Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/22/1981 S ..- - -- -.- - -.-.- - --- -- - - - - .--.------ - - ----- --- --- -' "'"pl<'s, Florid,', O~.::cmbl.'r ", 1901 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the ao~rd of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and nlso acting ðS the Governing Bo~rd(5) of such Bpecial dintricts as have bern cre~tcd according to law and having conducted businc~s herein, met on this date ~t 7:00 P.M. in Special Session in Building -F· of tho Courthouso Complex with the following members present: CIIA JRMAN: C. R. · nuss· Wimer VICE-CII1\IRM1\N: Mary-Frances Kruse John 1\. Pi Ðtor Cl i fford Wenzel David C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: Harold L. lI~ll, Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Elinor M. Skinn~r, Deputy Clerk, C. Wil11~m Nor~an, County Man~gerl Donald 1\. Pickworth, County Attorney, Terry Virta, Community Develop- ment 1\dminiÐtrator, D~nny Crew, Planning Director, Jeffory Perry, Zoning Director; Lee Kirc~hoff, Planner, and various members of the sta f f. COLLIER COUN1Y, FLORIDA SPECI1\L MEETING - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ^GEND" December 22, 1981 7:00 P.M. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Petition NZ-PO-20, ComMunity Development: r<'questinq ðdoption of the Unlll report of the Compr~hl)nS1Ve zoning regul~tions for the unincorpor~t~d nr~a of Col1i!.'r County. (Community D~vclopmcnt) PiH] f' J &O~~ 066 PACt: 639 - -- -... - - - - - - - - - -- - -. - - .. - - - ... - - ~.- -. ... -- -" - . - ~- --, ... -- -... - -.. ...-. -- - - , I . - _._ - - ___ __ -,-:-.:... - - - - - _.:... -- -- - - - -:- - - - --_.:... - -.--1 December 22, J9Al \ .. 066 PACt 640 M~~~ 2. First hearing on propoÐcd zoning m~ps for th~ unincorporated area of Collicr County in conjunction with the ~rloption o( tho final report of th0 comprehensive zoning regulations. (Community Davclopm~nt) PETITION NZ-P.O-20, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION: REOUE5TINC "OOPTION OF THE FINAL R~PORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPOR1\TED ^RE^ OF COLLIER COUNTY - PUBLIC HE^RINC CONTINUEO TO JANU/l.RY 5, 19R? Legal notice having been published in the Naples D~ily News on December 3, 1981 as evidcnced by the ^ffid~vit of publication filed with the Clerk, public h~ðring w~s opcncd to consider Petition NZ-AO-20, filed by the Community Development Diyision requesting the adoption of the Finðl Rcport of the Compreh~nsive Zoning Regulations for the unincorpori\ted areL! of Collicr County. Planncr Kirchhoff ex~lðincd that the BCC adopted the Tent~tive Report of the Zoning Rcgul~tlons on November 3, 1981 and that the IAPC ~nd CAPC held their hearings on November lA ~nd December 2, 1981 Ðnd November 19 and December 3, 1981, respectively. She stated that both Commissions rccommended that the BCC adopt the Finfil Report as amended during their public hearings, and she referred to ~he Executive Summary dated 12/10/81 and reviewed those recommendations. Ms. Kirchhoff explðined the following points which staff rccom- mends and on ....hlch there was some dlsagrecml.'nt between the I^PC and the CAPCs 1. Parking of major recreational and commercial vehicles. tAPC recommcnds lellving the pðrking DB is with no restriction and request an ov~rlny if ~n ~rca wants it. C"PC recommcnds to put said pørking back in ordinancc and request overlay if an area docs ~ want it. 2. Allow single family homes as permitted use !n -MHSCw. tAPC recommcnds approvall CAPC recomm~nds denilll. 3. Md fc)£it food restaurant (,s ð provisional use to wC_:-w. TAPC Pð<J. 2 - - - - - - - - ..- -- -.-.. -- - -.. -.... - _.- ~ -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- "-_.~-" -,._~,....- ..... \ ~----------------------------------------; \ December 22. 1981 recommends deni31, fcels it should be ð principal use; CAPC recommends approval. 4. Staff recommendation to add to section 8 - Prohibited uses in Residcntial Districts: The following animals are to be considered farm animals and Drc not permitted to be kept in residcntial areas: turkeY3, chickens, ducks, geese, pigs, horses, cows, goats, hogs and the like. This item was not brought up before either Commission. Responding to Commission~r ristor's question, Ms. Kirchhoff explained that hospitals, hospices and sanatoriums arc placed back in -C-l, 3, 4, , 5R Districts and said uses will be placed in the eSsen- tial service section as a provisional use if they arc not allowed as Ð principal use in ð district. Responding to Chairman Wimer, Ms. Kirchhoff explained that sta(! can come back with final rccommp.ndations at the next public hearing if the DCC feels they can make a decision on itcms wherc there arc (,is- crepancics. Ms. ~irchhoff explained th~t staff r~i~cd for discu~~ion a memo conccrning agriculturûl and non-agriculture uscs in agriculture areas, and that staff has bccome aware that the County Manager under~tands that the agricultural district would be revised to require provisional U505 for non-agricultural uses in agriculturally zoncd areas. She stated that a retail nursery is the only use sta[f has found which is not a true agriculturûl use, and, ~t thc prosent tim~, that is allowod as a permitted use. She stated that the memo sugg~sts that use be a provisional use rather than a prln~ipal use. Hearing no questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Wimer explainod th~t the BCC would hear from the public regarding the Zoning Regulations and, at this point in the meeting, that the BCC would not address said Regulations as they apply to a particular piece of land. He said those considerations will take plnce in the srcond part of the &O~K 066 PA~t 641' Pa9 ) :\ I \- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - ~ -- - - - - -- - - - - -. ._- ._- . . I I I 1 .. ~- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -"'- - - - - - _.- - - - - - -- - - - - ----- -- &O~~ O~6 fACt 64.2 December 22, 1981 meeting. Incoming Prcsident of the Naples Area Board of pealtors (N~ßR) Jim . ! Smith explained that said Board has tried to be a source of diöfomi- ¡ . nating information to the public re the proposed changes becaus~ of the industry contact with the public. He expressed appreciation to~staff for their cooperation and assistance durinq thc entire process óf i gathering information for the public re the zoning changes. Ho ðßked ¡ the Commissioners to considcr if thc proposed changes serve the 'inter- est and welfarc of thc public, which is the basis for the polico power of zoning in this Country. lie pointed out the following changes. for which the NABR does not sp.~ ðny establishcd public need: 1. The ·GRC· cla5sific.1tlon seems to bc c!! step backwards; In 1974 Collier County "got away from" the system of h~ving ð multitude of cl~fisif1c~tions wlthin tho gencral umbrclla of ·commercial", that it is difficult to anticipðtc housi~g needs twenty years In the future, that only commercial use nceds to be outlined, ~nd that later each plan can bo ex~mined on ~n individual basis. : 2. A reduction In den9ity of .22 units pcr acrc in the "RMF-6- c~tcgory may not fieem 'like d great dcal", but that it is an arbitrary decision to decrcD~e the density by that amount. 3. Height is affected primarily in th~ "RT" classificðtion, that therc ùre very few properties which will be affected by the decrea5e from JOO feet to 100 fect, and that sucr. ð decrcase without showing the pUblic need is a mistake. 4. In the "RMF-12" category, a recommendation has heen mad~ to go to three (3) stories as a permitted use Dnri to go b<'lck to six (f) stories with .1 provisional U5e. Reference was made to Dr. Spagn,,'s report to the BCC in 19?O ...hich indicated that height and density reductions beyond whdt is in the f'xlsting plans 'Would creatl' ð ",¡"II effect· in zoninq ðnd would contrIbute to urban sprawl. 5. Re the TDR, the NABR oriqinðlly opposl'd the Trðnsfcrðbllity of Dcvl'lopm('nt R1ohts, but thðt after w~ighing l'conomic needs ~qðins~ environmental nel'ds, the f~ellng is that this ~ðY be ð good compromisc. However, the reduction in the proposcd ordinðncl' so rl'ducos the economic value of TDR's that they essentI~lly nrè vðluelf'ss. f>uch ð reduction ~ould put tho TDR's hnck into ð situation which borders on being ·confls- catory" ~nd r~opcns the possibility of litiqðtion on whcth~r Page .. , I ., ---.--------------------- --------- J 1 I -. ..- ..- .... -. -- .- ...- . . ¡ ¡ f t I . , _.. - - - - - - _0 _ _ - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -.-..... Deccmber 22, J9nl the BCC is condemning or exercising police powers. Mr. Smith concluded by requesting that Rwe stay with what we have today. if staff cannot demonstrate a public nced for the aLove ch~n9cs. 1 Attorney George Varnadoe, representing some business owners on tho Isles of Capri, explained that certain existing businesses on the Isles of Capri will be non-conforming If the currently zoned "GRC· property is changed to RC-3", and that would result in attondant problems that non-conforming usus present for owners as well AS the Commissioners, i.e. that the owncrs could not put up additional signs, could not expand or ,:"arge their prof .r.: business nor rebuild in the event that a hurricane destrovs tho bU3i 'SSe Stuting that he rocommends adding the following language re permlttcd use as a compromise, which would permit the exis~ing uses to continue as conforming uses lInd allow the Island to be zoned ·C-3·, he gave a copy of the recommendation to the Deputy Clerk, who entered it as Exhibit A: 7.22 C-3 COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE . (U) Any use which was permissible und('r thù prior GRC zoning ðnd which was existing or for which ð building pqrmit had heen issucd beforc the effective date of this ordinance.R Mr. Varnadoe urged the Commissioners to IIdopt this pðragraph as an additional permitted use undcr ·C-)·. Chðlrmðn Wimer asked County Attorney pickworth If he had seen the aforementioned lðnguage to which Mr. pickworth rcsponded affirmatively, that he has no problem with it, and th~t he h~s discussed the subject with Mr. Virta. Mr. Virts stated that the ·C-3R and -C-4R DI&trlcts represent the RGRC· District currently, with the RC_3R boing a sub- division of the RcncR. He stated that Mr. Varnlldo~'S suggestion would allow some of the prt>viously allowl..'d usus, which would become non-con- &OOK 066 PA~t 643 pag 0 5 __1...____________ -- --- --- - - ----- - ----- - --- - - -_.. ì I I J f , ~ i \. I ! I _____________~_~_________________________J ~o~~ 066 PACt 644 Cecr.mber 2', 1981 forming, to continue as a permitted use in th~t zone. Chairm~n Wimer dsked if Mr. Virtð woul~ Agr~o to the nforementloned p~r~graph, ~nd he responded affirmatively. Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and unanimously c3rried, to include the language submitted by Mr. Varnadoe ð3 an amendment to thr proposed ordinance. Attorney Donald Arnold refp.rred to a map change in ~e~tion 2 and stated that he does not feel there arr. enough permitted uses in tho RI- Industrial District to make thc District viable for the type of community in Collier County. He proposed that the RIR Industrial District be chðnged to include the -C-SR pcrmitted useS and that the strip zoning by the airport be removed. Responding to Chairman Wimer, Mr. Virta stated that staff would strongly rccommend objcction to Mr. Arnold's request. He explained that staff surveyed the currently zoned WIR Industrial arca north of Radio Ro~d ðn~ East of Airport Road, which is proposed to be zoned RI-, a graphic was made, and that staff di3covered that the only presently allowed existing use, which would not be allowed undor the proposod ordinance, was the Dance Corner, a store which sells oancing Ðhoes and leotards. He explained that the prcsent and proposed ordinance allows for the multiplicity of uses prcsently occurring. Ms. Kirchhoff referred to the Exocutive Summary dated 12/10/81, and noted that the CAPC recommended adding, as F(ovislonal uses in the -IL- and RI- Districts, ðll the uses allowerl in -C-S-, and sho said that if a commercial use was desired, Ð petitioner would have to go through the public hearing process. She referr~d to the junkyard recyclying center petition in the Plnc Ridge Industrial Park, which the BCC considered at today's regular meeting. Commissioner wenzel asked Page " ~_.-..._.-._~ .. -.- -- -- - --- _..-.- - - - -- -- - - - -- -..- -- - -- - - - - - -- I L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -.- - - - - - - - - - - - -. - .'* Doccmber '2, 1981 if Ms. Kirchhoff had seen Mr. Arnold's December 2, 19a1 letter, end she etated th~t the lctter was read at ono of the previous hearings. Commissioner Wenzel said he felt that many of Mr. Arnold's comments -made a lot of senseR. ReÐponding to Chairman Wimer, Commissioner Wenzel said that Mr. Arnold's letter limited his rcmarks to paragraph 7.26 of the proposed ordinancc. A discussion followed concerning currently allowed provisional uses, and Ms. Kirchhoff stated that only tho hotel/motel and time share provisi.,..,' '.05 have been added to the Commcrci~l Districtsl one or two US6:; . been added to the Industrial District, and that the Residential Distrit ts have prðctically been left alone. Commissioner Kruse asked how many provision~l usos arc currently being granted and stated that she was extremely uncomfortable with the Board of zoning Appeals granting provisional U~Ub, if the Board R ~n appointed rather than an elected Bonrd, bec~use it Is too common for the situation to become an emotional i5sue. Mr. ^rrold said that there arc presently approximDtely 2S0 provi- sional uses. Commissioner pistor questioned why provisional uses were needed in the industrial areas, Ðince he envisions that area as a place where there might be manufacturing or some type of work, but that he is not in favor of the inclusion of evcry commorcial opcration in the industrial area. Mr. Arnold pointed out that in Collicr County the tcrm -IndustrialR is "light commercialR rather than the steel mills or refineries which some areas deem as RIndustrialR. Commissioner pistor noted that the industrial areas on Airport Road do not havo retail commercial ûtores, but thðt by allowing everything in ·C-S", the two designations would be the same, ~nd that he did not [eel that was necess~ry. &O~~ C S6 f~~t 645 Pð<] C 7 , 1-- - - - - - -- - - -...- -..- . ! - ..- -- -.. - -.... - - -- -- -- -- -- ..- -- . - - -~-- - -.. - - ... . .~ _.- ---.-- -~>---"'.' ""~--" -----------------------------------------1 &OQK 066 PACí646 December 22, 1981 ¡ Chairman Wimer Gtat~d he understood that ~r. Arnold would like -C-S", that staff wants nothing and that Rsomewhere in ~hc mIddle" would be desirable. He referred Mr. Arnold tn a proposed list of uses; said that he can see the no cd for limited commercial activities in an industrial area, and that he believes said list covers thoso activi- tics. Mr. ~rnQ)d s~ld he agreed that some commcrclal activities are needed within Industrial. Responding to ChÐirman Wimer, Mr. Virta said he had obj~ctions to a number of the allowable items on the proposed list. Commissioner Wcnzel said he agreed that some ch~nges should be made and that there is not enough flexIbility now. Mr. Virta displayed the aforementioned graphic on an ovprhead board; said that the discussion regarding the n.'\ture of industrial development in the community re-occurred during the hearings; that staff became concerned, ~nd that two Pl~nning Department staff toured the industrial area ncar Radio Road and Airport Road area and "looked atR each presently existing use. He indicated the location of the Dance Corner. Mr. Arnold no·tcd th.lt ¡',irport ROild '.s proposed to be changed from RI" to "C_S". CommissIoner Kruse stated that a ~ew industrial park is bcing developed ðpproxim~tely IIcross the street, and she asked if Airport Road would bo designated ·C-5R and the remai~der of thDt park be "IR Industrial. Mr. Virta said th~t has not be~n proposed. Responding to Chðirman Wimer, Mr. VIrta said that no ðnalysia of the pine Ridge Ind~strial Park ar~a has been done. MG. Kirchhoff stated that said Park, with J/41s of a mile of frontage on pine Ridge Road, has been designated -CIR for years, and that ·C-S" or -Il- zoning 1s proposed for that area. 5hc said since the uses of either category Page 8 _ __ . __ _ _ __ _ _ __ . _ ~_~. _ __ __ __ _~. _ _ _ _4 _ . __ _ . _ __ _ _ _ -- --.- - - - - - - - - - - - - , ; \ f-- I ~. " f t'" ~ i'· l': þ'4," ~,.~ ~~ ' -- ---------------------------------- ~ December 22, 1981 fit the remaining 1/4 mile strip, west of Shirley Street, that "C-5" zoning was continued for that area. Responding to Chairman Wimor, Commissioner Wenzel said he 5ðW nothing wrong with a person putting a commercial venture in an indus- trial area, to which Commissioners Kruse and Brown agreed, and Commis- 810ner Pistor stated hc felt the aforementioncd list has somc merit. Chairman Wimer appointed Messrs. Varnadoe, Arnold, Conroy and Virtn to ð committee, with ~r. Virta act as chairman, to resolve the sltua- tion, that the aformentioned ' ~t be used as a basis, and that on January 5, 1982, the Committee will return with a firm, agreed recom- mendation. Ms. Charlotte Westman, representing the Leagu~ of Women Voters, (LWV) read a detail'" r;;'atement on behalf of that organization supporting several 5 in the proposed ordInance. Ms. Westman asked if the EAC and the WMAB will continue to function as advisory bodies and continue to have mcaningful input as part of the Planning Commission? Chairman Wimer asked Ms. Westman to le~ve hcr statcment with ~r. Virta. Commissioner Wenzel askcd if the LWV favors an appointed ~ppeals Board rather than having elpctcd public officials to which Ms.Westman rcsponded affirmatively. Mr. Jack Conroy, represcnting the N~BR gt~ted, ro the proposed ordinance, that he felt the most important single issue is recognition of private propcrty rights, since changing zoning affccts said rights. He addressed tho issue of the Board of Zoning ^ppcaln and the fact that Baid Board addrcBses requests for provisionlll uses. He explained that the NABR feels that the thoory behind aald Board Is proper, ~nd that thero ahould be some form other th~n the BCC for qu~gi-judicial func- PIIge 9 &O!)X 066 PACt 647 - - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -. -- - -- - -- ---- I . I ._---------------------------------------_._~ ¡ December 22, 1981 M~!( 066 PAti S-i8 tions, such as appealing the rulings of the zoning Director. He said that NABR (oels that the qr~ntlnq of provisional uses has to be the BCC's function and r~commends that provisional use petitions come before tho bCC. He personally recommen~ jelcting the placement of provisional uses under the BOArd of Zoni~g Appeals. Mr. rickworth said th~t, under the Gpecial Acts of Collier County, the Board of Zoning Appeals can definitely hear variances and administrative appeals, but that there is no specific ~uthorization in the Acts for the Board of Zoning ^P?eals to hear provisional uses, in which case the cons~rvativc vil.'wpoint Is that the BCC should retain jurisdiction over those. Chairman Wimer said th~t if the Board of zoning ^ppeals cannot hear provisional uses, he would ju~t ðS soon "throw the wnole thing outR, since that is the key to the whole situðtion Mr. Virta asked if the review of proviÐ~onal use would be allowed if Chapter l63 of the General Acts is used, to which Mr. pickworth responded affirm,;,tively. ChlJirman Wimer asked for furthel rcseë'lfch by staff on the subject being discussed prior to the next meeting to properly consider the topic. Commlssioner Kruse said she agreed with Chairman Wimer re provi- sional uses, that the grnnting of puts is one of the most distasteful chores which the flCC has to do, ðnd that she does not "thlnk it is (" ightR to give t hll t duty to someonc ....ho docs not have to face the voting public. She said she could scc moving the BCC, as a Board of Zoning Appeals, to one or two days per month, lInd that she feels the RCC makes the rules .,nd sho u 1 d also be making the exceptions. She sa id , if she were a petitioner, th~t e;ho wo u 1 d bo very angry to face a group of appointed people nnd have them determine her f¡ste when she didn't elect them. Mr. pickworth said th~t tho day of tho mooting Is Page 10 . - -. -. ~ _.' ."- -... _. . .~ - ~ - - - . - .. ._- - - .- . ..... -_. .-- . - _ h~. ._ __ _ - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- .- - -- --- - ----.- ----- - ---- ------ ----.. neceh.oJ"r 27, 19n1 procedurðl, and Commissioner Kruse said that ~onfusion is caused by 6Ufu~ono not (~ml1!Jr wi~h the hur~aucr~t\c system if the BCe 8winqs back and forth from zoning appeals to a variance to a public hearing for rezone, to Ð Comprehensive Plan change. Attorney J. Dudley Goodlette, representing the NABR, agreod with M@~Ars. Smith and Conroy and suggested consideration of the historical perspective re proviÐlonal uses, since he has learned that no more than approximately 26 provisional use petitions have been filed in any year since 1972. He said that he Agrees with Mr. Pickworth's suggestion to treat provisional uses in the same way as rezoning of property, since he feels that a provlfiional use goes to the Rheart of the use of the propertyR, ~nd that the N^ßR feels tho~c petitions should be considered by A body that is responsible to the public. Regarding Com~lssioncr Kruse's concern, Mr. Goddlette said he felt that at ð mini~um the BCC needs to adopt an ordln~nce which the N^BR has submitted for consideration perscriblng In detail the qualifica- tlons of persons to serve on the advisory boards and that such a ~eaningful ordin~nce m~y permit: . BCC to have more confidence about the appointed bodies. He sðld he did not mean to criticize ~hose persons who~ the BCC has d~cmed [\t to ðppoint to pres~nt co~~isslons, but that a primary concern that he and his clients Ðhare is a need for more substantive criteria for the appointment of those persons so that the BCC will have cert~in qu~liflcðtion5 for membership, ð~d that if it is permissions) to refcr the subject of provisional uses to ð Aoard of Zoning ^ppeals, that Board should be ~nswerahle to the public In SOffiO way. \ I I , I I I ~O!)~ 066 fA~ &4.9 Pa(}C! 11 - - - - - --..- - - - -- - -- _. ~ - ... -- ..----------- ---.--------..- .-....-...--.. ._......-.... D~cember 72, 19"1 . ' .- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -. - - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - --.. ~o~~ 066 fACt 650 ,- Mr. Goodlett. roferred to "RMF-~" zoning found in the proposed zoning ordinðnce on pages 28 ðnd 29, SccL10n 7.12 (OlC), and l!!lIr.ed for clðrificlltion re the phrðse, RSee Section lO.S-. He asked whether ð pcrson is asked to comply with section 10.5, hec~use if such were the _ ClIse, thero is a vesting of rights when ð development plan is submitted in the one or two year limitations set forth on page 16 of the proposed ordinance that has paramount importance. ~r. Virtð clarified that the item following the phrase "See Section 10.5R indic~tes "Subject to Section 10.5", and he explained that developncnt plan approval is voluntðry in onc case, but mandatory in the "Subject toR item. Re~ponding to Mr. Goodletto, Mr. Virta said that if the developmcnt plßn is subnitted voluntarily, the pcrson has the ve!'.igc of rights. ~r. Goodlettc requested verbage claritlcation of th~t point in the proposed ordinance. Mr. James L. Roder, p.)rt owner of Driftwood Landing, Isles of ¡ ClIpri, explain~d that in ]979 ðn 18 unit motel was built, complying I. with the zoning regulðtions and ordinancc~ at that time. With the ! I proposed zoning density changes, he stated, he would be unable to rebuild his structure if é) hurricllno or fire occurs, t.IUS requiring a two year old building to be classed as ð non-conforming use ðnd thðt would exhibit ~ built-in obsolesccnce caused by the proposed density regulations undcr the new zoning rule. Hc requcsted that this matter be investigated. lie :-,id that he did not want to increase his holdings, but ~lso did not want to lose anything he prosently has. In rcsponse to Chairmðn Wimer's qucstion, Mr. Virtð explðlned that if Mr. Rodcr is in the area zoned commercial, he would continue to be a permitted use and would be ðble to rcbuild the same as the present PlIC}O 12 r_ __ __ .... ~ ........ - --.- -.. .-.-- - ..~...--.. - - -->- ._. - - -----... -.. -- -.-- -- - - - - -- -- -.. - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - ------ - - --.- - ---- - - - -- Dec~mbcr 22, 19~1 building. Chairman Wimcr said that the intent and ðirectlon of the BCC of the amendmcnt mðdc ear11cr this evcning would permit Mr. Roder t~ rebuild as his prescnt structure, and ho asked staff to be ccrtain that the -wordingR rcflects this situation. Mr. D~vid Graham, Golden Gate resident, asked for the rationale re9~rdlng the limitation of 150 feet of frontnge on a lot in order to construct a guest house. He statcd that prcsently a guest house can be constructed on ~ 75 foot, 1-1/4 ðcre lot. Mr. Virta said that there have been problcms which the DCC has had to face re providing for a guest house on a 75 foot lot, and thðt the rationale behind the 150 foot limitation is to permit guest houses if the lot is a 2-1/4 to a 2-1/2 acre parcel with sufficient frontage. Mr. Graham said he could not see what problems arc caused and suggested that a better way to nolve a C'Jm pI a I n t with elevations might be some legi51~tion mandating tha t a quest house has to bc pl,lead to the rear of the propcrty, or if square footðgc of guest houses is restricted further, that would be fine. He asked the BCC not to Rtake away our pri va te property rights" . .....Commissioner Krus~ left the room at 8:C5 P.M.····· Chairman Wimer said that the main problem cncountercd with the arca to which Mr. Grah~m refers was the narrow, 75 foot lot, that the BCC was trying to be responsive to problems such as a l,'OO square foot structure with ~ garage being placcd on that sizc lot and a guest house with a driveway bcing constructed behind that structure. He explained that the ~CC was trying to be responsive to tho atorem~ntioned problem where thero was a multiplicity of 75 foot lots. Mr. Charles L. Shumway explained that he wrote the ßCC in ~ugust opposing tho 200 foot height limitation becausc he Ceela that tho real issue is whether the Commissioners or anybody conn<,ct~d with govcrnment &O!)~ CSB fAct 651 Page 13 l---------- --------- --------.-----..---------- ----- -.- ! _.._ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _L __ _ - - - - - - -_:- -------------- December 22, 1981 &O!)K 066 PACt 652 arc architects. He fiLS id ho fcl tit is up· to the property owner to be able to cons~ru=t a profp~RionAlly designcd building. He submittcd th.:1t if l1mitl'ltions of density arc desired, that is ./I right of the ace, but he suggested that by limiting the he igh, 1'1 dcveloper is be irlg made to use considcrðbly IT,O.r c land fOJ: a b u 11 ding thus leaving less -green belt. Þnd that such limitations take I'Iway Dn option. He said he knows that there is a tremendous public issue thl'lt Rcries out against th~ 200 feet., but thnt those buildIngs will continue to h~ built in areas like Pelican Bay and Parkshore. Ho suggcsted that the OCC could designate areas where the structures could b~ built and rcquestcd a little more cDrcful rcview bctwcen staff and the DCC regarding where thc limitation of 200 feet should be placed. He asked that ~he individual developers bc allowed to come up with ~ good archltcctural plan. Commissioner Wenzel ask~d Mr. Virta if the reason f~r limitation of a gucst house was.because of sizc or the 1-1/4 ~cres of land, to which Mr. Virta ðnswcrcd because of the frontùg~. Ms. Kirchhoff expl~ined that with a 75 foot lot, a 7-1/2 foot setback on each side 1s required which leaves only fiO feet which prohibits ð driveway to a guest hous0. since most hou.es are 55 to fiO feet wide. ******Commlssioner Kruse returned to the room at A:l5 P.M.****· A discussion onsued r~gardlng vacation of easoment .:1nd tho possl- bility of having the aforementioned limit~tlon bc 105 foot. Chairman Wimer asked staff to look at the Estates .:irea particularly ro the casements to sec if a 105 foot limitùtion would be prp.ferable to 150 feet. Mrs. Kathy Graha~ stated thðt therc arc ~ numbcr of Btreet8 in Golden Gate with two accesses, i.e. Wilson Blvd., so that a guest house would be el1min"ted on thoae pcople' a propcrty IInd II ...rop.rty right la, Page 14 .- --- -.-....---- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - ~- -- .. I, :. t - -- - .-- - - \ . - ~.- -- - - ._- - - - - - --- - ..... -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - December 22, 19R1 therefore, taken away. Chairman Wimer said ho would novor vote appro- val for a guest house on a 75 foot lot, but that 105 feot ~ay boo acce ptabl e . Commissioner Kruse asked if the total square footage of the lots could be investigated. Chairman Wimer explained that a total square footage is in the present ordinance and, therefore, is not the problem. He described the Rband-aid lotsR in Golden Gate Estates, i.e. 75 foot by 650 foot lots which from the road creates the problem of a walled effect that would be doubled if guest houses were allowed. Mr. John Steinwand, repre~enting the NABR, addressed page 35 of the proposed zoning ordinance, Section 7.15, RRT- ~esidential Touript District, Item 7, floor arca requirements, nnd Ðtated thAt the NABR has talked with staff and Commissioners with the rcsultant consensus that some change might be amenablo to ~ta!f ro Item B, which sets a 500 square foot maximum tor hotels and motels. He requested staff to comment on whether they would be in favor of allowing a provision~l usage under the -RTR section for such outst~nding structures as a -super luxury development". In response to Commissioner pistor, Chairman Wimer stated that the maximum limitation was to prevent someone from coming in at 30 units per acrc with a building pcrmit for a hotel when it really is a condominium or interval ownership. Mr. Vlrta said that he did not see any roal problem with Mr. Steinwand's request except that it would be an additional provision~l use. He concurred with Ch~irman Wimer's statement regarding why tho maxImum limitation is in the proposed ordinance and that the addition~l 20\ is now part of the draft. Chairman Wimer expl~ined that tho 20\ would enable a hotol to add additional suites if desired. Mr. Stelnw~nd saId that there 1s a trend toward ]~rger hotel units which would have a legitlm...cy not as condominiums but as RßlIptH c1eluxt!' &O~~ C66 PACt 853 P 15 1'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - -. - -- - -:-- - - .-- - - -- -~: ~ -- - - . ¡ . . . - .- - -.- - - - - - -. - - _.-.:. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - _._~ ðiJ!1~ C66 fACt 654 December 2~, 1981 sui~eF.". ~hich could be allowod as ð provisional us. Com..,issioncr Kruse D~k~ù l( c.'I bulldirl< pe C "' it 1s not requlr~d to add cook.\ng facilities, in the event someone wllnted to convert a t.Jtel to n condominium, to wh i c h Mr. Virtn said tha t pa rt of the problem i8 that in evary hotel room there is the allow~nce for cooking facilities which "lire not cooking fi1cillt.ics". lie explain~d th.Jt if such facil1- ties were a self contained unit, encompassing l~ square feet, with a rcfriqcrlltor, stove, anrl sink, that is not considered cooking facili- ties but thllt they arc there already. Chairman Wimer asked staff to addross in the ordinance that thcrc "be absolutely no cooking faciities in a hotel or motelR except for a certain numbcr of u~its that could be ¡ , allowed, i.e. kitchenette or the suites. Mr. Steinwi1nd suggested adding to tn~ proposed ordinance the vcrbðge that the units had to be held out for rcnt or. a daily basis which would overcome the original reason for the 500 square foot maximum 11mlti1tion. Ms. Kirchhoff noted that suggestion would create êln enforcLment problem, because a building inspcctcr would have to be at an establishment evcry day. Mr. J.F. Popplewell, owner-developer of Sunny Trail ~otel, Wiggind Pass Road, explained he acquired his prQPcrty in 197R and tas built one building every year ns time and conditions permit. lie said thdt he has acquired additionc.'ll, adjacent property currently zoned "GRCR, but that the proposed density change would dc-value his property and prevent him from continuing his conÐtruction program, because it would not bo cconomically feaGible for him to build a motel and continue opcration for the current price of the l<:lnd. Be cxplained that ho has two fin- ished buildings, one building under construction, ^nd that thero is room for two morc builrlings. Responding to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. Popplewell 9ð1d his deve1- opment Is not a phðsed project becauBu he t^kes out a building pormlt P.~q t' 1'; -- _... - - --- -- - --. --" . -- - --- -- _.- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¡ f t t t ! , f. ~ t L - - - - -- - - ---..- --- - - -- - - ----- -- ----- ----- ---- . Dccember 22, 19B1 for each buildinq and that the land is contiquous, but thnt he would nol be ab16 to cerne to the Build1~1 Pep~rtmpnt throught the Zoninq Depertment and obt~in a building permit to continue building in the samo manner and style which he wanted to build his project. Responding to Chairmnn Wimer, Mr. popplewell said that hn did not havo tho number of units per acrc because in tho "GRCR zoning motal usage is depend~nt upon the number of parking spaces. Zoning Director Perry explained that Mr. popplewell's project is probably botween 20 to 30 units per acre and that the RC_4R District, which his land would be zonp.d undp.r tho propoÐed ordinance, will Dllow motels as provisional uses at only 16 units per acre, hence, on the remaining portion of his vacant land Mr. popplewell would not be able to build bccause of those ncw limits. Chairman Wimer asked Mr. Popplcwel) if he had ß suggested amend- mcnt to the proposed zoning ordinance, which would be a change in the denisty, th~t the BCC could consider that requeot. Mr. Perry explained that there w~uld b<, no zoning district any better. Mr. popplewell said he had no suggestions other than continuing hiG prcscnt building practices. MS. Kirchhoff c~plained that the "RT" allows 16 units per acre for multifamily and 2fi units (or hotel/motel and that there was considerable discussion aß to whethor to carry the '6 units per acre into the RC_4R and RC-S" categories and that the vote was not unan imous. Responding thc Chairman Wimer, "'r. popple''''. 'I said he owned the addition~l land and has plans for the new buildings but thDt he would not be ablc to get a building permit in less than 60 days, possibly '0 days, because of the regulations. Since he did not see any inclination to incrcase tho l~ units pcr "cre regulation, Chairman Wimer suggested that ~r. Popplowcll meet with aome of staff or the County Attorn~y to aM« C66 FA~ 655 paqo 17 I ¡------- - - - -- - - ~_. ---~ --- - - - - -~ - - -:-- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- .-. --- - . I - I . - - - - - - - _____ - - __ ______ - __ _______ __ --I ----- ao~K 066 fA~t 656 December 22, 1981 try and 50lvc hi~ problem bcfore JDnuary 5, 1982. *****RECESSs ~:)O P.M. RECONVENEDs 8:37 P.M. Commissioner Brown was absent from the room.***** Chairman wimer cxplnincd that the BCC needs to reconcile the diffcrences on the staff report for the t~PC and CAPC recommendations prior to a motion to continue this public hearing ~o Jðnuary 5, 1982. He referrcd to thc twenty item list of amendments, pages 8, 9, and 10 of thc Executive Summary datcd 12/10/81, of which five items require a BCC decision. Item 1. Parking of mnior recre~tional and commercial v~hiclc8t Commissioner Kruse moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Brown absent, that the BCC approve the IAPC recommend~tion to leave said item as is - no restrictions and request overldY if an area wants it. Itcm 9. ~llow ~inglc fð~ily homes ~s permitted u~~ In MHßD: Commissioner Wenzel moved, sccondcd by Commissloncr piGtor and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Crown absent, that the BCC accept the CAPC recommend~tion of dcnial. *****Commissioner Brown '·cturned at 8:47 P.M.***** Item 11. Add following as provisional use to RC_)": A. Fast food restaurðnt: Discussion occurred during which Mr. virta stated that staff's rccommendation is for the above item to be a provisional use. Commissioner Kruse moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried unanimously, th~t tho BCC ~pprove the recommendation of the IAPC to make a fast food rcstaurant a principal use in ·C-3". Item 20. Staff Rccommrndation: Ad~ to ~ec. 8 - Prohibited US.S in Rcs1dcnt1~1 Districts! The followinq nnim^lS ðr~ to be con6idered farm ðll1mnls ~nd are not p~rmittr.d to be kept in residential areas, turkeys, chickrns, ducks, qer.se, pigs, horsc~, cows, qonts, hogs nnd Page 18 .. ~ . .. - .. . -.--...--- ---.+ -.--- ----------------------- --- -_...- - - -... -- -- - - -- - - - - - ---- -- -.- ____________ 4 December 22, 19R1 the likel Responding to Commissioner Wenzel's question, Ms. Kirchhoff tu....lá~r.().: th~t thl!" rp.~ommendatiun was under statt discussion rut Dome time, but was not presented to either the JAPC or CAPC. Commissioner Wonzel moved, seconded by Commissioner pistor and carried unanimously, that the BCC approve that the preceding staff recommendation be incluóed in the proposed zoning ordinance. Item 18. ·STR section concerning contiguous lands - take out donation requirement and add gunrantee requirement: Chairman Wimer stated the aforementioned staff recommendation is in direct conflict with a previously stated DCC desire of not wanting g~ar~ntees because the BCC wantcd the donation of land. He said that following discus- sion, hc wondercd if considcration of ST should not be removed from the proposed ordinance. Mr. pickworth stated that hc found a number of currcntly unre- solved questions re the subject, while going through the proposed ordinance, which were raised aftcr receipt of a comprehensive letter some time ago. He ey.plained that there are conslder~ble variations And approaches to the ST scction which might make considerDtion of the subject at a later date worthwhile, if the BCC so desires. Chairman Wimcr stated hc has serious concerns re the topic and that the DCC would probably have to leave thc ·STR ordinance in the redrafting as it prcs2ntly exists bu~ continue the moratorium of TCR's until the now ordin"nco is adopted. Mr. Virta said that there would have to be some amendment in any event to make the RSTR fit thc new zoning ordinance. Chairman Wimer expresse~ the opinion that the subject should be handled as " separate issue. CommisGioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Wenzel ~nd carriod unanimously, that the proposod ·STR scction be removed from the prQpoøcd zonin9 ordinance, and tho regulations 88 the ·ST· stands in &O~K 066 fAct 657 paq 0 19 --------------------- ..- ._"-'"--- - -- --...-...-- ---- ---.------ ---.. -" ..-- -.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ a.- __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ - -- - -- - __-.-I i I ! December 22, 19A1 b~:~ 066 PACt 658 th~ pwiRting ordinance be substi~uted, with the modifications mentioned by Mr. Virta included to comply wilh LI,e i.CW dC:Jlgn.!!ttl)"" ",.,-1 noml!n- . , clatures. Chnirman Wimer noted that the BCC would not allow any J. transfer of TDR's until a new ordinance is adopted separatoly. ~ Hearing that there wp.ce no other .areas of discussion, Commission.ør Wenzp.} moved, seconded by Commissioner pistor and carried unanl~ouSlY, ~ that the public hearing for petition NZ-RO-20 be continued unt() ~ . J åanuary 5, 1982. " FIRST HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ZONING MAPS FOR THE r~INCORPOR^TED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY IN CONJUNCTJON WITH TilE ^DDITION OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE COMPREIIENSIVr. ZONING REGULATIONS - VARI.US CHANGES RE MAPS APPROVED; PUBLIC HEAPING CLOSEOI NEW PUBLIC HEARING RE SUBJECT SET FOR J1\NUARY 5, 1982 Legal notice having been published in the Naples D~ily News on December 14, 1981 as evidenced by the Affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing w~s held to c~nsider the proposed zoning maps for thc unincorpotatcd area of Collier County in conjunction with the addition of the final rcport of the Comprehensive Zoning Regula- tions, filed by the Board of County Commissioners. Planner Kirchhoff rcferred to the Executive Summary dated l2/JO/8l and explained the IAPC and CAPC recommendations on page 2 of that Executive Summary as follows: IAPC Recommendation: l. Cld Cork~crew Vill11ge Off SR-al: change from VR to 1\-2. CAPC Recommendations t 1. 50-25-1 - area around courthouse, across from the courthouse, B~rnett Ban~, Lawypr's Abstract, Carroll, Vega, Brown and Nichols, etc. to the new HRS building on Airport Road, and courthouRe property: change from £=l to £=1. 2. 49-25-7 - SW corner of Golden Gate P~rkway and Airport Rd. (BelHs Paw): chðnge from C-l to C-1. In the tenative report, the BCC recommendrõ'"ëh"ngTñ'ëj th.'t ~rCi) from C-3 to C-l, but aftcr the subject was discusstld at the CAPcïi'ëaring, the nbove rccommendðt.ion was ~nde. paqe 20 --~ -- ._~- .- _.-~.._. ----. ------- --------- -.------------ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ H_ .__ -- - -- --- -.- - - - --- - - - - ----- - ------- --- December 22, 1981 3. 4q-26-7 - Remove ST. Thcre 1s ð parcel ot properly ¡ûn~ð RSTR in that ðr~a:-which staff has !1ulù checked and deter- mined is no longer ST. 4. SO-7.S-l - Land Yacht HlIfbor I From ~ to MIlRP S. Sl-27-4 - Mirra Park on Auto Ranch Rd: From MHSD to VR. This would allow single family homes to bc brõüght 1ntõ that arca. 6. 48-25-5 - West side of US 41, north of tmmokalep. Rd. to Pegasus Lounge: From 1'1-2 to C-3. The BCC tentative report rocom~ended that this µ¡rcel ~from £=l to A-2. 7. 49-26 - Section l8: Commencing at SE corncr of Section run N 1 9 7 9 . 7 G I to PO B . W 3 2 1\ " N 38. 39' to oJ po i nt, the n c e N 621.74-, E 336.43',5659.29' to POb. from E to A-2. Mr. Cr:pparù's propcrty near this p~rccl was-recommënded to be rczoncd to A-2. Mrs. Kaiser's property was recommended to be delcted and-rëzoncd to A-2 since ~he h~s an ongoing farm in that area. -- Attorney Jim Sicsky, representing Nðt Dubinsky, cxplained that Mr. rJbinsky has owncd property for approximately sevcn years which Is zoned Agriculture in Section 1~, T495, R26E, on which he has had a single family residence, animal breeding, training and k~nnel facility, And A wholesale nursery, and that currently he has a verbal agreement for the land to be farmed. He stated the aforementioned uses arc consistent with the ^gricullure zoning and that Mr. Dubinsky would like to maintain that zoning. Mr. Siesky said that Section 13, T495, R25E, which is west of Mr. Dubinsky's property, is zoned A-I, that the propcrty immediately south of Section 10, the northcrn approximately 1/4 section, is zoncd A-2, that Mr. Frank CroJppara has requcsted and been recommended for continucd 1'1-2 zoning on his property, as has Willie Kaiser for his property. ~r. Siesky stated that in his opinion there is no overriding purpose to r..zonc the property under discussion to Estatcs and requested continulltion of A-2 zoning for his client's propcr ty. Commissioner Wonzel moved, s~condcd by Commissioner ~rown 8nd &O~~ 066 fACt 659 Page 2 J I r--- -- -- -- --- -- --- -:-- --- ---- - ---- -;- I __.. - _.. __ _._._ _. .. -a __ ....... .. ........ -.- - - -- --- .--- ~ - --- -- - ----- ---- ---_.-- I ------1 I ßOO~ C66 PACt 660 Duccmbcr 22, l~Al c~rried unanimously, that Mr. Dubins~y's property ln Soctlon lB, T~9S, R26£ be continued at A-2 zoning. Community Development Director Virta interjected thðt porhaps it . was time that staff t~ke the whole section back to A-2. Commissioner Kruse moved, s~conded by Commissioner Wenzel and carried unanimously, thnt Sp.ction 18 be zoned A-2. Mr. Jim McKay, owner of a building on the corner of US 41 and Frank Whitcman Boulevard, explained that the building was designed for a second story. He said thðt his propcrty extcnds from US 41 to 10th Street, which is proposed for rezoning from -GRCR. Respondlng to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. McKay explalncd that his property dimensions are 100 feet on US 41 by 175 feet deep, and that in order to put the second story on the building, he nce~g the bðlance of 150 feot of property for p<1rking. I!c requested tho zoning remain RGRCR. Purinq the ~n~u\ng discussion, the point was made th~t a portion of the property in question was zon~d Rcsidenti~l on tho Comprehensive Land Use Plan, ~nd that a parking lot could not be constructed unless tho Comprehensive Plan was changed. Chairman Wimer explained that Mr. McKay has owned the property for approximately 29 years, and ho asked staff if there was ~ny other way that a parking lot could be dccom- modated on the back portion of his property. Mr. Virta responded that, as the Comprohensive Plan is presently writton, this would not be possible. Chairman Wimer asked if a way could be developed to permit this use, and Zoning Director Perry st~ted th<1t if the Comprehensive Plan is chang cd to Commerci~l that the Zoning Ordinance would allow a p<1rking lot, evcn though the property i8 residentially zoned. Rcference was made to previously allowed parking lots on reøl- dcntially zoned properties, i.a. churches, and Mr. Perry stated that those instances were prior to the ~doptlon of the Comprehensive Plan, Page 22 . -- .. - .--. - .'. - -". -- -_.. - ..--._-------- ...-._----~-----_.._--------------- I I i f ------ - -- --- - - - - - - - -- -- - --~e~emb.'-2~,-1 :.~ ------ - . I ! and ho clarified that Zoning still allo~s a business to place parking within SOD feet of ~ busine~s on lands zoncd resld~nt1al if the p~Ll- tion is approved that way. Responding to Commiasioner Wenzel, Mr. ~cKay stnted that the entire p~rcel of land to lOth Street was zoned "GRCR, at the time he built the buildi~g. Chairman Wimer explained that the direction from the Board is to in~truct the staff to find a solution so that Mr. McKay would be able to construct a parking lot for his building on the back portion of his property, and he suggested that Mr. McKay keep in touch with Mr. Virta. Attorney Ron Hogue, representing Frank W. Boyle, et al, owner of property adjacent to Mr. McKay's property, said that his client's property is zoncd "GRC" and Residential zoning on the back porti~n. He stated he was aware that the Comprchensive Plan would have to be changed so that the entire parcel would be zoned "GRCR. Hc said that an optioned buyer has plans to bulld on the property and that not all of the back portion would be used for parking, since some buildings would be placed in that area. He indicated the location of the property in question on a map on an overhead board and explainerl there are 4.5 acres which fronts 10th Street, and that the property has been zoned "GRC" for a considerable amount of time. Mr. Rogue explained that whcn the Comprehensive Plan was adoPted in 1979, the bDCk 175 feet of the property waß r~quircd to be a buffer zone for the residential area and, that after checking with the Plan- ning Department, he discovercd that the reðson for that change waS to brIng the arca into conformity with other property as well as to act as a buffer. He describrd the ðrca and explained that four property Page 23 &O~~ 066 fAct 6St' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ u I ¡ I . ----.----.- ----; I , I I I , i - - - - - - - - - - - __ - - - __ - - - - - __ - - - - - - - - _. o. Dcccmber 22, 19"1 ~O~K 066 fACt 662 .owners are affected by the 4,5 acre zoning change, that 10th Street doco not tun ~ll the 'fiftY throulJh, but ('nds .,fler three blocks, ðl'ù tt,~t no sewers are installed in the area with none being p~..J'H~,,1 for snme time. He stated his clicnt owns 2-1/2 acres, 1-1/4 acrc of which 18 affected by the rezoning ~nd that 1n ordor to build any type of un~t ~n said property, a sewer plant occupying approximately 1/2 acrc would have to be plDced in the residential area to permit reasonnblc land use. During the ensuing discussion, Chairman Wimcr explained that he had driven by the area in question this date, ðnd that he hðS a problem with zoning the whole block commercial because the residential propcrty owners look into the back of a scrvlcc station and 7-11 store, a3 well as a mobile home office/storage unit. He said that the residents would have perferred having the area zoned residential multifamily rather than commercial, and that 10th Street 'fIas never designed to handle the commercial uses placed in that 'Hea. lie sa id he could approve of Mr. McKay's request for parking on his corner lot. Mr. lIogue stated that an alleyway would be created between the residential and multifamily if multifamily zoning is placed on that strip of property because, in order to build with the required setbacks and required parking, the lots on the Trail would be approximately 40 feet deep, resulting in said strip with an alloy behind the lots which woUld need to bo scrvic~d. Chðirman Wimer re-emphasized that Mr. Hogue's requested rezoning could not be accomplished until the Compre- hensive Land Use plan is enacted. Commissioner Wenzel stated that tho owner of J.P.'s restaurant was allowed to reverse his original request to place a sewer plant next to Page 24 . - -....- -- -- - --- - - -- -' . ~ - --- - --- - - --- - - -... _. - - -- .-- - - -- - - - - - - --..- - - ~······a f· . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- -- --- --- \ _____1 Dccember 22, 1901 the reoidential area lInd his parking close to tho rest~url!ln::. ~ir. Perry 6xpl~incd th~t ~aid requ~9t wa~ ~r^ntod tempor~rily with ~h8 8tipul~tion that as soon as the sewer was connccted the parking would be reversed. Commissioner ristor said he hesitates to change the zoning. Mr. John S. Berio r.xplained that he is interested in the property just discussed, and that he owns and operates a lumbcr yard on Lot 72, Naples Little Farms, which h~s a 330 feet frontage on the Trail, with the property cxtending back to the raIlroad. He explained that a lumbcr yard has been on that parcel since 1947. Responding to Chairman Wimer, Mt'.;.· Perri said that Mr. Bt'dC)'s retail sales of material and outside storage of material at his luri~~~ ..~\ yard would probably be non-conforming unJer the existing and ..r propo€~" J ..... ""~ regul at iO:1S. Mr. Serio r~5ponded to CommlsGioner Wenzel's qu¿gtion by explain- ing that his first building is 140 feet and the warehouse approxima~~ly 300 feet from the street, ðnd that h~ grows trees around the perimeter of the lumber yard to screen stored lumber from the area. The point was made that the back portion of ~r. B~rio's yard would be in the proposed RMF-6 zoned arca. He stated he has been in the area since 1947. Chairman Wimer said, in his opinion, ~taff should find a way for Mr. Berio to continue as he presently operateB his business. Commi~- øioner Pistor said that this would constitute spot zoning and he ~uggeGted the whole matter be considered. Chairman Wimcr stated th~t it waD the consensus of the Buard for staff to look at the entiro parcel because of tho problemD inv~lved between tho Commercial, Industrial, and R~$idcntial zoninqø, and street Page 25 I &001< 066 PAct BG3 ~ -- ----- -- -- - - -.--- - - -- - - -- - ¡-- - - ------ - - - - - -- -.- ¡ I .~.- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - -- - -.. -- - - - - . Decembor 22, 1981 BO~X 066 fAct 664 access ðnd to return with a firm recommendation fcr the best solution p099ibJp for everybody invo.lved oy tÍle lIe...l public hc~r!~";], Attorney William Blackwell rcferred to page 027 on the map on the overhead board, a NortQ Goldcn Gate tr~ct of l~nd, and explained that he had spoken on this issue prcviously before the ace, at the prelimi- nary hearings, and before the CAPC. He explained that the four SQC- tions of land to which he roferred belongs to GAC Realty Trust, ðnd was Rspun out of the bankrupt Gulf American Land CorporationR in tho Federal District Court in Miami, ba~cd on appraisal of vðrious assests that the bðnkrupt had. He stðte~ that said aFpraisal took into account zoning and land use parameters which then existed, ðnd that a signifi- cant expenditure of money h~s be~n Mðdc by the predecessors entitled to the land, i.e. surveying, engineering and dedicating pl~ts. H~ said that dedicated ðnL significant public rights-of-way wore accepted by the Cnllnty Commissj_,.\ in 19fi7. He said that he is opposed to rezoning every two year~; that the plats have not boen vDcated, nnd he requested that his clients' propcrty be left as currently zoned and not rezoned A-l. Planning Director Crew s~id th~t zoning is al~ðYs subject to change, and he listed the following points for the Commissioners' consideratlons ~*- .. 1. The current: prilcticcs of good pl<'lnning, subdivision stan- dards, lo~ size~, roado, urban design, etc., dictate the recomMl.'nd~tions that staff h~s made; strip commercial is no . )ng<::r considered to be in the public Interest. . . . ~ .he incom~~tnbllity with surrounding acrc~ in Golden r te Estates, the drain.:1ge which is dep(!ndent on Golden GlIt . cðnals which ~rc no long~r hydrologically acting ðS designerl. 3. The cr.onomi~~l provl5ion of County services th~t this would be through Rleðp frogR growth. Pðqe 2(; .. - - - - _..~--- --- - -_.- - -----_..-- - --- - .------- . . '. -- ..- -.- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - . December 22, 1981 4. Ther~ at~ ffi~r~ th~~ ~~~q~~!A A1tprnntiveB available tor residcnti~l dcvelopmp.nt in the area. . S. The property is presently used as agriculture and tho soils ere acceptable ðnd valid for agricultural use. 6. The existing zoning that is in this plat does not exist in some cases any longer, i.e. the Immok~lee Golf Course ðnd the Immokalee Multifamily 5. 7. On May 1, 1979, the areas wcrc trllnsfpred from IAPC to CAPC, which had a major effect on the zoning. 8. On May 8, 1979, the Comprehensive Plan for ColI ier County was adopted which made this area entirely residential, 0-4 units per acre which in effect, duc to staff's interpretation of the Attorney General's opinion, has voided most of the zoning for practical purposes. 9. In Novembcr 1981, the ACC adopted a land use plan change for tho arca of ðgricultur~, the propcrty owner was notified ðnd the change was not contested since no objection was raised at thllt time. Mr. Crow stated that thc rccommcndation h~s been made by the IAPC, CAPC and staff recommends same. During the following discussion, Mr. Virta rcsponded to a question by Commissioenr Kruse that the Quail Crcek PUD, near the property under discussion, has a density of one unit per two acres. Mr. Blackwell took issue with Mr. Crew'~ ~tatement that the property owner has not opposed this change by stating that he has been opposing said change for the last two months, and had "'Iritten a letter of opposition to each Commissioner. Mr. Crew stated that staff feels because there has becn 15 to 20 years of non-use, the plats have effectively been voided. Mr. Blackwell stated, in his opinion, tht! zoning Is much the same liS a PlID, ðnd that the name of plat design has been changed. lie contended that the property is ð platted subdivision. County ^ttorncy Pickworth asked Mr. Blackwell if this property was Pago 27 &001( C66 fA~i 665 - - -. - -- - - - -- - - _.- - - - - -.- - - - - - - - -- - - -..- - - --- -. - --.-. - ~ ·-. - - -.------- . __ - - _" .._., - - __ ..... __ __ __ - __ ___ __ __ - .. - ___ ._ - __ . - e' _ .-.. &O!)K 066 PAct 6GB December '2, 19R1 l~nd upon which GAC rele~5cd their bonding oblig~tions during the bðnkruptcy proceedings, to ....hich "'r. BIlJckwell responded thnt hit ðld not know. Mr. pickworth explained that during those proceedings an agreement was "worked outR between G^C, their bankruptcy attorney, himself, and a bankruptcy attorney retained by Collier County which would require that if the property under discussion were developed, it ....ould have to ~e developed in Dccordance with the exis~ing subdivision regulations. ,Ie sald th"t the County takes the position thðt under that GAe agre~ment, the development of the property under existing subdivision reguli)t1ons would not be possible. He said that tho agreement was mðde during the course of the bankruptcY1 that the propcrty wcnt into the liquidating trust and that the agreemu~t was m~de by the trustees and approved by th~ Courts. Mr. Blackwell stated that the liquidating trust received those assets basc'" IF-on appr~ised vê1lues of all the asset.~ of the bankrupt and he agreed with /'Ir. pickworth thLlt the liquidating trust received the ðssets by order of the same c~urt that approved the aforementioned agreement. "'r. pickworth said he would get a copy of that agreement for Mr. Bl~ckwell, Dnd that ttere is certainly ð question as to whether or not even at the time the agreement was made that there ....as any intention to develop the property in accordance with the plat. Chairm~n Wimcr said that n0 action would be taken at this hearing with the exception of some adjustment5 and that the final vote would be J~nuary S, 1~82. Responding to Mr. Blackwell, Chairman Wimer explðlned th~t the BCe could make a change in this specific instilnco if they so desire but that no ch"nge seems to be forthcoming. poll. Cl,'cl:....cll stated for the record that he asked the BCC to make a chan~e. Page '8 .~.._. - -. ~ .----.--.---. .-_.. ...--..--------------.-.----------.. ! I I L-- ----- - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- Decembor 22, 1981 Responding to 8 request by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Blackwell said he would be hóppy to discuss th,. ~ltUðt.lon with the Lounty AlLuf )ey. Mr. pickworth said th~t he did not feel that the planning considera- tions which have to be weighed reg~rding the subjoct under discussion could be disregarded ðnd th3t the BCC would have to consider all facets in making its ultimate determination. Commissionp.rs Kruse, Wenzel and rlstor responded negatively to Chairman Wimer's question of whether the BCC wished to make any changes rogarding Mr. Blackwell's request, and Chairman Wimer stðtcd that the BCC would make the flnal determln~tion on J~nu~ry 5, 1982. Commis- sioner Brown moved to leave the present zon~ng on the property in question. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Blackwell Ðtated that he ropre~ents the Edith Sproul Trust, own~ of ~ 10 acre tract of land in the SW 1/4 of Airport Road and Colden Gate Parkway, immediately adjacent to property known as Bear's ~aw. He said that the tract was designated GRC two years ago as a result of the negotiating procecding~ heard before the BCC with respect to the approval of the PUD's for Bears Paw and that the landvwner employe- architects, engineers, land plðnnors, and interior designers to design an office building complex, including a rest~urant and high qu~lity shops. He said that with the widening of ^irport and Golden Gate Roads intersection, his client spent in excess of $20,000 t~ help pay for entrances at the ~forementioned interr.ection on tho four-lane highwðY. He stated that neveral wep.ks ago, the ncc dirccted stIlt! to re-examine the property with ~ view to lowering the zoning from C-3 to C-l, which would e((cct1vely ch.3nge wh(lt the landowner has been planning for hi¡:¡ property. He explained, when the matter was initially P"CJt' '9 &O!)~ CBB FACt 667 1-- --- ---.--- ------ -------- __ __ _.~ ~___ _ _ _._. __ ...__ .... __... _ _ ._ Þ"_"_ ___ I , - ---------------- --...... --- -.---. -.------ --------------...-- December 22, 19ß1 &O~~ 066 PACt 6G8 considered by the CAPC, that the rr.comendðtion was for C-~ zoning lInd that whcn the discussion ro the propcrty return~d to tno CArC, ~t~!f and CAPC again recommended the parcpl to remain zoned C-3, which is what ho requests at this heðring. Ms. Kirchhoff explained that at the final hcaring by the BCC on the tentative revort, a motion WðS made to take the zoning on this property back to C-l. ,. Commissionor Wenzel askeó for clllrification of why the zoning was requested to be changed back to C-l, ðnd Ms. Kirchhoff explained that at the aforementioned final hearing there wore onlY three Commissioners present and the mot4.on .Me:, .'.0 "CIIJngo the property under discussion from ......... C-J to C-l, with ð resl.ilbt;·.;;~f(l"'ï·.~:('te. She rcsponded to Commissioner Wenzel's question by stating that th~re is a difference in uses between C-l ðnd C-3, since C-l is profe5sion~l commcrcial with limited usage. . . Chairman Wim~r ~~ld that he recalled when Bearls Paw originally came under consideration, that the--:Qrncr was reserved for office buildings and that at that point in time the only classific~tion was GRC. He said that with the increase in Lrafíic imd b~C"i\IIS(> the Golden Gate Parkway now would extend to ~~ 41, there was a feeling by some Commissionens that a less intensive use would be of public benefit and be more consistent with what is being planned for major intersections and that the C-l zoning designation would be more appropriate. During the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Kruse said that Ms. Kirchhoff reflected her votc at the previously mentioned hearing inaccurately, that she voted for this property to go from C-3 to Cl, but thaL shc voted ag~\~ßt the Comprehensive Land Use plan. She explained that the reason she voted for the C-l designation was pago 30 . ._._.._--~-----,--_._---------- -- --- - - . _.- .... --. . -. - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - - ---....- - ---- - ----- -.. Decembor 22, 1981 Þccðua~, upui, 'I ~ _ t. t __ '¿V\J~""'"JI ~t ~~~ m^P: Rhe felt the ~ropertv was a very small parcel ond that she could not see C-3 on such a smal) corner. However, after she walked the property, she rcalized that tho property was larger and that upon discovering that the parcel is 10 ncres, she said she could "live with C-3R upon the direction of the BCC, based upon that lO acrc cize. Following further discussion, Commissioner Wcnzel moved, scconded by Commissioner Pistor ~lnd carried 4/1, with Commissioner Winler opposed, th~t the property Le zoncd C-3. Mr. Jock Sutherland said he apprecioted the earlier decision of the Bee t; rezone Section 10, T49S, A-2 since he operates an aqricul- tural business on three parcels of land in that section. He thanked the Commission~rs. ......RECES5: 9:40 P.M. RECONVENED: 9:44 P.M.······ Following the receGS, Chalrmlln Wimer requested BCC decisions on the I^PC ~nd CAPe recommendations on page 7 of the Executive Summary dated l2/22/8l. I^Cr RECOMMEND^TJON 1. Old Corkscrcw village off SR-62: change from VR to A-2. Mr. Virta explained that ð gentleman from t.hi5 area'objected to VR zoning hcc~use of hls IIqriculture interest and that the A-2 desi~nðtion will allow the non-conforming lots to huilt upon as well ðÐ allow Dgriculture pursuits to b~ continued. Commissioncr Wenzel moved, secordcd by Commissionor pistor and carried unllnlmously, that the ~r.C approved th~ zoning change from VR to A-2 for the Old Corkscrew Village off SR-B2. c^rc RECO~MENDATIONS 1. 50--?~-1 - ~r~~ ~round courthous~, acrOflS from the courthouse and courthouse propcrtYI change from C-l to C-3. ~I. Virt~ pointed out thßt s^id chòngc would ~ll~for Cõñntruction of throo additional floor~ to Building "FR. Page '1 I ao~ ( 066 fAr.t6G9 ~___ ____ _ - - - ~ - - -:.-. ~ --- - --.ô----- - -- - u._. - - - . - - -- - - - - - - -.. - - - . - - - - - -,. --- -- -- - - - - - - - - ...- - -- - - _. _.. . - December 22, 19A1 aO!)J( 066 fACi670 Com~issioner Wenzel moved, seccnded by Com~issioner pistor and ~ùrried un~n1~cu51y, ~h~t the ncc approve the change from C-l to C-J for aforementioned lðnd area. 2. 49-'5-7 - The acc acted upon this arca previously this cvening. 3. ~9-)r,-7 -.Remove ST. Commissioner W~nzel moved, seconded by Commissioncr Pistor and carried unanimously, that the ßCC approve removal of the ST designwtion for aforcmcntioncd land arpù. 4. 50-75-1 - Land Yacht Harbor: from MUSt"! to MHRP. Commis- sioner Wcnzel moved, seconded by CommTSsioncr-Pistor and carricd unanimouGly, that thc BCC approve the zoning change from MHSD to Mllnp on the aforementioned land area. 5. 51-27-4 - Mirr~ Park on Auto Ranch Rd.: from MHSD to VR. Com~lssioner Kruse asked if thc acc had eðrlie~ked tnat no mixture of Gin'Jle family zoning be placed in ~IISD and Mr. Virta responded affirmatively. ComMissioner Kruse nsked if ðpproval of this zon¡n~ change would not nltcr that previous direction to which Mr. Vlrta rcsponded that VR designation would ~llow (or a mixture, but that the ~obile Home Subdivision itself would not. Mr. Perry explained that land area is wherc the property owners apprcared bcfore the CAPC and requcsted that their Drea he changed to the mix category where th~y could rcrl~~c their mobile homes with conventional style homes. Chairman Wimer s~id that the acc does not allow a single fa~ily rrsidrncc to be huilt in a ~obilc "om~ Subdivision but that in VR both are allowed. Mr. Perry concurred. Commissioner wcnzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown anù ~arricd 4/1, with Commissionp.r Pistor opposed, that the zoning designation "IISD be changed to VR in the aforementioned area. 6. 48-25-5 - West side of US 41, north of Immok~lee Rd. to Pegasus Lounge: A-2 - Chairm~n Wimer explained that a rc~ident recommcnded A' and he ðsked ~ttorney V~rnadoe is his client h~5 ð~y objections to this area remaining A2. Mr. Varnadoe s3id th~t his client has 6ubmittcd a Comprehondive Land Use Plan change (or other property which Dlso includes ð eompr~hl.'nsive Plan chonge for th~ property under discussion and a PUD which would in effect change the usa and, thcrefore, his clicnt has no ohjcction to the parcel being zoned A2 until those requests /lrc acted upon. Chðirmlln Wimer noted that this lrlnd nrcð would be left zoned A2. 7. 49-2~ - The BCe actcd upon this land ðroa pr~viously this evening. pagc J2 - .- - - - -- - - - -.. ---.... -- ...- p- - - - .- - - -- - - - - - - -- I l ri ---- - - --- -.- --- - -- - ---- --- ----------..------, December 22, 1981 I \ II - Atto.ncy ~por~p Vðrnðdoe, representing the Collier Enterpriscs, explained that his client owns property at the svuthwest boundary úf the airport which is currcntly zoned RM-l and recommended to be changed to A-2. 110 oxplalned that the Comprchcnsive Lðnd Uso Plan shows thllt propcrty to be commercilll and that hc undcrstands that the reason for tho A-2 rccommcndntion hy ~t~ff 15 that staff feels that the propcrty should not be residential bccausc it is so close the the airport. He stated that A-2 is a "holòing pattcrn" zoning which allows onc unit per five acres and that the ^-2 designati)n would, in effcct, be down zoning his client's property from six units per acre currently allowed in RM-l. He said that he did not feel is was proper to label this area ð "holding patt~rn" category because it is evident what the zonirg will be on propcrty "that close in". Ie explained that -holding patternR arcas are for parc~ls oí land where "leap frog growthingR is taking place and no onc knows what the growth will bc. He stated that in his opinion to zone this parcel A-~ would be an impropcr means of of a just goal, zoning the area com~crcial. He requested that, ie ~là(f fccl~ the arca should be commercia:, then ð Comprchensive plan change should be proposed for the property under òiscussion. During the ensuing discussion, ~r. Varnadoe explained that his client has no plans for development of his propcrty at thc present timo. At Commissioner Kruse's rcqucst, ~s. Kirchhoff indicated on a map on an overhead board the location of the property which the BCC zonod Commercial two weeks ~go, as a rcsult of a Comprehensive Plan amendment a~proval. She described the current zoning on the aformen- tioned map on the property in the surrounding ~reas and responded to paqe 31 &OOIC 066 FACt 671 ;-- ---- -.-- --- ~_. ---- --~----- ---- -- ._~ .--- --.... _.. . 0_- __._. .. . -.. _.- .. - - ~- . _.. _ _. _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ ..-a.. _ _ _ - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -... - - - - - -- - &oOK C66 rACt õ7Z Cocember 22, 1981 . . 'Commissioner Wenzel's question as to how stÐff justifies the zoning design~tion of commercial i/l Just one lIr~'" hy st~tinq that a COr.'lpre- hensive Plan amendment request has not yet been submitted for those areas and could not bc submitted until the next six month zoning review. Mr. V~rnadoe stated that, if staff submits a Comprehensive Plan change, his client would not object but that he does not think taking pr~perty rights ~way by zoning the propcrty A-2 is justified. Commissioner Brown moved, secondeò by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the zoning on the property u~der discussion remain RM-l. Chairman Wimer dirccted st(]ff to lo,)k at the p~rcel of land directly ~cross the Ðtrcet from the entrance to the new airport terminal and rcturn with proper do.signations, since he is not sure he is in ð9re :mcnt that the arca the cn' ire lcngth of the airport should be zoned commercial. He said that future zoning designations in the area continu~ to wiF~ out RM-l ~nd RM-l^ zoning which allows for lower cost rental units that the BCC would be diðmetricially opposed to some of the pl~ments on the Comprchen~ivc Land Use Plan which the BCC says the County needs, i.e. lower cost housing units. MS. Kirchhoff asked tor ~lðrification re leaving the zoning as it is and Chðirm~n Wimcr 9~id the propcrty should be left as zoned under the existing Zoning Ordlnance. .....Commissioner Wenzel left tho room at 9:55 P.M.····· Mr. Virta stated that staff is in full support of the recommcnda- tion ....hich Co!. Hadley E. Jer.klr,s is presenting. Co!. Jenkins, representing Avitar properties in Collier County, referred to the map on an overhead board for Section 49-26-6 ðnd explained thðt In th~t Page 34 --..---.-...,.- -. ---- ----- -- .,-.- --- --.-------- ------------- I I I l--- - - - --- - -- - ---- -------------------'------ I December 22, 1981 particular zoning, the Colden Cate Community WðS platted and recorded in lots with a ~inimum size of lO,OOO squaro feet. rhairman Wimer explained that Col. Jenkins' request is for a zoning chango for the property to RSF-3. Commissioner Kruse moved, oeconóed by Commissioner Plator and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Wenzel absent, that the Bee rczone the property in Section 49-2ó-6 to R~F-3. Ms. Charlotte Wcstman, rcprcscnting the Lcaguc of Women Voters (LWV), requested the MIS map for Township 52~ to be placed on an overhcad board and expla :lcd that she had called a property owncr on Marco Island aftcr discovering th~t the Mica Beach area is proposed to be zoned RO, the property to the north, RMF-l6, which is the Culfviow, and that the Princess Del ~ar, the Princcss, and the Dutchess would be in a zone which could convert to interval ownership, if tho proposp.d zoning ordinance is approved. She said that she dtd not understand the proposed RT zoning for the property in question. Aftcr further des- cription of surrounding proposed zoning, Ms. Kirchhoff explained that the property under discussion has been zoned RTR for the past eight years which allows multifamily and hotel/motel. Ms. Kirchhoff explained the rationale behind the current zoning and said that Special Exception designation allows a temporary sales office and is zoned RT. Chaiman Wimer suggested that, since this subject was raised at this public hearing, no final action would be taken until January ~, 1982. Commissioner Pistor said he did not see why the area under discussion c~uld not be changed to RMF-16. Ch~irm~n Wim~r said that if the owner to whom Ms. Westman referred is unhappy with his existing zoning, now Is the time to reqeust ð change. Mr. Leon L. Treon, ~ Hender~on Creek propcrty owner, explained his pag e 35 &O~K 066 fAr.d373 ___ ___________<Þ.__ _ __ _ .._",_ ____ 4 _..... __0'" _ _... ......- ..__ --_ -- .....- - - -- -.-... -. - ..- -_.~ . .... . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - _.- ---- "'o~~ OS6 PAu674 December 22, 19R1 . 'þroporty has approximately ~oo footago on US 41 Dnd now cont~lng travel trailer storage plus self-s~rvice gas pumps, ^ convenience ótor~ built with light industry in mind with an 18 inch double T prefab roof ðnd that the p!lastcrs nnd footings would carry a five-story building. Ho said that ho understands that the proosed C-2 zoning will allow him to do no further expansion on his building and prohibits trailer parking, which provides over half of his current income. He requcsted that his property could be m~int~ined. The po int was made tha t the zon ing category C-5 \%uld lIllow Mr. Treo~ to continue his prcscnt business. Commlssioncr Xruse moved, seconded by Commißßioner Rro~n ùnd carried ~/O, wlth Commissioner Wenzel lIbsent, thòt the aforcmentioned property be zoned C-5. Mr. Treon th.1n~·ed the Commissloners. Mr. Charles Cox, representing sixtcen property owners In the Palm SpringR Plazß Suhdivison, expl~tnp~ th~t the~ formed a Aynrltc~t~ twelve ye~rs ago and ~Jve bc~n waiting for the right time to develop their property. H~ s~ld that the zoning on the (ront portion of the proporty was ch~nged from Gnc to C-2 some time ago. Commissioner Kruse said that the Commisshncrs hðve roceived a letter re the s'lbject ì roperty. Mr. Virta stated that the Planning Depòrtmcnt has no problem with a C-2 zoning designation on the propcrty. Commissioner Xruse moved, seconded by Commission~r Brown and carricd 4/0, with Commissioner Wenzel abse~t that the property in question be zoncd C-2. There bcing no further business to come before the Board of County Commissioners at 10:10 P.M. the public hearing was closed by motion of Commissionor Kruse, seconded by Commissioner ~rown, and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Wenzel absent, and by the 811mo motton that a new P"ge 36 - ._..__. "____ __. .._ ___ __ __ ___ __-4 __ ___ _ __ ____ ___ __ __ ...____ __ ___ __...__ ____ , i ~ - -- - - --- '--.-.. - -- - - -- - - --- -- - - - -'-- - - -.- -"_.. ._-- -" I Docember 22, 19R1 public hearing be set for January 5, 1982 at 7s00 P.M. BOARTD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERR/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL r.ç.~ W0rd.~N í ( f " " ,,' TLese minutes approvpc! by the lice 1/26/82. P~CJe 37 atJ:1t 066 fAG( 675 - -.. _. ..- - ._ -_ - - __. - __ _,_ ~_ - __ ___ . ~_ __ - .. - . - _. - ... '-0 . . - r- .. 4. ~ .. _ _ ._ . - - -. ..,