The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 08/11/1981 W .- ..- --~.. - - - - - -- -... - - -..- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -~. NlIpl('(I, Florida, lIuqunt 11, 19£11 fit '. LET IT SF. RF.~F.MOF.RED, thnt tho Poftrd of County Commissionors In and for the County of Collier, and also acting as tho governing board(s) of such spacSal districts ns have been created according to law and hðvSng conðucted husincss harein, mot on thin date at 1130 P.M. in Workshop ~os810n in Building "F" of tne Courthouso Complex with tho following members present: CH1\I1<M1\NI VICr. cn1\ IRM1\NI John lI. pi stor Clfford Wonzol Mary-Franccs Kruse T\BRENT: C. R. "Russ" WSmer DðVid C. Prown T\LBO PRF.SF.NT: narlcno Davldnon, Doputy Clerk, Terry v1rt~, CommunIty Develop~cnt 1\~rnInI8tratorl Lee Layne, planner, Jeffory Perry, ~ontnq Director, ~nd, Donald Pickworth, County ^ttorncy. ¡.. I\(,,;E~m1\ 1. proronod chanqes In d.naIty restrSctIons. OISCUSSION RF.G1\nOING PROPOSF.O DENSITY RESTRICTIONS REL1\Tr.D TO ZONING DI~TnICT~ - NO ACTION T1\Kf.N C\'~.~unSty Pcvt'loprnent MminSslrlltor Terry VSrta oxplainod thftt, pursuant to Commssioner Wenzel's roquost laRt week, he and hS. otaff are pr~pared to explaIn the proposed density restrictions 1n relation to tho propos&d zoning districts that are a pðrt of the propoRed Zonin9 Ordinanco emondmcnt that is to come before the the Board for public hear1n9 next month. Pa9. 1 e!N~ 063 fACE 67 ~-.---------------~--~~--~-~----~--~-~-- · . . . -------------~-----~-----------------~--- ~oo~ 06'3 PAGE 58 ^uqust 11, 19A1 Planner Lee Layno referred to a comparloon chart ~hlch indicate. the present zoning ~istricts ðnd thoir relntive donsity restrictions In thp proposed zoning Ordinance. She said that soma areas have no comparisons bocause tho proposcd zoning Ordinance will delete Bome ot tho present districts nnd Bome will be combined because the new Zoning Ordinnnce comhlnes the Immokalee nnd the Coastal ^rCð regulations. Regðrd i ng the Bing 10 fðmlly "roðs, she said that presently there is PS-l, wh 1 c h ðllow~ npproximntely one ~wp.11InCJ unit per acre ðnd that will rN,1cJin the Dðme in the proposcc1 Zoning Ordinl'nce. She said that this ðppllos to all single fðmily dIstrlct~, inclurlinCJ R5-1 through RS-~. Mu. Lnync snId th...t ð new c1istrlct 10 prop09cd, known DS RSF-5, which will tðkc care of platted nnd undcrnizcd lots in Immokalee, Goodland, Naples park, and other nreð6 in the County. She Bðið that this di9trIct's dcn~ity would be (¡ dwolling units por acr~. In an8w~r to Commissioner W~n%cl, Ma. Layno expll'ined that these un~er81zod lots are less than 7,500 sq. ft. in ðrcð. Commlsßioner Wenzol expressed concern that tho County would "llow anyone to conntruct a homo on leas thnn 7,500 sq. ft. of lnnd nnd ntðtod that he would not vote for allowing moro thnn 4 dwelling unito per acro in the prorosed district. Tho dI5cussIon cont.lnued rcqnrdInq t!¡eflo p,Qoontly platted lota, during which ~s. L~yno ntntcd thðt the lnw, through the CourtB, hðs estðbllGhed thnt these smðll lot~ ðrc qrnndfðth~red in and that the own~r mu~t bo nllowed to unc them to con~trUCt ð slnqle family unit.· She naid thðt thQ County hns, however, in tho past, required ðnyone who wished to con9truct a duplðx on those smallftr lotll, to liS. two Iota togother. fo4s. Layne said that Nðpl.s Pðrk hc!ls somo 4,000 sq. tt. Iota, P~'J· , ~ ,. --- - - --------- --..---------..-------------------.... Q t:¡. ....-:...... ·__' __ - - __ __ __ - __a _ .a__ __ ____ ______ - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ^ugust 11, 19R1 ~ and Immokolce hðß soma 50 ft. X 135 ft. lots. Zoninq Oir.-ctor Joffory Porry stated that thoDe lots woro platted l)nd recorded ye..,rs ago, adding that tho County will juat havo to Ilvo with thém until ouch time as they are all uDod. It waG polntcd out that thn Int~nt of the new RSF-S distrIct that will be create~ Is to rocoqnlze thoso small lots and, In nnswcr to Commissioner Wcnzpl, ~r. Perry stated that It would bo up to tho dincrctlon of tho Bo~rd if any further lot~ of this slzo were to be platted. Alna dlscusßcd wan thø mInimum dwelling unit ølzo that may bo conutructed on thoso loto, which was explained by Ms. Layne who said that the minimum nlngle C..,ml1y unit Is 750 sq. ft. ^lso pointed out by Mr. Vlrt~ 15 the f~ct th..,t thn setback requirements are what ðctcrmlne~ tho maxImum sq. ft. of buIldable space on those Iota. Ms. Lðync ntatp~ th..,t tho existIng regulatIons have a nM-I and a RM-lA district, which r..,ngrR (rom S.A to (,.2 dwelling units por acro. She saId th~t the new Zoning Ordlnanco will comblno those Into one district, known nR RMF-~ dl~trict which will allow ~ dW9lling units per acro. She s..,id that this Is b~sically the Napløs Park area where approximately two lotn would bo requIred to construct ð duplex, however, a 5inq10 fnml1y unit will otl11 bo allowed. Commisslonor Wenzel asked why the RMf-f> ~iotrict 10 not lImited to one dwelling unit per acre. the s~me ðS R5-4, adding thðt tho land ftize 18 thft samo. ~s. Layne ~xplftlned thnt RS-4 reter~ to single f~Mlly ðnd RMf-~ refers to multi-fðmllYI the Inttor Is basically a duplex/triplex aroa. Mr. Jack Conroy, Presidont or Nðpl~8 1\ran P~ard o( Realtors, .poke in oppositIon to arbitrary reduction in density a& a benefit In Collior County. H. disaqreed with it statoment II1ado by C0ll1mJ8sSoner Wenzel that P.98 3 aao~ 063 fACE 69 --~-----------------~-----~---------~~---l . .. . . L· · . . . ~--- - ---"-.-- -- -=----- ---'---_.'--- ----- - _....&-- -...---- ~QO~ 063 PACE 70 ^uguat 11, 1981 .people aro our problem", ðnd ho said that "peoplo are a solution, too., oxplaining that thero aro certain things that the County cannot ~ave in an urban area without certain.numhers of people. He went on ~ . , rccord as opposed to tho phl10Ðophy that arbitrary reduction in dcnoity roquirements are of benofit to the County and said that the oppposlte may be nccompl ished. Ho sa id that "urblln sprawl" could compound the probloms of the County in that serviceo will still hllve to bo provided to tho namo numhor of peoplo only they will spread out further across tho County. He said thllt lIrbitrllry reðuction in density, whÐrever the district lies, may not be n justifiðble solution becausc thero has beon no evidenco presented that ð reduction from ~ dwelling u~its per ncre to 4 dwal11ng unitß ~r ncre or nny other numbers mentioned thUD tðr, would mðko thin n better community junt h~caUAO of th~ nUMbors uDod. He 8~ggo~ted thðt n port of tho proc~RD hnD to be "d~,"onatration of public benefit" prior to a reduction or any ~dju9tmont In the presont density reatrlctions. Ms. Lnyne continucd to oxpltl1n the proposed reductiono In density ðnd stated that the prftßont RM-IA which allows 12 dwellinq units per' ncre will be continued ns RMF-l? wIth 12 dwelling unit. per ncro. Sho said that is mi~-lino botween low and high donslty multl-t~,"ily dlstricts. Ms. tayne s1'lc! that tho pronent TDR-l dlDtrict: Is proposed tor dol et Ion. Ms. Lðyne stlltod tt.nt the pronont PM-2, which ran94Pø froln 9.';8 to 30 dwellIng units par acr~ 18 proponad to bocome RHF-16, which will b. red~ced to 16 dU.ðcra. Chð Irmðn piator .aoked if the figure · Hi· va 8 ., rage 4 1ft 1- ----- - -- - - ---- --------- ------------------- . , . .. .....~..........~.'t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"* _ ..___ _ _ _ __ _._ _ _ _ --"" 40....- _ _ _ - _._ - - __ - - - - - -- - _-a ^Ug'ùRt 11, ll)R 1 . . f/f chosen arbltrðrl1y? Ms. tnyno ßai~ that, or1qinally, tho '~tar! had decided on 18, becauso thoy wished to keep the numbers ae ~, l~, and 19, however, the C^PC recommon~ed that this numbor be reducod to 1(,. Mr. Virta Bald that th. amount of work thnt had gon~.lnto tho Wentry lovol housing" Is a part of tho reason for the C^PC'a recommp.nd~tlon. CommiDoloner Wenzcl asked if tho numhcr "1r,~ was "just taken out of the air. or was th~ro a reason for u~inq th~t numbcr? Mr. Vlrta said that thore wcre ð number of rensons thDt the nu~hcr ftl~" WðS choRcn, all of which led the staff to believe that it W~5 a good number for development purposcs, especially for entry level hou~lng. Commisalon~r Wenzel roiterated ~ story of two co~munltins, one on the en5t coast and ono on the went coast 1 both were on the wr.tcr, both had the same popuL'tlon. fie said that, in 19f:O, one limited th.ir bulldlngc to throe storien and ð mðxlmum of 15 dwellIng units per acre density, one dId not I ðnd~ todny, the com~unity that estahl1Rhcd the density limitations does not have half the prohlems that the other does, nor Is their popul~tlon ono h~lf as lnrgo. Com~IB81oner wenzel saId that that same community 10 not considerIng exp~nditures of millions of dollara for wl)tor/ccwIHJO (lxpnn!51on and Court;,ouso ~)(pan8ton as is _ iller County and that this is becauso of good planning and limitations on denalty. Ao said th~t he fee1ø that this proves that -limiting donsity will limit thO number of poopl. in a community·, adding that thiR wIll .p~y off In ton or twonty years". Referring to the tax incroase this yeðr, he Baid that Collier County ia just bO<]lnnlng to -feol th. pain of growth". Mr. Vlrta said that it i. not an iøaue that can be anftvored thl. paq. 5 eco~ 063 fACE 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ....- - . . . . . - - - - ---. - - -.- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - ---- - - -- - - --. ~ BOO~ 063 PACE 12 '(' ,) ^ ug us t 11, 19 fll simply, i.e. if th~ ~ounty wore to arhitrarily hold th~ density down to 1 dwolling unit por acre It could not afford that development, duo to tho cost of providing servicos. Ho Baid that a community of 80 litl. ðenoity would load to n tax structur. "00 far out of Bight-, as to to proclude ar.tunl ðevelopmont. Commissioner Wenzel disagreed, statlnq that, if there were only one unit per acre, thoro would not be a need for sewage plðnto ~n~ that septic tanks would be sufficient. Mr. virta 8grce~, adding that thern would, however, still bo ð need for other services. such os police, school buning, etc. Commißsloner Wenzol s~id thnt the population would bo 00 much 8m~llcr that fewor schoolø, buseR, etc. would be need~~. The discussion continuert, during which Chairman plstor s~id that, realistically, the Boord must realize that the -damage is do new and Wtho County cnnnot go backwarðo", propertleo have been p1ðtte~, ~nd, past Oonrds have approved these omðll sized lots, high densities, ctc. Commisalonor Wenzcl n~ld thnt he still thinks the highost number of dennlty in Collier county should be 15 dwelling units per nero. Ms. LDync ~l1id thnt the stn!f Is proposing that tho maximum bo 1~ dwellin~ units per nere. .. . . Co~missloncr Kru~e ~tcpped out of the room during tho a(oromentloned ~lausslon ðt 1:45 P.~. and roturned to the m~etlnq at 1:S0 P.M. . . . Ms. Lnyne etated that, currently, tho mulltfðmily RT district allo~ß 20 dwelling unite por acre end 30 for hotols/~ot.lo. r.he sði~ that it In proposed to roduce this to 1(, and 2';, res¡'ectively. This \) '" wnB discusnnd brlo(ly, during which CommieslQner.Wenzel said that Pitt¡ e fIj .. lit ..- - - - - - -...- -.- ------- --- --...... -.------------------.....- I '~-.....A _-1 _ -Â. "'~.~'-'''_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _L_ _ _ _ _.......___ ______ ____ ^UCJust 11, 19~1 hotoln/motcla ahould be limited to '0 dwelling unitø fit '. per acro. : the FVR, MH~O or Ms. Layne stated thðt no chlHI<Je Is proposed for MHnp dllHrlcts. The reasons for having certðin frnctions of a whole numbor as density restrictlono was dlscuBsed, during which MesÐr. Porry and Vlrta explalnod thnt the5n n~mbors aro arrived at by dividing tho minimum 0120 of tho lots by the number of oqunre foot In an ðcro. Ms. Layne added thðt thin numb~r 10 not evcn bccðuse an nero h~s 43,~~O sq. ft. Mr. Vlrta stated thðt the density figure Is ð max!mum figure and In the cðse of owncrnhip of only one ðcro wIth ~ density restrIction or ~.2 dwellIng unIts per acro, only six units could be conotructed. CollIer Count~ 5 po~tlon r~gnrdlng the pr~Rently plattod ~mnll lots was dlscusse~ further, durIng whIch CommissIoner Kruse raId that if the County does not r~cognlze thc~û s~all lots 09 ð Zoning disrict, then, thero would he ð prolIferation of non-conforming lots for whIch the flo ð r d '.0'0 U 1 d h ,'IV e to hell r pc tIt Ion n for va r I ð n c It sin 0 r d err 0 r t hit rospectlvo ownors to he able to uso them for constructing dwelling units. Commiss!on~r Wenzel Gtllted that ð person should be requlrcd to huIld on two lots if they are small and ~ vðrl~nco should be required if they ~~hed to build ð hone on only one of theß~ 8mðll lots. ChaIrman Plotor and CommIssioner Kruse pointed out tho amount of time ðnd money for staff ti~o that thlø would ent^ll and County ^ttorney Plckvorth stated that ther~ ðre alrea~y a lot of variances belnq considered on a roqul~r basis, for tho PM-l^ district, partly because the County has this kinð of problem, i.e. non-conforming lots. Tho propoøed dintrIct cnlled TTRVC wae oxplained by Ms. Layno aa a paqe 7 ~OOK 063 fAt{ 73 --..",~ m....... t.."'¡V- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -- · _ _ _ _ -.:. _ _ -. -- _ _ _ -- "-- -...:.., - - - - --- - - ---_.:.....- -- - - - - -- eCOK OS3 fACE 74 August 11, 1901 combination of the present travQl trailer ~nd recroðtionðl vohicles and tho campground districta. She said thðt the density will bo 36 dwelling units per acre for the recreational vehicles, and the campgrounds will be I? lots per acre. Referring to the ·E~ estates distrIct, Ms. Layne said that this i. not proposed for chango ðnd will remain at 1 dwelling unit per 2-l/4 ac r ð a . Propooc~ Agriculturr. dintricts wore explained by Ms. Lðyne who Baid th~t, prosontly, In the Coastol T\rea th, ·A" district's density Is I d',..oIllng unit por 5 lIcres and, in ðn effort to prese(vo tho true agrlcluturc UDC, tho propoßðl is to have two dlatrlcts un~er "'lr1culture. Sho 8tdd thðt 1\-1 will bl) 1 ("'..ol11n'7 unit ~r 10 ðcre.. Dnd 1\-2 wIll be 1 dwelling unit p~r 5 ðcrcs. This was ~iocussed at length, durIng which CommlAsioner Kruse stnt~d thnt she was concerned that tho agricultural dlatrict that allows for one dw~lllnq unit to he conotructed en 5 ncrc~ would encourag~ developcrs to buy nqrlcultural land and split It up Into five lIcre parcels. Ms. Lðyno said that it it werc zonod unr1~r curr('nt 20nln'J thla would be permiRsableo, however, It it 18 zoncrl under tho propost"" A-I it would not. roml'llsslonor I<rune a~.,.d ....hy tht're 10 ð need for two agricultural donsltl,cR lInd Buqqcsted thnt all agriculture landn have tho 1 dw~111ng unit per 10 acrel inateod. This was dlscuss~d !urthrr ðnd Ms. Layne said th^t tho 10 acre minImum would ðpply to ðOY arcð prosontly being used prim~rily ðS formland nnrl tho 5 ncro minimuM Would apply to thone area. that are being dcv"lopcd primarIly ðS homo øltes. ~s. Layno stated that the fact that tho land us.d to be In the Imnokftlce lIr~a Plðnnln9 ^gency ., Page 8 ,. - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- -- -.......---- ----------.-..---------- .-:M""4t... . -- - -. - - - - - - -..- - - - - -- --' --'-- -- - ------ - ---- ---- -. . ^ U'J U R t 11, 19 n 1 f/I doos not hðve ðny boaring on tha proposerl zonlng. ~r. Vlr~n stated that, historic~lly, ~qricultural land hðR been vieworl ðD a -holding zono- ðn~~ that thore are cort~in areas which are close in that will rightfully be dcv~lopad, th~ge arc the 8rCðD where the ^-2 will apply. Co~mißslon('r Kruse lIGked \o.'hero th~ line wIll be drawn nnd Mr. Virtð said thllt thlR hns not bc~n d~cld('~ lit thin point. Durln~ tho ongulng dIscussion, romminaloner Wenzel asked if the now densl ty had been nl rClH1y cstabllshed liB proposed, would the problems reg~rding the c~~e tl1at WDS conEldcred by tho ~oard this mornlng durIng negular SC~Rlon hoen lIvoldod, In thilt the developer would not have hnd the opportunity to choone b~tween ~.21 and 30 dwollln'.) unltß per ~cre for hln p~rtlcular ~~vcl~rmr.nt? Mr. Vlrt~ Baid that it would, c'ld<l1ng that \o.'hat the qent.le"\lIn WI'IS requcGtinq would hðve fit perfectly In the RMF-)~ diatrlct and he would hnvc heen rentricted to no more th1!n Hi dwellIng unIt!! per ðcro. Mr. virtð said thllt the Comprohensive Plan hae ~ definIte problem with the varIed densIty from fi." to JO dwclllnq unlt~ per acre, adðinq that the :\0 h.':Is bccon reducf'd to I*', however, there Is stIll a problf"m regðrdinq the apreðd froM -6.22- to the ")~", i.e. thla still lacks su!tlclc~t delln~ðtlon. commissioner Wenzol I'Iskeð why there needs to be ð minImum d~n51ty nnd ~u~qestoð that tho maximum ~ensity Is all that iø necesRory. Mr. Conroy Interjected thnt he hnllcv~8 the Po~rd i. confusinq the Zoning Ordinance ðnd tho Comprchons!ve Plnn. Commissioner Wen%el .ald that it is the combinntlon of tho two, And M~. Layne added that the t .land UftO Is what stoers one towards the approprlatoness or the type of paq. 9 ~co~ 063 PACE 75 o .- - - -~- - --- - --- - ._- --- - - --,.--.,..- ---------.-- --- .. .. _ __ _ _0_ _ _ __. _ _ _ _ _ _..L _ _..a....;, _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -......... - - - - - -- BOOK 063 FACE 76 ^uguat 11, 19111 development, thus, the need for zoning classifications of a specific nature. She said thot if thla wore not true, tho County could just st~to that nowhore in the County could thoro be a higher donsity than l6 dwollinq units per acro. Sho said that thero needs to be an intorconnection betw~on zoning and land une and that is why the minimum density 19 outlined for the multi-family ðistricta. ~r. virta Boid that, while thore ðrc problema with the numb~rs ranges, the use of a minimum and a maximum DlloW5 for better planning, i.e. utilities exp¡msion, etc. Comrnisnionor Wenzel asked wh~re co~~crlcal zoning is outlined on the chart and Mo. Lnyno sold thnt this 1~ not, bocause only that zoning which hos correlnting densIty requlrrncnts Is being discussed. She did say thoro will be threo ~1(fcrpnt rli8triets for what ia pro~tntly zoned ðS CRC. She also ßal~ thnt rðngrs for hotels/motels will be opplied, os per C1\PC r~commendations, ~t 1~ unlt~ per nere. The 1\grlcultural dlstrlctn wns ðincUGRCd agaIn, as ~aft the Intent of the staff to cncour~ryc tho non-rlnvclo~cnt of aqrtculurol U8e lands, and at the S6m~ time prc9crvin~ tho theory or smaller ~rcols for primary homcaltos, as outlinrd hy ~r. rrrry. Also dlscuoneð wa. tho rogulðt~ùn thnt ðll0~g ð trniler on ð nininuM of 10 acres for tho period of three YCArs the numhcr of Mohl1e homos ~llowed pcr acre tor a tr~ilor ~'rk, and, the method of ~oternlnlnq density, Includln9 the fact that thi~ ia b^9~d on the l^nrl aro^9 ^fter deducting sotbacks, ronda, utilities, eðÐcments, wnter mnnagement areas etc. Commlssionor Won:;:el IIske<' if the proposed dcnAlty "'Ill he appl1ctd to all new dcvolo~ont and ~eSArn. Porry IInd Vlrtð atatrò that they . . Paqo 10 " lilt ~; . . . ..- - - - -.. - - -.. -- -- - - -- .-- - -- .- - ---.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ~~ , . · . ---------------------~------------------_! "lI<JUst 11, 19P.l fir '. would. Chðlrmðn r1otor ot~ted th~t he holieve8 that tho stat! 18 heading in the right ~ircction,.~nð ho askod Mr. Conroy if ho had ðny furthcr commenta? Mr. Conroy statrd thðt he ia opposed to changing the dcnolty of the RM-2 district. He referrcd to tho pr~ß()nt dcnslty formuh as ·creative- and Bð1d thllt to ðrrlve lit Dny numher, ....hether It 11'1 fi, 7, or 0 unito per acro If! IIrhttrðry. Ho 5ðlr1 that this 18 one of the' few zono!J thn t docs not rcr¡ulro th i 5 1 whðt It requlrcs lnstoad, is basic Innd UBe roL,tcd to a c1r.nlqn. 11(\ sl'dr1 thl'lt thiR Is one %ono WhlHO the Inrqer the nize of the unit the More unIt" thðt cðn be constructod pcr acre ðnd it Is hns ð tcndency townrda hcnp.!itlng tho ~oro expenolvc and the lcHge unIts and pen.n)izing thf' srnð1]C'r units. Mr. Perry explldned that In the P.M-2 dIstrIct the dp.nalty of ncro is a function of lllnd nrea and IIP.utment. 110 sl'lld thl!t tho tOUll or the IIpðrtmento ðnl'i the lðnd together equl'lla tho total ~enßlty "ren to be uned In the denøity unit per IIcrc. 110 .,180 Boir1 that thp mðrket entllbl1sheR thli Rlze of apartmenta that clln be hullt. This expll'1natlon WIIB discuo~ed in length and led to n dlßcunslon on blll1cilng haIght, lInd whether or not the County ~as goIng to limit the heIght of bul1ðlnqs in an attempt to reduce donaity. ~r. rorry explained thllt the calculation method of determIning ðennity ....111 bft ultim~tely done ðway with it the proposed dennlty reotrictionn as outlined by ~~. L~yne ftre adopt~ð. Therefore, th~r. would be no need to attempt to limit denoity by l1mitinq height. Co~m18sloner wenzel concurred that there would not bft a need to li~tt h.l~ht If density 1. reduced. Mr. Conroy respectfully ~i8a9re.ð. 4) pag e 11 ~ eGO~ 063 fACE 77 ._---------------------~--~----------.~--~. G 1...____-----'----- --- - - ---....---- - - - -- -- - ----- ---- "'1~ ßGOK 063 fACE 78 ^ uq U 8 t 11, 1 9 En Mr. Conroy sft!d that this discussion would only take place it ~. every"no ðdmitted thl\t, in overy case, denaity is an evil. n. adðed that, in some cases, density might not be an ovil. He referred to Unit 4 or Park Shore, which he termed liS one of the most impressive living environmonts in the Country. Ho said that his entire argument ia not thnt overywhere 18 good, however, it hOB to relate to th~ way that tho community 1R planned. tie ðl~o atated thnt he. objects to tho ftrbitrary ftllm1nntion of the RM-2 denGlty formula. Commissioner Wen7.cl stated that he can only ace onft Qr~ð in the County where hiqh density is jUBtlflod and thðt 18 the w<"Itnr!ront tlreo. 110 stile! that this io justified bocnuse thero ~rc qovcrnmont raBtrictionn on mðkinq ony moro wlIterrront prop(!rty. lIowcvf'!r, he ~aid thllt there If> no roason to crowd anyono in the inland I'Irea~ wherf'! there are hundro~9 of thousands of lIcrQa ðval1nblo. ~r. Conroy dlncuGßcd whl'lt ho thinks wIll happcn whcn tho watorfront property In CollIer County i~ uned up, I.e. the dovelopors will hðve to croðte thelr own ðmenltieB, i.o. golf courao~. Chairman Wenzol suggosted that the otaff crento another zoning cl'ltøgory for waterfront lotn. Thla WðS rll~cunged, durlnq which Mr. Conroy ftald that he favoLs u~lnq cre~tlvc dcnl1n ~nd 11'1n~ use pll'lnnlnq to ðet~rmine den~lty. COMmlsnloner ristor 5t~ted that the propooed R~F-l~ district would stIll ðllow for design fle~ðbillty ~nd would elimlnðte 20 story buildings ðt tho came time. Mr. Conroy sold that he connidera that this Is based on the theory th3t ð11 hiqhrls~ bu~ldinqs ðro a aocial dinvðlue, ðnd h~ Is not willIng to tldmlt thnt this io a (ðCt. He said that tho COMmlsßlonor~ should not blðme peoplo rot inðppropriðte PaC) e 12 . lit '7' .. - - - -- - - -.... - - .- - --- -....- -- -- -----.,--------..--- ----------- '----------- -------------------------.......-----. ^ UCJ us t 11, 1 9 '" 1 ." " ,planning in the past. Commissioner ~ruse ðokod for clnrification as to , whethor Mr. Conroy in objecting to lowor density or tho method by which the figures were decidcð? Mr. Conroy 9~ld that density ~8 an iOBue cannot be looked at excopt within th~ frnmowork of ð maRter plan. He said that the ~rbitrðry detrrmlnðtlon to'lownr dp.nslty would be objoctionl'll. 110 f>l\ld that the P01.lrd hao to look lit ""her" the land h, what the bont us~ of th~t lond is for tho ontlro community, and, then determIne what kinds of d~nßlty OU1ht to cxlat on that p~rtlculnr piece of land. 110 aa 1<1 thðt he dOOR "'Jroe that thero ne~ds to bo less density In certnin ðr~as, however, thIn needn to bo considered on an lIrea by aroa b~nin whon th~t land io boing consldorcd for devolopment. CommIssioner rlator ey.plnlnc~ th~t the mðjorlty of the public is oppo9cd to buIldIngs of rxccßGlve h~lght arod thnt thin io the ~ajor complðint m~do to hIm. Mr. ronroy ßald thot he hellevos this stema trom past experlonces of those mombers of tho publIc, wheroin crime and violenco ðr~ rolated to bIg hul1dingn nnð crowds in the areao from which they liv~d bofore comIng to Collier County. He sôid that this does not have to be tho ca~o. Comml~Aloncr riator 8~ld that oxcessive traffic Is anothor reason, arldlng thðt he ~lno shnreR ð np.gative response relat~d to heðvy tr~f!lc. Commisslonor ~rueo Bðld that she alao 18 conccrncrl about crowdod communltlcs ðnð sh~ th!nko that the thoory that -loGO density ~can~ l~øB people" id Vhat ~otiv~t.s the proponent8 of the "low dc.-nslty· !(lSU(!. Sho øaid thltt she can und~r8tðnd the faction In Collier County thðt is oppoøed to high-rises and high denolty bocause oho also ðgre~s that the poac_ and quiet of Collier County iø a quality of lito that brings people her_ cnd ia what '89- 13 ßO~ 063 fACE 7S - -' - ----- - - - --- - - - - ---- -- - - ---- ------------..... ...- 1_________-'""'_______________ ----.- - ...------------- ðCOK 063 fACE 80 ^ugullt 11, 19A1 thoy are trying to preserve. Chairman pistor said that the propolled density figures aro re~11y a compromise betwoon whllt somO people would like and ",hat the County t. actually f'xperienc1nq. He said that ho consirlers thesa proposed flgures as -ð rcco~nition of reðlity" as woll aB a tool towards lIvolrling problems nS80ciatcd with high density in the pnst. Ho further stated that he does not b~liove that the new figures will negðte nQW subd:vlg1on~ from being constructed In much tho samo manner a8 they hnvo been constructeð in r~ccnt yt.tðrß. fie saId that he believes that tho staff hns Incorporated the feelinq of the qencrol public with what tho Boðrd wants, 1.e. -pre~~rvlng the idoa that thinqs will not get any worso ln Collier County duo to high density·. The discuG~ion contInued regarding the pros~nt Comprehensive Plan, the rolðtionnhip with th~t rlnn end hulk purchlloo of 111nð based on the speculation that, one day, it will br. ðevcloperl accordinqlYI the (act that the m~jorlty of tho Innd in thr. County Is prcsently %oned fer those designated uses outlln~d In the ComprehensIve Plan, as eKplained by Mr. Vlrla, ~nrl, tho fnet that benehfront prop~rty Is ncarco and may need to be h~ndlcð Dep~ratoly. Commlosloner wonzol øtntcd that he woul¿ .~rcfer to s~e recomnondntlons from the stntf r~~~rdlng a rezone applicatIon, b1Jscd on justl(1c~tion accordlnq to nee<1 for the propolled kind of use of th..,t pnrticular piOPfHty~' This was discussed brloCly, during which Co~mlÐslon~r Wenzel said that jU8t becauso tho comprehonnlve Plan OhOWÐ n plIrticulnr land uno plann~d for the future for A pnrtlculnr areA It may not bft noe~èd at the point in time when ..... . .. ......... the pe t 1 t1 0 n e r 1" r C' q u " s t1 n q t h" t kin dot use, s po c if 1 c 1111 Y if· .. P890 14 Iþ a _~_ __ - -- -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - .....- - .- - - - - -- --.. ...- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- ^ \19 u 9 t 1 l, 1 9 n 1 ~ '. 8ufficlent numbers of pooplo are not locatod In that particular ðreð. The discussion continued, Including the possible Inappropriðteneøl of certain zoning In th6 City of aoldcn Gate, the beneCiclal features of PUP (planned Unit Development) zonlnf]1 nnc1, Mr. Conroy's øtatom(!ont that the Ooard of Reðltors hns hlrp.d an independent ~conomic study group, led hy an Urb~n Economist from 1\lbnny, New York, rcqardinq whether or not devclo~ent is "paying its own wny" which he offered to submit to tho County CommlnRlon. Plllnner tee L/lync ~dcireßEcd P'.r. Conroy': objection~ to the r~m()vnl of the currcnt formula b~slß of detcrm!nlnq density from the proposed RMF-l~ dIstrict, ntntinq th~t the flexibIlIty of ~eslgn Is still ~vailable nnd the only thing th~t is hcln~ done is dropping the maximum donsity (rom 30 to l~ du/acre. .Shc nßI~ that, depending on how the archItect ~eslqn5 ð project, the re5ultin1 dennity c~n stIll come out the same ðS with the formula baß~d ~cnsity requlremcntR. Mr. Conroy r-ald th~t he i8 not concerncd with the smnller units, bccauoð l' - l~ du/ncre m~kCR GCnSCI he is concerned ,.,ith the taIlor bllilc'llngs like Park Shore which, when approprlatoly designed, can prnsently he con~tructcd at 25 du/ncre and stIll offcr the amenitlcs of large open spaces, approprIate Retback~, etc. Ms. Layne nald thðt pnrk Shorr was developerl ðS a PUD ~nd It dirl not have the fle~lbiIity of which ~r. Conroy Is speaking. She said that all the RM-' property that has been developod In the County han b.en built at th~ 1(, du/acre or under. Rhe laid th^t the hIgh densIty that one finds In Marco Is -RT- land and sho eddeð th~t thIs ....1'13 not buIlt under tho subject formula. "'r. Conroy stated that he mIght not ohjoct to thIs new density requirem.nt, If " L') !'ftge 15 ., ~GO~ 063 PACE 8f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- .~ ~ o ._----~----------~--~-------------~------- ~COK 06'3 PAct 82 "uguøt 11, 19B1 this io tho C~8Q. PUD districts were discussod further, durlnq which Commissioner Wonzol snid thot he fnvorod this kind of zoning as it 8e~ms to offer more control. Mr. Ceorge Vornndoe, stated that he waS a proponent of the past proposal thðt PUD'ø should ho taken from 5 ecres down to 1 ocre. He 6ald at thnt time he found out that the P-oard ðid not seem to eqree end today tho dl5cus~lon seems to indicðte th~t ~'D's ðro good for evcryt~dy. CommIssioner Kru~o sold that she hnB been speaking of largo pun's ond Chðirman rlator stðtcd thdt he does not agree that ell PUD'a arc neceasðrily good idcos. He soid th~t although they offÐr certðln controls h~ ðoes not wðnt to Dce 8m~11 p~rcelß ~uch as one acre d~velopcd ðS ð PUO hccnusc this offers too many options for development on thl'lt acro. Ho stlld thnt he bellr.vp.s th/)t what he objects to is tho perpetuðl floxlblllty of the pun and thnt thIs is not appropriately plðced on smðll parcelo. Commisoioner Kruse saId thút a proliferation of sma~l PUDlo could lead to ð proliferation of ncwogo trcðtm~nt pðckage plants, etc., which would crcnte more problems. She øaid thðt ð broad statement thðt -ruc's are good- is Inappropri~te, 8nd thnt It rc~lly depends on the pnrtlculðr plans for ench rC5pectlve PUP, reminding ~r. Vnrnndoo that the no~rd han elGo dcnled large PUD's In t h 6 p.] st. ~s. Betty ~u:ßc~lk asked it the density requirements for tho amoll lots d 1 BCU!Hled cðrll er would bo ðpp1icablo to future use of land of a s1mi1br sIze? ~r. Virtð sðl~ thðt the Intent of the proposed RMF-5 18 . to identify and reco~nlzo tho prrsently platted emðl1 lots which equote to fi du/acre. 110 s.,id thðt If this 70nlnq I'løtr1èt 18 ðpprov~d by the P"C). 1 ~ I/f - -..- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - -- ---- - -.- ----------------- . . r .' I - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - ---- --- ----. ^ugu8t 11, 19~1 fit '. ace, someone may roquest that tholr property bo rezoned accordingly, howðver, grnnting that zoning would be ð ~etermination of tho Poard. Chairman plstor stated that the Intent of the Board is to try to negate thIs kind of small lot from being created in the future, ~lthouqh there are certain lcgnl technicalities that will have to be considered, I.e. that denial of such zoning muot be justified. Mr. Perry stated that tho Board Rhould not dIscount that district from ovor baing used ag~in because if thore 19 a 20 acre parcel, and the developer Is wl1ling to put a large omount of tha~ 20 acres in open spaco, he mIght ask to develop 10 acros under RS-S which would allow ~o unlts1 however, on the overall project thoro would only be ~o units on the 10 acre parcel. County I\ttorney pickworth remlnd~d the Poard that thoro may he a caso wh~re a small pocket of un~eveloped property lics In the midst of these developod cmnll lots ond he sði~ that it would be h~rd to justify not allowIng a person to dev~lop his property In tho sam~ mnnror. Chairman plRtor saId that if thin 18 tho caso, perhaps It ~~uld be botter not to have the RS-S district and tho Boðrd 11øton to variances for developing non-conformIng lots instead. The incorporatIon of the Immokaleo 7.oning and the Coastal ^rea zoning dtstrlcts under one set of regulations was di~cussed, during which it waR questioned whether this will b. acceptable to the people in Im~okðlae. Hr. Vlrt~ a.1ted that, in January of 1981, tho Bo~rd directed that one Zoning Orðinnnco be developed county-wide. ^lso discussed was whet may be done In order to insure continuity ot land use within zoning distrlcts1 land uc.. related to .pecific neighborhoods, and, the present situation wherein there I. an inability Pa9 e 17 ecox 063 PACE 83 . ----......-----------------------.....---------------' . \._ _ _ _ ____ ________ ____ __ _ __ _ ___ _______...:.._ - ---1 , ^uquat 11, 1991 '. BCO~ OOB fACE 84 " I ~ ç: .,¡r ',t to Initiate a land use which is cHrectly related to Identical land use .: ~':.;:: I I \ "Î . I f'l ~ ¡ 't I' { ~ ! " on adjacent or clòlQ1~ prox~mated lands within areas which are zoned , ' for other thnn that particular kind of U80, ft8 was the recont ca.. where someone wished to construct a bnnk aerOBe the street fro~ another bank on land that was not appropriately zoned. Commissioner Wenzll J " Ðsked the 8t~ff to consider a metho~ of avoiding the -red tape- involved in such ~n inst~nco. Chairman pintar statod one d008 not -buy . I , . zoning- and that just becaune commercial land is acroes the otr.et, thðt does not insure anyono that an additional commercial v.nturo on the opposite sldo of tho otrect will be guarantoert. ^t tho conclusion of the ahove referenced topics, Chairman pistor asked staff whcn the proposed Zoning Ordinanco will bo ready (or considerðtion by the Board? Ms. L~yno explained that, according to Col1ior County's Special ^ct ~nd Chapter 163 o~ State Statutes, there muot first he a tentntivo report mndn by the CT\PC, then thore must be a tentative report made by tho ~CC, which will be sent back to tho CAPe for their consideration at a public hearing and the final report. She snld that aftor tho C^PC preparos a final report, the BCC will have ,to schedule ond advertise anothcr public hearing, thorefore, the tlnal ðdo\ ;on will be dclayed until some timo in October. Sho said that this Is tho samQ tlmetablo as was applied in 1~7.. .. . . . .' . '. . - ----- --- -----_._---.,...--------------------,- . . . #-,' 1 ,~'t Thore bftlng no further bualnoss the meeting w~s ad10urneð by orðer of the Chair at 3.0~ r.M. .. . ... Pðq. 18 , " Q . '., " litli . . , ...........- ~ "'. .."......""....,.;,.,-"., '--;---"'".'~""'-",..,-