalee Road to be known as Logan B1Yd. Ext. on the east side of Quail Creek be deleted fro. the Comprehensiye Plan. Mr. Perry stated that the next item is in reference to Petition CP-85-5C, requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Compreh~nsive Plan by amending the text of the point system in regard to vehicular access to an arterial. He stated that this issue revolves around the granting of densIty points for projects when measuring them Page 7 " ,- - - - .. - - December 10, 1985 as to access to arterial highways. He stated that presently a project is awarded 20 points when they are directly adjacent to an existing or proposed roadway. He stated that if this language stays in the Compre- hensive Plan, the County would be tal~ing about growth that May ~, provided for in the year 2000-2005, adding that a project merely being adjacent to a roadway would be awarded 20 points which means a higher density. He reported that there are several possible areas in the northern section of the County that would be granted 20 points simply because they are adjacent to a roadway that is being proposed after the year 1995. He indicated that it is Staff's recommendation that such projects should not be granted the points unless they are adjacent to existing arterials or collectors that are operating at an appropriate level of service, ad~ing that the concept of the point system in the Comprehensive Plan is to determine whether or not there are adequate services such as water, sewer, roads, schools, and fire protection available to the projects. He stated that if these services are available, they should be awarded the density points and if tbey are not available, they do not get the points and Staff feels tbat in the event that they ~ay be adjacent to an arterial ten years from now is not justification for granting density points. Commissioner Pistor stated that this is a step in the right direction, noting that if someone wants to develop something, they may put the roadway in first and then apply for their rezone. Mr. Perry stated that on the bottom of Page 30, it states that where collectors and/or arterials do not exist or currently operate at a level of service below -C-, credit may be given for such roadways provided the petitioner commits to constructing the improvements necessary to provide level of service -C- or better and the extent of the necessary improvement would be determined by the County Transpor- tation Department. He noted that if the petitioner wishes to improve the facility or build the roadway then he has complied with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and provided the service that is measurable at that point. Mr. Tom Peek of Wilson, Miller, Barton, SoIl' Peek, Inc., questioned how it relates to the impact fee ordinance for roadways that was passed a few months ago which provides funding to construct the arterial roadway system for the next ten years? He stated that it would appear to hi. that if there was a parcel of land that was adjacent to a road identified to be paid for by that system that one m~ 091FAGE298 Page 8 -'- aOOK 09I,Ar,£29,9 December 10, 1985 should get the points because there i. a funding mechanism provided to pay for that roadway systeM and it appear. that this would be appropriate enough for the roadway to obtain points on that basis. He stated that there is an inconsistency and a person 1s going to be double charged in some cases. Mr. Perry stated that it would be redundant to put it in the COII- prehensive Plan saying that a developer would receive credit for any impact fees if they choose to construct the roadways, as it is in the impact fee ordinance. He stated that it could be added to the Co~- prehensive Plan if the BCC would feel more comfortable. Mr. Peek stated that it is a chicken and egg situation because one cannot receive the points to get approval to do the development on the proposed arterial roadway then the impact fees that the County is anticipating will not cOile to help pay for that roadway nor the need will be there for the roadway itself. He staled that if there is property on one of the identified ten year program. that is built into the funding program, it should receive some consideration that is not being given. Hr. Perry stated that he is comfortable with the language in the impact fee ordinance that says that developers are credited with any off-site improvements that are made if they decide to commit to the funds in total up front to go into the pot so that a roadway improvement can be built with other people's impact fees. He stated that the concern he has over granting the points in absense of the roadway is that many of them could'be operating at service level -D- and the developer could get the points and build the project and continue to iMpact the roadway before the County had enough money to make the total improvement. He stated that he i. not sure that it is going to help the situation by letting developers build to get the illlpact fees. Commissioner Pistor stated that this is something that the infrastructure committee should look at and in the next amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, this portion could be modified if necessary. Mr. George Varnadoe stated that on major projects that are coming up, one has to look into the futura and not at what is presently existing there now, and there are funding mechanisms available to take care of these thing.. He stated that major projects have a life span of 20 years. He noted that the major element of looking at density in the entire schedule is 20 points if one is adjacent to a proposed major Page 9 -,- - - - > . .·.a~.~,"""'-""""" - - - December 10, 1985 roadway and to go from 20 point. to zero is not right, adding t~at there should be Some mediu. point. He stated that if someone ducides to build a project near a roadway today that is not going to be built until the year 2005, then credit should not be given today ba.ed on what will be there in the year 2005, but if there is a roadway that is going to be built in the next five to 10 years and it has been identified and there is funding for it, this should be taken into account. He stated that the way it is set up right now, it is going from all to nothing and he does not feel that this i. appropriate. Hr. Perry stated that this i. ~1y one element of the point system and one of the measures that is looked at to determine if a project should go forward. He stated that he would like to see this treated the same way as sewer systems or fire stations, adding that if they are not there, no points are given. Re stated that he would feel a lot more comfortable with no points until the roadway is there and operating and he would feel partially comfortable if it was within the five year program, funded and in the process, but to go out to ten years when there is a little Money from projects on that roadway, but not enough mon~y collectively to improve it, he does not think that points should be given. He stated that a year ago when this amendment was done, it was not known if there would be impact fees and the funding looks a little better with those impact fees and the additional gas tax. He stated that to grant density points for any roadway that is programmed for ten year~ from now, is inconsistent with the rest of the ratings in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Voss stated that one of the benefits of this is for people to develop where there are roadways instead of going out where there are no roadway.. Hr. Perry stated that it places the incentive to build the higher density projects where the roadway. are operating at an appropriate level of service. Commissioner Goodnight stated that in the five year plan, it is known as to what roads are going to be completed and that guideline could be used. Hr. Perry stated that if the project were tied to an approved funded road program, maybe that is an option that the BCC would consider flexible enough to deal with at the time of Comprehensive Plan review. Commissioner Pistor stated that 80me 80rt of language could be BOOK 091 PAGE 3DO Page 10 lOOK 091I'Ar,! 301 Decuber 10, 1985 added thal indicates as long as the roadway is approved and funded within the five year program, points could be awarded. Coaaissioner Voss moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously; that the public hearing b. clos.d~ Commissioner Voss aoved; .econded by Commi.sioner Ha..e ar.ú carried unanimou.ly; that Petition CP-85-5C; requesting an a.endment to the Future Land Use Ele..nt of the Comprehensive Plan by am.nding the Text of the Point System in regard to vehicular access to an arterial be ~dopt.d subject to the fact that the points awarded to proximity to .ajor arterial. be r.stricted to tho.e that are approved and funded within the five year plan. Planner Cacchione stated that petition CP-85-6C, is an amendment to the Future Land Us~ Element of the Comprehensive Plan by amending the language regarding amount of commercial acreage and types of commercial use permitted in Planned Unit Developments larger than 2,400 dwelling units. She noted that when a rezone came in last year, there was SOMe interpretatio~ about the language in the existing plan, adding that it was unclear and lead to several different interpretations. She stated that Staff is requesting t~4t the language be amended to accommodate commercial and larger PUD's being of the 5-2-1 neighborhood type commercial, the accommodation of a community commercial node if one is not existing adjacent to the PUD or within the PUD boundaries and to allow for specialized type commercial. She stated that the language that has been added is on Page 15 and 15.1 of the Future Land Use Element. She noted that it is simply a clarification of language. Mr. Alan Reynolds of wilson, Miller, Barton, SolI' Peek, Inc., stated that he simply needed clarification on what is intended. He stated that he feels that this attempts to further restrict the types of commercial that could be provided within a project of a certain magnitude. He stated that the plan refers to two different types of commercial, one being committing an additional community commercial node within a project in excess of 2,400 dwelling units, and they are intended to b~ community shopping centers which a project of that size can generate a demand for and there is also other types of commercial uses, the specialities. He Itated that the way he is reading it, it appears to him that a project would be limited to only one parcel within the entire project, adding that then a decision has to be made as to whether you use community types of facilities or specialty types of facilities. Page 11 .- - - - .......,..'"-'''-''''''''-"-''''--"-_.,".~....".'",'""..,...''.,~"".,.....-."~.."..""".,,.,-~..__........._-- .. .. .. December 10, 1985 Planner Cacchione stated that both types of commercial, the specialty and the community nodes can be used. She stated that the idea to keep the. in one location was to provide the community type services in a central location and to provide that type of commorcial in one particular area and it would also per.it the project to h~ve specialty type commercial and then the smaller neighborhood type commercial for the neighborhood pods within the 1arge PUD-DRI projects. Hr. Reynolds stated that with this clarification, it provides a certain amount of flexibility and with a DRI, current changes to the State law provide for the Comprehensive Plan to be amended in conjunction with a DRI. He stated that he feels that the provision is still inadequate and is still a little too restrictive in that there are certain types of com.ercial uses and cases where additional commercial could be justified. He stated that he would hope that in th~ next amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the whole commercial Løsue could bo revisited. Assistant County Attorney Cuyler stated that if Mr. Reynolds would like to submit something in writing to the Planning Department for the next amendment to the Coap Plan, he could do so and the Planning ~partment will review it. Hr. Peek stated that in the community commercial node on the Comprehensive Plan where it shows the purple squares, they are typically shown at intersections of arterial roadways and they cover all four quadrants of the intersection 80 that there is commercial scattered throughout it. He questioned if there is a large scale PUD or DRI project that will have arterial roadways existin9 within it, does the language restrict that to only one quadrant of that intersection instead of as is permitted in other arterial intersections now? Planner Cacchione stated that the idea of limiting it to one particular parcel is to have it meet the criteria of the community commercial node that it be located on the major roadway, that it serve the larger POPulation and that it be at one central location, not smaller pieces of commercial scattered throughout the development. She stated that it can be put on lwo sides of the arterials just as you can at the existing community nodes. Co..issioner Voss moved, .econded by eo..i.sioner Bolland and carried unanimously, that the public h.aring be c10.ed. Co..issioner Voss moved; seconded by co..issioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that Petition CP-85-6C; reque.ting an amend.ent to eoo( 091PAGt302 Page 12 ...._,-...."-,-""'-'""'....,....".,<'~,,,.,;," lOOt: 091nr,r303 December 10, 1985 the Future Land Use Ele.ent of the Coaprehenaiye Plan by a.eDding the language regarding a.ount of ~ercial acreage anð type. of co..ercial use peraitteð in PUC·. larger than 2,400 dwelling unit. be adoptad~ Upon approyal of the above referenced a.end.ent.; the Ordinance a. numbered and entitled below wa. adopted and entered into Ordinance Book Bo. 22 r * ORDINANCE 85-74 AB ORDINANCE AMnDIRO ORDINANCI 83-54; THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAR FOR COLLIER COtnlTY, FLOJUDA; BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LARD USE !Ll'.IŒRT AND THE TRARSPORTATIOH ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAIr, MORE PARTICt1LAltLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AIIlD PROVIDING All EFl'BC'l'IVI!: DATI!:. . . . * * There being no further business for the Good of the County, the Meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Times 8s45 P.M. BO~RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL {}. Æ1;:; " \~\¡ARlJ ,,,.. " O/' . ", , ~ .. A.-HESTr.' '1' ~ ::'~I~LIAM 'J.':'.RÚåAN, CLERK /' S·.iL:~~'.;. ~¿}. ~.. _- ~. 41 C - t7:' ''<èJ~~ - . , - " Th~·s.· ~i~~tes approved by the BCC on ~;#Io#.;ï/ 7 /?~ a. presented ------ or as correc~ Page 13 ,- .. .. - *