Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/05/1982 S -- --- -- -- - ----~ --~-- ---.-- --- -- --- - - -- - -.-- Naplvs, Florida, January 5, 1982 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the governing board(s) of such special districts a8 have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at. 7:00 P.M. in Special Session in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the following mp.mbers prescnt: ,I CHA Im-IAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: C. R. "Russ" Wimer Mary-Frances Kruse John A. Pintor Clifford Wenzel D.:IV id C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: Harold t. H~ll; Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Darlene Davidson, Deputy Clcrk; Donald Pickworth, C-ounty 1\tt.0rn('y~ Terry Vlrta, Community Development Administrator; Danny Crew, Planning Director; Lee Kirchhoff, Planner; Wayne Gr.:lham, Sheriff's Department, ànd various members of staff. ,"GENDA 1. Petition NZ-BO-20, Community Development, requesting adoption of the fin.:ll report of the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the unincorpor.:lted are~ of Collier County. 2. Second hearing on proposed Zoning Maps for the unincorporated araa of Colliur County in conjunction with the adoption of tho final report of the Comprehensive Zoning Regula- tions. (Commun 1 ty Dcvelopmcn t) PðgC 1 Boa~ 067 PACt 79 . - - - -. ..... - -. -- - -. ~~..._--..---._-....- _..-..- .. ---.~..-.._~.~--~_._._......_._- BoaK 067 PACt BO JDnu.]ry 5, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. a'-2, RE PETITION N7.-80-20, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATEO AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY _ ADOPTED AS M~E~DED Log(jl notice having beell published in tho Napleu Daily News, as previously filed with the Clerk, public hearing w~scontinuod from Deccmber 22, 1981 to consider the adoption of an Ordin~ncQ re Petition Nz-aO-20, filed by Collier County Community Development Division, requesting adoption of the fin~l report of the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County. Chl1irman Wimer explained that the proccduT" for this Special Meeting will De to consider tho two l1genda items separDtely. fie said that the meetinq shall be conducted according to Robart's Rules of p~, adding that, upon hearing a motion and second to adopt the final report for the Comprehensive Zoning ~cgulatlons for the unincorporated areas of Collier Count~'. as amended in all previous public hearings, including those ame~iments th~t m~y bn mnrle durlnq this s~~sion, he would open the floor tor consideration of staff's recommended amendments, followed by staff's ~omments and those comments ùnd/or rcquests from all registered speakers, respectively. fie sùid that each amendment will be voted u~~n ~eparðtely and, upon the conclusion of all discussion rcgDrding amendments, the public hearing will be closed and the question on the motion for ndoption would be called. ChRirman Wimer explained that tilt s same procedurc will apply to the considera- tion of the adoption of the relðted zoning maps, and/or all amendments thereto. Page 2 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- -- - -- - - - - - _. - - - - - - -- -.....,-." ----------------------------------------- . JDnu<'try 5, 1982 Commissioner Wenzel moved, Soconded by Commissionor Xrus~, that the final report regarding the Comprehensive Zoning Rcgulatlons for the unincorporated arca of Collier County re Petition NZ-80-20, be adopted as amended in ðll previous public hearings and including any amendments that may bo voted upon this session. NOTE: Formnl nctlon taken upon conclusion of consideratlor. ro amendments to subject ordInance. Chairman Wimer requestod that staff make their recommendations rcgdrding additional amcndmcnts ðnd the fOllowing m~tters wore considered and ðcted upon as indicated: 48 PERMITTED USES ADDED TO THOSE ALREADY LISTED IN THE PROPOSED ORDiNANCE UNDER TilE INDUSTnTM. DIS'mIcT; PROVISIONAL USE (e) AS LISTED UNDER INDUSTRIAL DISTRlCT WITHIN PROPOSED ORDINANCE _ DELETED; ALL OTHER PROVISIONAL USES REMAIN AS LISTED Community Development Admir.lstri1tc.. Terry Virtû stated that, pursuant to concurrence of th~ mcmbers of the BCC appointed Committee, which was created for the purpose of consideration of additional permitted USL3 under the proposed "I" Industrial District, a li5t h~3 been compiled containing 48 additional permitted uses rccommended to be added to the "I" distr ict. He sa id that st., ff concurs wi th the recommended list, a copy of which was submitted for tho record marked as Exhibit "A- and filed with the Clerk. Planner Lee Kirchhoff added that, subsequent to the Board's approval of the aforementioned list, provisional use (0), as llst~d in the proposed ordinance should be deleted. rü~., 3 Ma.~ 061 PACt 81 . .... . --.. ,",~,,"-,,--,. . -_._...--~_.._-_..- ----.-..-- t\oa~ ,067 PACt 82 J.1nu.1CY 5, 1902 Ilea ring no further comments, Commissioner pißtor moved, seco:\dp.d by CQrnrni=~~=~~r ~r~wn nn~ ~~rrlcd unanimously, th~t th~ ~foremcntloned liRt of 48 ndditionnl purmltl~d u=ec be ~dd~d un~~r the Industrial District nnd th.1t provisional use (0), lI8 listed in tt.e proposed ordinance, be deleted. MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE (HIDTH) fOR GUEST \lOUSES Af-'ENDED TO 105 FEET. [lnnner Lee Kirchhoff outlined the staff recommendation for amending the minimum lot frontage (width) for the construction of II quoct house by ~~cre.1sing the minimum frontage f(om 75', as is pres~ntly r~quircd, to 105'. In lInswer to Commissioner Kruse, Mr. Virta explained thaL staff has considered the viability of handling this matter by setback requiremcntn, however, with 7-1/2 ft. sideya~d setbacks, a problem occurs in providing accoSS to the rear of lots that arc only 75 ft. wide, therefore, he recommends that ð minimum of 105' frontage he required. Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Pister and carried 4/1, with Commissioner Kruse opposed, that the aforementioned 3mcndment to the minimum lot frontage for guest houses, be approved. REGULATIONS RE FLOOR AREA IN ~RT" DISTRICT TO REMAIN AS IS - NO ACTION TAKF.N There was a bricf discussion regarding Mrs. Kirchhoff's statement that staff feels t~c regulations regardin~ floor area in the "RT" district, as outlined within the proposed ordinðncc, arc reasonðblc, adding that, becÐus~ any l3rge hotel chain will probably covor more pag., 4 -- -- - - - - - - - -- - --. _.- -- -- --- ._- - --- - - -- -. - .- ..- -- --- - -- - - - - - - - - -- ----------------------------------------- January 5, 19ß2 area than fivo acres they require more height than allowable undcr the "RT" district, therefor~, they would probably seek a "PUD". Upon conclusion of the discussion, Chairman Wimer noted that it w~s the consensus of tho Board that there was no need to amend this particular section of tho proposed ordinanco ðnd no nctlon was taken. "I" DISTRICT AND DEFINITIONS AMENDED BY CHA~CING TERM "JUNKYARD" TO "RECYCLrNC CENTER" Commissioner pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Drown and carried unðnimously, that the proposed ordinance be nmendcd by changing the term "junkyard" within the "I" District and the definitions to ~recycling center", as recommended by the staff. PROVISIONAL USE AND VARrANCE PET IT TONS AND APPf.ALS TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO !.>E IIF.MW BY A BOARD OF ZONINC APPEALS County Attorney Pickworth outlined his recommendations regarding a proposal to include the power to hear provisional use petitions by the Board of Zoning Appeals within the proposed ordin~nc~, as outlined fully within his memorandum to the Board, dated January 4, 1982, a copy of which was m~rked as Exhibit "B" and submitted for file with the Clerk. He explained the options that the DCC has regarding this matter, including the provision whcreby the BCC could ret~in the final administrative authority over provisional uees if it so chose, suggcRtlng th~t, if this Is the intent of the Bo~rd, the present propoGal be amended by deleting the requircment for a public hearing before the CAPC for provisional usa petitions and allowing for CAPC review in its stead. He explained that this would rcduce tho numbcr of P&:IQC !.i aoax 067 PACt 83 ,". .þ .. . . -.. - .. - - . - ,~ --". .. - þ -.. -. . . -' -, · . --0 _ . P , ._.... - o·.P ... _._ _ __.__ MaK 061 PAGt B4 JÐnU.1rY 5, 19112 required hearings for It provisional use by one, with tho eAPC report considered a~ ~ mðtter of record durinq the initial Board of Zoning ^PP~.:I15 (BZA) heðrlnq. He 9~id t~At Chapter ~7-l216, Specið1 ^ct~, Laws of Flori~~, require th.:lt the aZA be the rin~l authority regarding variance pctitions and appeals to adminiatrative decisions, therefore, ðnyono aggrieved by these aZA decisions must appeal by filing writ of certior~ri to the Circuit Court. Thio w~s discussed at lenqth, during which Commissioner Kruse stated that, if the BCC retains the right of final administrative authority tor provísionðl uses, then, she would not object to the proposal of the aZA hearing them. Also discussed was the total responsibility of the BZ^; the membership on th~ DZA, including Bee appointed members or the RCC mcmbers themselves, as is presently the casc; and, whethcr or not it would be more advisable for the BCC to continue to hear provisional use petitions as members of the BCC rather I than require they be hC.:Ird by the DZA, regðrdless of who makes up the BZA membership. Mr. Pickworth explained that the membership of the BZA doeM not have to be d0Cid~d to('~Y; only the question of the BZA'a authority to hear provisional use petitions rcquires consideration at this time. Mr. Jim Smith, President of Naples Roðrd of Realtors (NABR), referred to D letter from his organization, dated 12/2/81, in which NABR takvs the position th~t the BZA should hear provisional use petitions and, if there is to be an appeal regarding thc BZA'a decision, the BCC should be the final authority for hearing such appeals rather than requiring those provisional usc appeals to go Page 6 ------ ------ ----.- -- - ---- ---- - - - ---- -------- ---- !- , ----------- -. - - --- -.. -- -- ----- --- - - - - -- -- -- ~ January 5, 1982 through tho routo cf litl~at{on. Also, should thJ~ Board bu constituted, ~ criteria should be established regnrdlng qualifications lor all advisory boards, which would insure representation from all segments of the community. Mr. Smith concluded his statemont with a messago of thanks and appreciation to t:!e members of the Board and the entire County staff for the wo r k tha t has gone into the development of the proposed ordinance and for the spirit of cooperð t ion that has always been dhplayed towa rei s the NABR. Ch~drmðn Wimcr stated that a workshop will be scheduled to discuss the DCC Policy for jctermining the makeup and methods for .:Ippolntments of all advisory boards and he rcquestpd that staff notify tho NABR and all other lnter~sted partics and invite thcm to participate. Mrs. Charlotte Westman, reprcsenting the League of Women Voters of Collier County (LWV), spoke In favo:: of hDving a separate body of peoplc, appointed by the members of the BCC, to make up the membership of the ßZA a"ð she urged the BQ¿Hd to Inake appointments only to those persons with no real or substantial vestcd intcrcsts in land resources in Col1ieL County. Mr. Richard Hahn, resident, spoke In fc')vor of establishing thr. hearing of provisional use pctitions by thc BZA ~nd in opposition to having any furth~r moans of appe~l ß(ter a BZA decision has beon set forth other than the Courts. Commissioner Pistor moved that the Board adopt Mr. Pickworth's suggestion, including an additional provision that any person ag~rieved by a ß7.^ decision r~garding a provisIonal use or a variance petition may appeal to tho ACC. pag e 7 aoQ~ 067 PACi 85 -.. .~ - -. . . _. __ h.. · _. - -. - -. . - -.. .. . .. . -. -.-. ..- - -. - . -- .... - .. . _. - - - -- -- BO~K 067 fACE 86 Ji\nuðCY 5, 19~2 Commissioner Wenzel roquested clarification ðS to whethor or not ti,e Board was vot.1ng to cßtl'lbl1ah the E\ZA7 Chairmlln Wlm~r stntco that the ~otlcn i~ to cre~t~ a sep~rðte body othr.r th~n th~ rnp.mh~rs of h~ BCC DS the BZA, with the addition of an "appcal provinio~ to the BCC~ for aggrieved parties. Mr. Pickworth st.:lted that BZA decisions cannot, by lbw, be appealed to the BCC regarding variance decisions. Commission~r Pistor withdrew his motion. He then made a motion, that Section 11 be stricken from the proposed ordinance in Its entirety and that all relatcd sections be amended to reflect that deletion. Mr. Virta stated that this cannot be done bec~use State law dictates that thcre must be a aZA, whether its membership consists of memburs of the ace or ð completely separate b~dy. Chairman Wimer concurred, noting that the decision should be made whether to make the membcrs of the Bee sit 3S rn~mbers of the 8ZA or to have the membcrs of the BZA be appointcd as ø scp.:lrate body? He referred to the decision as a philosophical matter, i.e. should the 8ce function as a purely ¡ legir.lative body or, should it ðlso act in ð quasi-judicial capacity? Mrs. Kirchhoff clarified the mðtter as it now stands. She said that, presently, the Bee acts as the BZA in matters concerning variances nnd appeals of ðdrnlnistrative decisions. She explðined that provisional use petitions are presently heard by the CArC and then come before the BCC who arc ~ctinq In the cðp~clty as the 8CC and not the 8ZA. Chairman Wimcr concurred, adding that further pppcals on alA decisions rclat~cI to v.:lriðnce petitions and administrðtlve deci£ion~ arc only ðvail~ble through the courts no mntter who sits on the BZA. Mr. Pickworth concurred. Mrs. Westman urged the Roard to p.stablish the aZA as D separ~te Pag e 8 ----------- - ----- - --- ------ ----- - - -- --------- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Jðnuary 5, 1982 ~ody of citizens appointed by the BCC because this body should oe ¡ rcmoved from the -body polItIc·. This was discussed at length, during which Commissioner Brown dIsagroed with Mrs. Westman a"d stated that he belioven that elected commissioners sorving as the BZ^ arc more sonsitive to tho will of tho public thßn would be appoInted members of t." '. aZA. ChairmDn Wimer declared the motion on the floor as out of order, baßed on Counsel's concurrence that Section 11 cannot be removed. Commissioner Wenzel moved that the BCC retain their pr-esent posture as comprising the membership of the aZA and assumo the responsibility thereof. Mr. Pickworth rcfcrred to page 198 of the drafted ordinance, Section 11.1, subparagrllph (e), <'Snd stat<!d thðt, if the intent of the Board is ~lmply not to hðvo the BZ^ involved in provisional use / potltions, then, all that if' necessary is a motion to strike subpa rélg rðph (0) from the proposed ord inc'lnco. Commissioner Wenzel clarified h:s intent. He said that he is motioning that thoro be a BZA and that the ace act ðS thðt BZA. Mr. Virta stated that this is tho Wðy the proposed ordinance reads, therefore, no motion Is necessary. Mr. PIckworth stated that the question is which body should hear provisional use petitions; not who makes up the BZA. Commissioner Kruse stated that she considers provisio~ðl uses as tho most disruptive and most emotional issuos that come up within a community. Sho said that she considors thðt the el~ctp.d commissioners hold the final responsibility to that same community, therefore, they r.houlð h~vc th~ fin~l authority over provIsIon~l US~R If thcre is ~n Pago 9 eo~~ 067 fACE f:r/ _. ._ 4_.. __.___...__._ . _ ·4 .... --4. _ '"_ __ , ~ _ __ .... .. . -.- -~. - - -- _. - . -,----- --- ---- ----_.~...- _.'. Boa~ C 6 7 fACt SB ðggriovud party, bðsed on ð aZA decision. 7:.e ';is.::uÞsloII continll"'ci, ciurinq which COr.1mi::;oioncr I'i::;tor rp.fp.rred to [>.:Igo 200, Section 12. 3, ~nd asked if the motion on I:.hv floor would not require amending or striking this Section which outlines the duties of the ßCC as the body that appoints members to the CAPC and the aZ^? Mr. Pfckworth stðtcd that the question of who will sit as the BZA docs not have to be addressed as a part of the adoption , of the' propr.scd ordin<1nce. lie sùid thðt the motion must relðtf' to the provisional use hearing powcr and which body shDll havo that power. Chðirman Wimer ruled the motion on the floor as out of order ðnd asked for a motion as to who will hoar provisional Use petitions? Mr. ßÐfiS, of Adley ðnd ^ssoc., said that on Janu<1ry 15, 1981, his firm was directed to draft the ordirance with a scparate BZA; however, there have been revisions since that time. He said that, whichever way tho Board decides to go, Sections 11 and 13 will have to be amended accordingly. He ::;,:dd that in most other commulliti~s, "provisio"ðl uses", often rcferred to as "special exceptions", are he~rd by the Plðnning Commission ffrst and then go the BCC and are never heard by the B~A, rcgè'1rdless of wh, si ts on that board. Commissioner Wenzel motionpd that provi5ional usc petitions be heiHd by the ß7.A, alor>g with variaf\l,;~ ..,cLltlons LInd .J;:Jpc.:ls of administra~ive decisions. COr.\missioner Hrown seconded the motion, which carried 4/1, with Commissioner Pistor Opposed. MEMBERS OF BCC TO SIT ^S MEMBERS OF BZA Later in the meeting, Attorney J. Dudley Goodlette, representing NABR, referrcd to the above-referenced nctlon whereby the aZA was given Page 10 - ----. --_. -- --- --.- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- --- - --- ------ -- --- i. "".,. '''-''._."",,...-~.., .."~~""..'_" -- - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - 0- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __. JlInuary 5, 1982 the ~dditlonal responsibility of hearing provisional use petitions lI~d stated that he did not hellr.ve that it Wð8 deci1ed if the ACC would assume flnal'~uthorllY for app~als on these ßZA decisions. This WðS discussed lit great length, during which Mr. Pickworth agreed that this was not clarified. After additional discussion, Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 4/1, with Commissioner Wimer opposed, that the BCC will sit as the BZA, thercfore the only means of appealing any BZA decision, including those regarding provisional use petitions, will be through the courts. COMMUNICATION TOWERS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROVISIONAL USE~ UNDER ESSENTIAL SERVICES -' After ð bricf explanation from Planner Lee Kirchhoff, Commissioner Wenzel movad, seconded by Commissioncr Pistor and carried unenirnouSly, that communicðtion towers be considered as provisional USes under essential services. RETAIL NUnSERIES NOW PERMITTED AS PRI~CIPLf. USES IN AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS TO CONTINUE AS SUC~ Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that retail nurseries now permitted as principle uses in "A" Districts, continue to be considered as such. DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDING RMF-1G REGULJ\TIONS RE GUARANTEE OF REPLACEMENT OF IDENTICAL BUILDINGS IF A LOSS OF MORE THAN 50\ WERE SUSTAINED - NO ACTION TAKEN Mrs. Kirchhoff referred to a letter, dated December 31, 19RI, from Gulfview Club Condominium Corporation Trcasurcr Bob Hamman, requesting that the zoning rr.qulations for the ~Mr-l(¡ District b~ amended by MOle 067 PACt: 89 pnge 11 .- _.4 -..- -._ _ _._. þ._ _._ __. _ n,,, . _ .. ... _..~, - þ--~ ..- ---- ---. . . - .~. .. -. ._-,~.. "'. ~ -- .. ~. .. - .. þ - """""'-'_......,,~~..._.~,.""....._.»> ... ._~..- '-'''_._-..~........_....... - . ...-. -... ..- ........... -.------ BOOK C67 PAGê 90 J"nulIry 5, 1982 adding a provision sanctioning lIny land use which W~ß permlss1blo under the zonlnq in offl'C:t: 1'It: t:h.. tl!!1c builcH:-:g pcrmlt¡; WIUC: 91c1ntf~d for ~1l c~i~ting ölructurc~. She outlined somc of Mr. Hnmmnn:ß re~sons for hie request, including the possible financial hardship to a developer and othor negative ramifications that might result in the evcnt that ð severe storm were to occur and lossos of over 50\ were sustained, i.e., under the proposed RMF-l~ regulations, the height of the reconstructed bUildinq would be diminished to less than half of the original building, etc. She said that Mr. nðmman claims that, under tho new regulations, it Is conceivable that many owners of units destroyed in 8 severo storm would not be ßllowed to reconstruct. Mrs. Kirchhoff stnted that staf! recommends that the provision not be added to the proposed ordinance lInd that no action bo tAken. Chairman Wimer noted thAt it WÐS the consensus of the Board that no ðctlon be taken, as recomm~nded by staff. VESTED rnOJECTS, (SECTION VI, ITEM IC) AMENDED TO INCLUDE ANY PROJECT FOn W!II("/ II BUILDING PERMIT nAS Df.F:N ^PPtrF:D Upon a r0comrncndation by Mr. Vfrta, Commissioner Brown movod, s~co~ded by Commissioner Pistor and c.:lrried unanimously, t~at Vested Projects, Section VI, Item lC, be amended to include any project [or which a bUilding permit has been applied, as of this dDtC. Pðge 12 -- - - ---- -- .-- -- ----- -- - ---------------------------- -""'"",-"" ---------------------------------------- January 5, 1982 I £XISTING PUD'S WILL NOT BE AFFECTP.D BY THE ADOPTION OF TUE NEW ZONING REGULATION OODINANCP., UNLF.~fi 'I'IIF.Y C.OMr. BJ'.CK TO TilE "OARD FOk CI/ANGES At the request of Chairman Wimer, CommunIty Dcvnlopment Administrator Terry Virta clarified, for the record. the fact that existing Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) are approved by adoption of tho respective PUD Documcnt as ð legally adopted zoning Ordinance related only to that specific property and project. Therofore, said Mr. Virtð, th~ ðdoption of the proposed ordinance will not have ðny affect on these existing PUD Ordinances or their respcctive projects, except in the casc whore the dp.veloper wishes to como back·to tho Board for an amendment to the PUD. All changes (amendments) to an existing PUD will fßll under the regulations of the new zoning regulatIons. DISCUSSION RE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S RESPONSE TO NABR LETTER OF 12/28/8] ~ NO ACTION TAKEN Naples Area Board of Realtors President Jim Smith stated that Mr. Virta's response to the NABR letter of. Inquiry regarding various aspects of the proposed zoning regulations was satisfactory, with one exception. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Vlrta to addross the height reductions rclated to the "RT" distric~, specifically, what the basis was for reducing the height from 200' to 100'? Mr. Virta explained that this particular reduction was not the result of staff's recommendations, rather, it was a result of a number of Issues that have been dlsc~ss~d during the workshops, I.e. Board direction, citizen's requests, and, availability of fire equipmcnt to service highrise buildings, etc. He stated th~t these are the Sðme reasons as those related to the RMF-16 district. pag e 13 BOOK 067 fACt 91 .... .. ... . u_ .... ,-".""---,..,, -. -. .. -.. - . .. ....- -. - . - - -- ... p..-'.' - .- ,1~ C67 fACt 92 JMUi\ry 5, 1982 GENERAL DISCUSSION IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC'S POINTS OF ISSUE - NO ACTION TM'!::N I Referring to the proviulona rølateJ to the ·ST" reguli\~ionA, Mr~. Chllrlottc Westmlln, representing the Leðgu~ of ~omc" Vot~rß of Collier County (LWV), af>l(cd if It is true that those "ST" regulations are not to L~ considered as "locked in"? She Ðsked for clarification th~t the "ST" regulations will be workshopped and reviewed at ð later time for possible revisions? Chairmðn Wimer concurr9~ "hat this is the Board's intent. Referring to the ncw low/modcri\to income housing thlt twill be effective In Apr il of this year, Mrs. Westman asked if there is any 1 eg a 1 way to gU:lrantce the rcntal tenðnts thðt their units will not become a condominium? Mr. Virta stated that tho rUD documcnt adopte~ by thp. BCC rcquir~s thðt those units within the project to w~lch Mrs. WestmÐn is referring remain rental units, therefore, there Is no need to "ÒÙ(t:ss tll,lt is!òue in the proFosed ardin. nce. Mta. Wes~man asked if the EJ\C and the WMAB will still review petitions and offer "input" to the BCC, even though, acc~rding to the proposed ordinance, they ðre no longer ð part of the "point system"? Mr. Virta replied affirmatively. Mrs. WC5tm~n expre5se~ ðpprer.iatlon, on behalf of the members of I LWV, to the en~irc staff and to the Commisuloncrs for their efforts In doveloping the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Richard lIendcrlong of Wilson, Miller, Barton, SoIl and Peek, complimented the Board and the staff for the fino job that has been done in developing the new zoning ordinÐnco. He ,referred to page 93, Accessory Structures, Swimminc¡ Pools, Multi-ft'lmlly and Commercial, lInd ðsked for clarification as to the basis for requiring a 20 ft. rellr P~gc 14 .-- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - .- ._- - -- - - - - --- -- - -- - _. - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - _. JanulIry 5, 1902 r.e·bðck rathor than a 15 ft. setb~ck as is roquircd for aide yard setbacks? This was discussed briofly, during which Zoning Director Jeffory Pcrry pointed out that the existing rear setback is 20 ft. bnd th~t the new ordinance is not changing that requirement. Mr. Henderlong referred to tho regul~tions related to Tennis Courts' setback requirements, specifically, why tho rcgul~tlons ~ro more restrictive with an accessory structure as opposed to a principle structure? Mr. Virta stated that the sctbacks are direct conversions from the existing regulations, however, the setbacks in "mulit-famlly areas· for the structures themselves have changed. REGULATIONS RE CHILD CARE CENTERS (SECTION B.~8) AMENDED TO REQUIRE 7,000 SQ. FT. OF LOT AREA FO!l FInST r; CIHLDRF:N AND 500 SQ. FT. OF ADDITION^L LOT lIREA FOR E^CII MHHTrONlIL CHILD Mr. Max F. Beck-Bocttger, resident of Marco Island, objected to the dplptlon of th~ provision th~t ~ child clIre center b~ requir~d to have 7,000 square ft. and be limited to 6 children. He referred to problcms that might arise if a fire were to breAk out and 25 ~hlldren werc'trApped in such a center. He requested that the more restrictive provisions be reinstðted. This was discussed at length, during which Mrs. Kirchhoff explained that State lðw allows up to 150 children in each of these units. She said that staff feels lhat the provision, whereby there i$ a minimum requirement of 7,000 squ.:lro feet of area tor the first ~ children and eGch additional child rcquiring another 1,000 square feet, will, ~or all practical purposes, lead to tho ·virtual elimination· of child care centers in ColI lor County. She said thðt stðfr recommends that the square foot minimum be deleted and a m~ximum of 25 children be ðdd~d, as is cont~ined in tha dr~ftcd orðinðncc. She also stðtcð thðt ðOa~ 067 PACt 93 Page 1 S · - -. ~ - ..., BOOK U 67 PACt S4 .J.3nU,HY !'I, 198 ~ I all child cðre centers must meet the fire code, including the convor- ~¡_n o( an ~xisting homo to Include em~rgcncy flr~ exits, etc. After further discussion, Commissioner pistor moved, seconùed by Commi5ßion~r Wenzel ðnd corricd '/~, with Commissioners Xruse and Wimer opposed, that Ch.:lpter 8.40 be amended to include the requirement that the maximum number of children to be ~dmitted in ð child cðre center is 6 for the the first 7,000 sq. ft. of lot area, and that the original rcquircmcnt that eðch arldltional child will require an additional 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area be rcduced to an additional 500 sq. ft. of lot area for each additional child. FORM~L ACTION TAKEN nE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 82-2 Hearing that there were no furthcr comments from st~ff, the public or the Board, Ch.:lirm~n Wimer C.:Illp.d for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pistor so moved, seconded ~y Cmmissioner Wenzel and carried unanimously. Chairman Wimer called for the question on the motion on th" floor, having been mñde at the onset of this he.:lring by Commissioner Wenzel and seconded by Commissioner Kruse, to adopt the Ordinance as numbered and entitled below, includin~ all amendmcnt~ thereto, and enter same in Ordinance Book '14. The motion carried unanimously. Page 16 _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ __. .__ __ _+ _ _ __4 _ _ _ _ - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ----".."-~-«," _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __1 _ _ &OO~ 061 fACf 96 . . . RECESS. f\% 17 P.M. - 8.27 P..... " 1t ~ HEW ZONING MAPS OF TilE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER RF. ORDINANCE NO. P,2-2 ^DOPTF.O ^f> ~M~Nnr.D - Legal noticc hDving been published in the Naples Daily News on Deccmber 30, 1901, a8 cvidenced by Affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider the ~doption of the new zoning maps in conjunction with the comprehensive zoning regulations Cor thc unincorpor~tcd area of Collier County. Chairman Wimer requested a motion for adoption of the zoning maps of the unincorporated .:IfCð of CollIer County, as a~ended In all previous public he.:lrings and including any amendments that are made this session. Commissioncr Wenzel so move~ and Commissioner pistor seconùed the motion. Chairman Wimer called fnr staff recommendations for amendments, if any. /Ie said that, after hearing from staff and following the conclusion of con~ideratlon of the public's co~=erns, th~ public hearing will be closed and he will call for the question on the above-referenced motion. Note: Fo(~al ~doption of maps completed at conclusion of this publiq hc,lring. DISCUSSION REGARDING LETTERS RECEIVED REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING MAPS - NO ACTION TAKEN Mrs. Kirchhoff referred to ð rcqucs~ submitted by letter, dated December 28, 1981, from five property owners of a 60 acre tract In Section 18, Range 49, Township 2~, who w~nt that section of land to be brought back to "AM rathcr than "E". Shc rcported that this was done Page 17 ... . _._.. __ - ~. ___ _..... - _. .._~ . - .._ 0._- . _. ~."_.. _ _.. .~_ 0.__. _n ..__ _.. __,.. __ __ _.u ."__ __ __ __ -- -- -. --- -... - - - -- "' ".~. '. _. ''''_._.''~'''--' I I· ------- ---... -------------~------ ---------.--- --- - -- ------ ·J1'Inu.HY 5, 1982 I , , ðt the previous meetIng, therefore, there is no need for further a~tion. 1 20 ^CRES IN SECTION 15, T51, R2fi, CHANGED FROM "C-2· TO "C-3" Mrs. KIrchhoff referrcd to a letter, dðted January 5, 1982, from Attorney George VegD, representing ð gvntleman who owns 20 1'Icres on the Isles of Capri/Marco Road, prcsently zoned GRC ðnd proposed to go to , ·C-2". She sai'd thLlt the owner is requesting that this property be zoned "C-3". Mr. William Dahnke, of Crowder, Mahoney & Assoc., representing the owner of the Rubject property, Mr. Robert Berrin, Trustee, explained thdt this property (Map 51-26) is proposed for the development of a shopping center and the zoning classif{cation of C-2 will not lend itself to this use, whereas, C-3 will. In answer to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. Virta stated that the fitaff does not havc any objection to this request. Commissioner Wenzcl moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and carried unanimously, that Mr. Robert Berrin, Trustee's 20 acres, as described above, be changed from C-2 to C-3. ST^FF DIRECTED TO TAKE APPRGnRI^TE STEPS TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY LYING ßETh'EEN U. S. 41 AND 1 ()TII STREF:T TO C-II, WITH THf. EXCEPTION OF MR. BIERO'S prWPf.RTY \'¡HICH IS TO BE ZONED C-5; L/\ND USE MAPS FOR THIS PROPERTY TO RE~^IN A5 pnr.SENTf.D AT THIS TIMf. Mrs. Kirchhoff stated that she has received a letter from Mr. John s. Berio, dated January II, 1902, requesting th~t the zoning of an undivided Dlock A, Hollygate Subdivision, measuring approximately 330 ft. by 375 ft., be changed to C-5, in order that his storage ðnd Pllg~ 1 A Ma~ 067 PACt tJ7 - _..... - - - _.. _0- _ _ _ ___ __ _ .~._ _. _~_ _. ___ __. __ ..._ _._ ___ .._ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ __.. _ _ __ __ _ _.. \ I - - - - - - - -~ - .-- -- ._- -- .-.- -~ ..- -- ..- --. -- .- .-..- -. -, -- I I .. --. -- - -.. -. -- -. --- - --- -l 5, 1982 t ßoa~ 067 'fAtt 98 .1,'nu"ry fabrication of building components business will be in compliance with th~ zonin1 rc~u!Qt!on~. ~hc s.]id that she ~l~o received ð letter, dated Jünu.:Iry 4, 1~R2, trom Mr. George W. (Jim) McKay roquesting ð change to ·commercial" for property described ~s Lots 1 through 9, Block a, North Naples Highlands, from Highway ~l to 10th street north. Sh~ ref.~rrp.d to ü map and ov~rl.:lY which was submitted for the record and explained that these two parcels are a part of an area of concern that has been discussed in the past. She explained that the property in question is divided in the Compr~hensive Plan between commerci~l and residential use, as is all the property running from lath St. to U.S. 41, from High Point Dr ive north to Soll1na Rd. Mrs. Kirchhoff said that, if the BOQrd wishes to make a change in the proposed zoning, which is cummercial along U.S. 41 and residential along 10th. Str~et, t could not be uone at this cime because com- mercial zoning all the way to 10th. Strcct would be in conflict with the Cc~?rehen~:ve Plan and woulù requIre d Comprehensive Plan amdendment beforc being rezoncd. She stated that, if this Is t~e intent of the Board, they could Siv~ direction to staff to prepnre the rclative Comprehensive Plan ilmendment. lIowcvcr, said Mrs. Kirchhoff, if the Board wishes to lcave 'he strip zoned as commerciül and residential as indicated on the overlay, there in no need for any action. Mr. Biero urged the Bo~rd to grant his rp.quest for C-5 zoning on his property, explaining that he has opcrðted this same family business for many years on this property. CommisFioner Wenzel moved thAt the staff be directed to come back Page 19 .__ þ ~ ."--'--"--_0. . . --- _.~- .--- --..- -. ..'~- - . - -- .. .. .' -. _. .. - -- . _. -.. - -.- - - -- - ----~......;.,<._......,---..~,_.. - - - - - - - -. - - _. -- . -- -- - - -~ - -- - - _.- - -- -- - - - - -. -- -- .- - - - -- - - - - Jðnuary 5, 1902 to the Boðrd with the appropriate Comprehensive Land Usa ðmand~ent and that 'the zoning maps be chllrlgt'ð to roflect thðt l'rea zoned as commercial from U.S. 41 all the way back to 10th Street. Mrs. Kirchhoff explained that in Mr. neiro's case, because his property is being used ~s he described, he would require ð differcnt zoning classification (C-S) from all other parcels in that area which would be zoned C-4. Also, Mrs. Kirchhoff said that it is not possible to change the zoning tonight because commercial zoning all the way to lOth Street is in conflict wltK" the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wimp.r nskrd Commissioner Wenzûl to amend his motion to direct staff to take all appropri;te steps to zone the property all th~ way to 10th Street to C-4, with the exception of Mr. Berio's property which should be zoned C-S. Mr. Vlrtn ~sked if this means that the staff shvuld Initiate the necû8s~ry Comprehensive Land Use amendments and Chairman Wimer replied affirmatively. Mrs. Kirchhoff stated that the proposed zon ing will have to remð i'n as is proposed by sta ff and indicated on the zoning maps (split between commercial and residential) for the time b~ing, in order to comply with tho Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Chairman Wimer agreed. Mrs. Kirchhoff stated that staff is ðlso recommending that the resldential-multlf~mily USe remain for the parcels of land, beginning just north of Il!inois Street and running 50uth to High Point Drive. Commissioner Wenzel agreed to amend his motion to reflect the staff direction to tðke all appropriate steps to rezone the Rubject property between U.S. 41 and 10th Street to C-4, with tho exception of ~~r. Dicro'c propC'rty, which should he ZOIH'Ò C-~, (\nd thllt property PlIgQ 20 ðOa,( 067 FACt' 99 _.- --.-. ---. -- -- -- .- --- _.. - ~ -.. ._- -- ..- --- - - -- - -- .-_. -- -- _.. -- -. _.- hUG,~ C61 fAtt 100 - ------ -------.---- ----""1 J~nuDry 5, 19~2 I .- -- - - -~ - -- -- -- - -- .- -_. -- --- - . _.- - -.- runr.ing from just north of Illinois Street, south to High Point Dr1va, is to remain ðS hðs b~cn recommended by 8t~ff~ nnd, that the zoning maps relðtfl( tr~ l:,,! 1':Iubj.!ct dr~... rem"1in lU:I prntl"ntt!å. Tnt" motion waR cccondcd by Commis~ion~r ~rU3a ~nd carried unan!~au31y. C:-5 ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL MR1< TO REMAIN - NO 1\CTION T1\KEN Plðnner tee Kirchhoff stated that staff is recommending that, based on the Board's approval of adding the new uses to the "I" zoning district, the zoning classification of C-5 should be removed from the ERst Naples Industrial Park. Mr. Donald Arnold, of Arnold & Arnold Realty, explained that when he was sitting on th~ Committee that considered the ar.ditional uses for the "1" district, hùving been approved earlier this session, the Airport Road frontdgc property was never discussed. He said that, now, he finds that the staff is recommending changing the zoning for the East Naples Industrial Park from C-5 to "I". He said that his firm has made sales to commercially orientcd business~s for this property, based on what ~e though was the BO.:lrd's decision during earlier public hearings, i.e. the C-5 zoning. He rcquested that the first 600 ft. or 660 It. along Airport Road remain C-5. Commissioner Wimer stated that he understood Mr. 1\rnold to be opposed to C-5 zoning for the Airport Road frontage during the last hearing. Mr. Arnold oxplained that, at that time, he was representing four persons, one of whom had purchased 10 acres on which hc intended to develop an industrial park. Mr. Arnold said that he can still do that under the C-5 district under Page 21 - - .. . --- -_...- . -- -_. . . - .. -..- .-- .._- --- -. --- - - . -. - - - . - -.. -- - ~. . -.- -- _. .. - - - .- -- . -- - -- - - -- -.. -- - -......-"'..-......" - --- - - ---. -- -- .--- _..~.. --~--- ----- --- -- --.. -. -----. -- - --- -- ---- Janunry 5, 1982 -ðssembly·, thereforo, his client Is no longer concorned about tho C-5 zoning. Mr. Virta said that staff has no objection to this land being zoned C-5, at this point in time, based on the myriad of uses allowed undor this classlficðtion. Cha i rman Wimer noted that the new zoning mAps clJrrp.l'1tl y n~f1 A~t_ this property as C-5, therefore, there is no need for any Board action. DISCUSS ION HE REQUEST TO CIIl\NGE ZONING ON LOTS 547 & 540, ISLES OF CAPRI BUSINESS SECTION, (~nSEPH Z^NGHI) FROM C-1 TO C-4 _ NO ACTION T^Kf:N ^ttorncy J. Dudlcy Goodlette, representing Joseph Zanghi, requefited that the zon!.\g on lots 547 and 548, Isles of Capri Business Section, be changed from C-3 to C-4 in order to allow for the construction of a moteJ. He explained that C-3 will not allow a motel to be constructed, nor is it consistent to the present Uses on the other waterfront 10tD in this area. This was discussed briefly, during which Mr. Virta noted this subject has b~en discussed at great length in prior hearings, workshops, etc., and, it is staff's rccommend~tion that the arca be zoned C-3. Mr. Vrita said thDt, if an individual person wishes to construct a hotel or a motel, that person should como before the Board and request a rezone to RT. Commissioner Wenzel noted that the residents In that area have made thcir views known and he is sure that staff's rccommendation reflects their thoughts. Commissioner Pistor stated that he fcels C-3 is the most appropriate zoning classification for that area. 1"'90 22 800,~ 067 FACe' tOt' - - - - ..- - - - -- _. -- - --.. -- - -- - - -- -- .--. - .. "-- - - - - - - - - - - - - . -~ - -. -- BOOK 067 fAtt 102 Upon hoaring no further comments, Chairman Wimer noted that it was tho conncncuo of the BODrd th~t no ~ctlon bo tD~en and that the C-3 zoning clðs~ificðcion ior the ~ubject prop~[ty r~m~jn. ZONING OF FOUR SECTIONS OF LAND KNOWN AS NORTH GOLDEN GATE TO REMAIN ZOMED AGRICULTURE - NO ACTION TAKEN Attorney W. L. Blackwell, represcnting G.A.C. Realty Trust, addressed ð comment, having been made by County Attorney Pickworth during the Deccmber 22, 1981 public hearing, regarding an amendment to a Bonding Agrcement between Avatar and the County which Mr. Pickwor th claims has ð bearing on the four sections of land owned by G.A.C. Re-.lty Trust. He stated that certain rights are vested in the subject four section!;', of lc:md by virtue of the fact that a plat was dedicc)ted. He said that the plats have not boen vacated, however, the proposed action of the land will result in a change in the zoning. He contended' that this is not legal, however, he was not going to argue that point. He said that, if he is net granted the relief he is requesting tonight, he will proceed with the correct forum regarding that matter. He outlined his rcquest that a point be cleared up regarding Mr. Pickworth's st~tement, wherein he referred to the aforementioned amendment, entitled Fifth Amendment to Bonding A~reemcnt, dated August 29, 1981, as an agreement between the "property owners of the subject four sections of land" ûnd the BCC. Mr. Blackwell stated that the subject Agrvemcnt is between Avatar, formerly G.A.C. properties Inc, and Colli~r County. He s~id that he repre5cnts the G.A.C. R~alty Trust, which is a scpûrate entity from Avatar and is not a private Page 23 . _.__ .__ _.. _ . _-.4 __ _._.. . _ ____ __. __. __._ ..~_ .._ _ __ .·__4 _. _ . .__·__"___0_____.·_.__·__ _ ___ --",~."_.""...~~,,,.__... - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ._- -- - - ~- .. -. - -- - - - - - -- -- ~-- - ...- - - - - - -... -- - -- JllnUiJry 5, 1982 corporation. Mr. Blackwell said that Avatar does own land in North Golden Cate, outsido of the subject four sections. Mr. Blackwell ~tðted that the subject Agreemcnt does not bind G.A.C. Realty Trust or the lands of G.A.C. Re~lty Trust. Mr. Blackwell explained that G.A.C. Realty Trust is a Trust created by the Bankruptcy Court of the U.S. Oistrict Court for the Southern District of Floridð, which took, as its assets, the assets of bankrupct G.A.C. for the satisfaction of numcrous financial obligations. fIe said th¡;¡t the ',rust exists sol~y for the benefit of the crcditors of G.A.C., the bankrupt corporation. He said that it took this l~nd, (~ sections) on reliance of its value, as it w~s apprðised and as it was 70ned. He said that he believes that this cre~ted ccrtain rights to the people and, without the vacation of these plats, he docs not feel that the County is legally cntltled to do what it propozos. Mr. Blackwell stated that, to protect the record, he is hero to explain the aforementioned Agreement and to renew his roquest that the County not rezone those four sections of land, because the plats have nover been vacated. County Attorney Pickworth asked Mr. Blackwell if he has checked to seo that, when that Agreement was origin"Jlly entored into and approved by the Court, the lands that wore owned by G.A.C. Realty Trust were not included In the agrcement? Mr. Blackwell :eplled affirmatively, adding that, at the timo the Agrecmcnt WJS entcred Into, Avatar did not own those lands; they owned othor lands. County Pickworth stated that he believes that G.A.C. Realty Trust received the ~ubjcct sections as part Pilge 24 ßO~~ 067 FALi 103 - - -- - - - - - - -- -- --- - - --. -- - - .~ - - - - -- -- _. -_. _. - - .-- -. - - -- .- - - - _. - -~...._-......_...,. - -- - - -- -- ~- - -- - _.- - - -- _.- - -- - - -- - _. -- -~ I. ------------~- 5, 19R2 ' boaK 067 FACt 1Ð4 January of the same bankruptcy proceedings, to which tho Agreement W~8 8 part t.hereof 1I rod , thct'eforc, i'3 beund by chI:! 1\g rceMcnt. Mr. Plck'.:~rth stated that "0 believes thDt G.A.C. did not receive the land prior to the time the Bankruptcy Co u r t approved the base Aqreement and Mr. Blackwcll disagreed, adding that the Bankruptcy Court is not a party to the Agroement. Mr. ric~worth disagreed, adding th~t he believes that. G.1\.C. Realty Trust was given a bulk of property to solI in order to ; payoff the creditors of the bankrupt corporation and that the subject four scctions wcre included. Mr. Bl~ckwell stated that he is taking the position th,1t the oubjcct amendment to tI Bonding Agreement is no basis for rezoning tho property. Chairman Wimer Gtðtcd that the Agreement is not the basis on which the property is being rezoned. Hp. said that the Planning staff has, on scveral occasIons, listeò their r~aso~s for r~commending the rezoning. Mr. Blackwell stated that he understands, however, he was led to believe, durinC) the last meeting, that the Buard was pldcing some reliance on th~ terms of the subject Agreement and he is hero to state that he does not believe that the Agreement has any relevlnce to the subject property. He said that many thousands of dollars have been spent for platting, engineering, surveying, and dedicr~ion of the plats for these four sections of land. He said that the County and public received significant riC)hts when the plats were dedicated and, becðuse the County has not v.:Icated those plats, he is requesting that tho land not be rezoned. He respectfully suggested that it is improper, ðS ð matter of law, to rezone the subject property without v~catlng tho plats. Page 25 -- ~ ....- -_.. ~.. .... --. ....- ..-. .-- ~--- ..'... ...~.__._._..___ .__._ . ..._" ·-0-·0- .____.__..___.._,._~..._..._.~____..__ -- -- - - -. - --- - ..þ- - - - - ...-- _... --- -.... -- -- - - - - - - --- - - - -- - - ..-. January 5, 1982 Planning Dir~ctor Danny Crew statcd for the rocord that. not\o.'1thstllnding the bonding issue, planning r('aSOilS dictate that this rezone take place. He said that this was rocommended by the CAPC ðnd IAPC that this area be rezoned to Agriculturo for the reasons outlined during the last session and because it would bring this area into compliance with the present Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Wimer noted that it is the consensus of the Board that the property in question b~ designated as Agriculture on the zoning maps, therefore there is no need to take further action. Planner Lee Kirchhoff stated for the rQcord, that G.A.C. Realty now has four sections of non-conforming lots of record, which can be farmed and built upon without being required to have a minimum land arca of five acre3. LAND LYING WEST OF !IIGHT-AND;, SUAOIVISrON AND WEST OF HIGHLANDS SCHOOL IN IMMOKAU:F: - CI1^NGED FRO~' "nMF-(i" '}'O "/"HRP" Mr. Charl~s M. Griffith, owner of property dp.scribed 8S lying west of Highl~nds Subdivision, west of Hi~hlands Echool, and north of Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, requested that his property by zoned as MHRP rathcr thiJ/\ RMF-6. He cxplained that this property has been used as a mobile homc park for 35 years and, in 1978 when sewage problems became apparent, the park was closed until central sewer was avail~ble. lie said thêlt now that central sewers arc aVllilable he Intends to reopen and can~ot, according to the RMF-6 regulations. Zoning DirÐctor Jcffory Pcrry concurrcd to the history of the use of the subject land, adding thiJt the rc~son staff rccommended RMF-G was because It 1& a Pc'lge ,r, Ma~ 067 fA~i 105 ..- .-- - -- --- -- -- -...- - _. -- -~ -- ._- ._-. - -....- . -- . - -- ._. - ._- -- -. -- - - - ·. - -- --------------- -----.------ ------. - -_..-~ ...... Jðnunry 5, 1982 ~oo~ 087 fALr: 106 d~rcct conversion from thD t-MF1. After ð brief discussion, and upon hear ing thût stûff has no objections to zoning the.: property .:IS MHnp bccðuse it would comply with the Comprehcn~ivu Pl~n, Comrni~~ioncr Wenz~l so moved. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion which carried 5/0. DISCUSS ION OF REQUEST FRO'<1 ROGER DICK TO CII"NGE TRAFFORD PINE ESTl\'I'F.S IN IMMOKALEE FROM RMF-6 1'0 RMF-l~ - NO ACTION TAKEN: STAFF REQUESTED TO WORK WITH MR. nICK REGARDING USE OF AREA OF L^KE TOWARDS COMPILING DENSITY CALCULATIONS Mr. Roger Dick, owner of property known ð5 Tr~fford pine Estates in Immokalec, requestcd that the zoning of his land be changed from RMF-h to RMF-12, noting thðt the lsnd Is pr(!s·!ntly zoned I-MF3, which allows for .:Ipproximately 20 units per acre. He said that he cannot develop the property as he planned with the denRity reduced to 6 units per acre. In answer to Chairman Wimer, Mrs. Kirchhoff stated that staff cannot recommend this zoning change becausc it would require a Comprehensive L.:Ind U~e amendment. This was discussed briefly, after which Mrs. Kirchhoff suggested that Mr. Dick come back latcr and request such an smendment and then pursue a zoning ch.:lnge, adding that Mr. Dick's property has been set at Q-fi units pcr ðcre for over two years. The discussion continued, during which Mr. Dick asked if the lake, situated in the centcr of his property, could be uD~d to calculate the I density for tho property? He said that It is a dedicated portion of the water mðnagemcnt facilities for the subdivision, however, h~ ndded, Page 27 ~. .__ .. _þ .___ ._._ _~.... . ..__. __._..._...__~.. __u_ . _ ._~ ._ 4 __. ._ _ ~ -- -- - - ,< , --.J JI 1 I _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ __ __. _ _ _ __ _ _ _. _ ~ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t Jðnuary 5, 1982 1~ he could use this submorged land In his calculations, RMF-6 would allow adequate density for his project. Aftcr a brief discuG&ion and upon noting that more information was needed upon which to make a definite decision, staff was asked by Chairman Wimer to work with Mr. Dick to see If this could bc done. Chairmðr. Wimer noted that It was the consensus of the Board that staff's recom~endations for zoning the subj~ct property RMF-6, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan st~nd, therefore, no action is necessary. PARCEL OF PROPERTY dN r'lKE TR^FF'ORD RO....D, FROM L^,Œ TRAFFORD RO^D TO F.XISTING Mf.IHP ZOnING THSTHICT IN I~MOK^LEE, CfI^NGED TO VR Mr. Robert D~venport, ~wner of ð 400' p~rcel of property on Lake Trafford Road in Immokalec, requested that the 7cning of thts land be cilanged from "'P-6 to MBRP. Bc explùined that he has tl-¡rep. pc"lrcpls 'Jf land, two acres of which are proposed for MHRP and the other three acrcs are to be ~F-6. He ob~ccted strongly to the MF-6 zoning. lie said that he also has a rctail storo on one parcel as a provisional use and ho has been waiting for central sewer in order to develop the rest of his land as ð mobile home rental park. This rcquest was discussed at lvngth, during which Zoning Director Perry noted that the provisional use was left off of staff's maps, and such ð small portion of mobile home lISC appeared to be in non-conformance to the surrounding uses. Also, the mobile home district that 1s available would not allow that stora. Chairman Wimer requested clarification that Mr. Davenport wants to keep hi£ Pltgc 28 aoOK C67 FAti 101 .. - -...- _. - -... -~ - -- - -- - - - -.- ...- - -- -.- - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - - '-"-~.~'''.--"'''._-''''''"'----,,-.,., __ _ __ __ __ _ _._ _ __ _ _ __ _ _4 _~. _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ ~_ _ _ .. I -------j &OQK 067 f^~i 108 JonuoHY 5, 1982 provisional use and zone the rest of the property as a mobile home p~rk1 Mr. D.:Ivcnport concurred. ~rg. Kirchhoff stðted thðt thp. Cnmprehenslve Plnn shows this ~reð as MF-(i ðnd she ex pI 111 nod thðt MHRP will not. .)110'.... the combination of a commercial store ~nd mobile homes. Therefore, she rocommended the lands be zoned vn, allowing for the combination of uses nceded by Mr. Davenport. Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that the ~(~ß, from Lako Trafford ~oad down to the existing MflRP be zoned YR. DISCUSSION RE CfU\t-'(jPiG PROPERTY NORTH OF I<REIIL!NG PLA·IT AROUND THE RAILROAD FROM RESIDENTI^L TO INDUSTRIAL - NO ACTION TAKEN There '·ms a lengthy discussion regarding the possible ch<1nge in zonir.g of the area locatcd north of the ~rchling Plant, south of the Lee County Line and along the Se~boÐrd Coast Line R~llroad, from Residontiùl to Indu~trlal. The following persons, each owners of land in this area, spoke in favor of the change In zoning to <1llow for light industry. George A. Hey~r Ned Johnston Dr. C.H. 'l'ierl1 Jl1mes E. Doane Lonnie M.utin Thesc rcquLsts wcrc discussed thoroughly, as was Commissioner Fistor's statement that he believed that more land should be available for industrial uses in the area ðnd recnlled that there was some discussion regarding this kind of use for lands nùar the railroad pago 29 < þ. .... . - - - ..' -.~~---_.._-~. ........... <.._.-.~. ..- ...------<.--. .,._-~~_.._- . --- -- ------ --. - --- - -~- --- -------. _.. ---- ------- --...--- --- _.- -- ---.. .JðnU<HY 5,1902 tracks, which took place when the Committee WðS form~d nnd subscquently ~et regarding tho r~ilroDd pulling out of southern Collior Couty, somo time ago. Chðirman Wimer asked if the County did zone lðnd as Industrial for the con&truction of the terminus ~nd staff indicated that it had. Mr. Virta added that the aroa surrounding the terminus is presently zoned Indllstr!,'l. Also discussed w,')s the intent of the AOllrd in the past in regards to .:Imendments to the Comprehensive Plan for ðdditional industrial uscs; the fact th~t some people may have relied on what past Board members expressed as their intent1 promises of Industrial Zoning, having been granted by staff members who no longer work for the CountY1 and, the present Community DevelQpment Division's pGlicy th~t no one is ev~r promised "~ guarðntce of zoning". After the discussion, Attorney George Varnadoe, representing East Bay Development Corporation, reminded the Board that changing the zoning of the lnnd in question to Industrial cannOL be done during this session because that would require a Comprchesive Land Use amendment. He said that the Comprchensive Plan shows this land as residential. ,Mr. Dan Conley, representing D number of propcrty owners in the subject area, concur.red with Mr. Varn~doc .:Ind spoke :n opposition to this land being zoned Industrial and noted that, If those who favor such action choose to apply for a Comprehensive Land Use amendment, his clients will speak out In opposition at that time. Upon conclusion of all comments, Chairman Wimer noted that th~ consensus of the Board WðS that no ðction be taken ðnd that if individual prcperty owners wish to h~v~ their lðnd rezoned to Industrial, they must first ðpply for ~ Comprehensive Land Use c!lmenðmcnt. )ag.. 30 BOOK 067 fAGt: 109 . - -- - ..... - ..- - -- -- - -.- ._- - .-.~ -- --- ._- -- .-. -- n_ _. __ _ __ __ ___ __ --~-'"".-_."''''"''' - -.. - - - - - - - - -.- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- ...- - - - - - - - - - - - - JlJnul'ry 5, 1982 BOCK C67 fAGë110 ZUN HIG ['ORTImJS O~· rnOf'ERTY XNO\-o'N 1\5 PORT ûr~ THE ISLANDS _ CHANGeD TO RT Attornoy Georgo V~rnadoe, representing the owncr of f'ort of tho ISlands, located in the southeast portion of Collier County on both sid~s of U.S. 41, requested that the zoning for the prop~rty be changed to RT for the north side of the property and D portion (8 acres) of the southern property. He e~plðined that the subject resort Is presently under extensive rcstorlll..lon/rovislon. He said that undor tho proposed zoning ccrtain expansion will not be allowed. Mr. Vðrnadoe explained that the requested RT zoning would be in compliance wIth the Compre- henr-Ive Plan. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and carried unanimQusly, that Mr. Varn~doe's request be granted and that the above-described portions of property known as Port of the IslÐnds be changed to RT. Mr. Varnadoe th~nked the Boðrd and the entire staff for their efforts in the development process of the new Zoning Ordinance and rcliltive Zoning r"aps [or UII~ unlnc:orporated areð.!:l of Coll1er County. DISCUSSION RE CHANGING THE ZONING OF CEnTAIN PORTION OF DE^CHFRONT PROPERTY ON MM'¡CO ISLAND FnOM HT TO flr-<F-l f,; ST¡\FF DIHf.CTED TO rU:foEARCH PRESENT USES OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD ON 1 12/8? REGARDING THE Ff.M~IBILITY OF Rf.ZC1NING AS INDICATED There was .:I lengthy discussion following Commissioner Pistor's recommendation that the zoning of a portion of beachfront property on Marco Islûnd, from tho Marco Beach Hotel to the residents' beach, be changed from RT to fUoIF-1f" in an effort to stop any of these parcels from bolng used for interval-ownership units. fie said thðt, to his Pðqe 31 ... _ .4_ _~ __4._ -____ .._._. ..__ _.._ __.. __. H_4.. _ .._ __. ~____.. _ _ _~_ _... _ _. _ _ __.. _ _.. __~ _..__... . .._ _ ."_ . ..__ _~_ __ -"'-".....--..-.. - - ---* - .------- --~----------------_.. ~.- ---- --------- -..-..---... January 5, 1982 II.nowledgo, ð}.l of the existing buildings aro multi-family cc,...dominium. Also dlßcu~sed was Chairman Wimer's suggestion that, if this is going to be done for one side of the resident's beach, why not chango the othor or, why not go down tho whole beach? Upon hearl~g Mrs. Kirchhoff state that staff would require more information aD to tho uses of existing buildings before making a rccommendation on the wholc bcach, Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel, that the staff be directed to invp.stigate the uses of properties ~long the beach on Marco and that the zoning be changed to RMF-16 for that area from the rosidents' beach to the Marco Beach Hotel. Commissioner Brown objected to this being considered at this time. Also discussed was the fact that those existinq buildings to be affectr.d Are uses that arc allowp.d und~r RMF-lfi. County Attorney Pickworth requested staff's recommendation and Mr. Virta stated that staff rccom~ends "RT" which is a direct conversion. In answer to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. Virta said that he would like to res..:.arch the present uses of the affected existing buildings. Commissioner Pistor and Wenzel withdrew their motion and second, respectively. Chairman Wimer directed the staff to research the matter regarding the possibility of chan9ing the zoning to RMF-16, including the affected existing buildings' present use~, and report back to the Board next Tuesday, January 12, 1982. Page 32 &ODK 067 fA~è111 . _..'_. - -- *-- _. - - - _.- -- -_. -_. - --- -_.. - - - ..- -_... --. -- .-.....- --- -- -- - -. _..- -.. - -- .~- -. - - ""-"'-""""_.- * MOK C67 fA~t112 Jnnuary 5. 1982 .. - - - - - -- - --.. -. - - - - - - -- -- - ..- - -- - - - .-. .- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - PORMAL ^DOPTION OF COMPnEHENSIVE ZONINC MAPS OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA (IF COLLTf.P COlJwry. pr:r.f,Tr::n Tn nnf}!N,H/C¡:; A?-? (Nr.W 7.nNTNG nF:GnrATTnN~) _ Notifl9 dldt there w~r" no furt:)úr cc,.õ,j,ò,:¡¡t,.:., Ch.Jir;;1.:m \'l1~er c:::llcd for the closing of the Public Hearing. CommissioneL Pistor so moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried unanimously. Chalrm~n Wimer called the question on the motion to adopt the Comprehensive Zoning Map5 of the Unincorporated Arca of Collier County, as amcnded, hav lng been madc at the onsct of . :.e publ ic hear ing by Commissioner Wenzel and seconded by Commissioner Pis tor. The motion carried un~nimously. In answer to Comm1üsioner Wenzel, Mr. Virta stated that the new zoning regulations and maps would be complet~d for the public in about two months. Chairman Wimcr thanked the staff and all the individual citizens who were involved in developing the new Zoning RegulDtions and Maps. . it it it it * * it it * it There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeti~g was ðdjourncd by ordor of the Chair - Time: 9:58 P.M. / /, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/EX OFFICIO GOVf.RNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL C_~ {J~ C. R. RUSSA ~/H1f:F.t, CHAIRMAN, Page 33 These minutes approved by the Bee 1/26/82. _.. ----.- - _.. ~ - .-.....--..-.--.--...--.---..----.--.-----------.------------- ...,