Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/28/1981 W --.-.---------------.-----. -------.-- Naples, Florida, July 28, 1901 " LET IT DE REMEMBERED, that the Board. of county Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the governing -- board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, ~et on this date at 1130 P.M. in Conference Session in Building -F- of the Courthouse Complex with the following members present: ~.\ CH^IRMAN: VICE CHAR 1M AN : John A. pistor cl1 fford Wenzel c. R. -Russ- Wimer (1: 38 ) Mary-FrðnCes Kruse Dav id C. Drown ALSO PRESENT: Darlene Davidson, Deputy Clerk, Donald pickworth, County Attorney¡ Irving Berzon, Utilities Manager, C. William Norman, County ~ðnagerl Terry virta, Community Development 11ministrator¡ and, Lee Layne, Flanner. AGENDA I. Report on proposed amendment to -ST- Ordin~nco by adding language re TDR's to contiguous land and increasing land area requirements for transfer to non-conti~uous lands. ,~ II. Report re amending zoning Ordinance by removing hotelS, motels, ~pðrtmcnt hotels, and time share facilities from permitted principle uses and structures and placing them under permitted provisional uses and structures re -RT-, -rvn- and -GRC- Districts. " Page 1 ',' 'OOK 062 PACE,529 ----------------.. ---------------- ----------------------------------- aOOK 062 PACE 530 July 28, 1981 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ·ST- AND -TDR- ORDIN~NCE - ST~FF DIRECTED TO UNDERTAKE FURTIIER STUDY OF PRESENT ·ST- LANDS RE APPROPRI~TENESS.OF OVERLAY, STUDY APPROPRIATENESS OF ZONING BASED ON LAND USE, INCORPORATE TRANSfER OF LAND WITII DEED RESTRICTION RE PRESERVATION FOR ~LL TDR'S Community Development Administrator Terry virta referred to the Executive Summary, dated 6/6/81, which was originally submitted as part of the 7/l~/8l agenda package. He outlined the contents therof, regarding the Bee direction to redraft the Zoning Ordinance relative to TDR's and to include a different assignment of same for contiguous and non-contiguous lands. lie said that it was the consensus of the Board during the workshop of May 19, 1981 that the staff consider additional chang~s to ·ST" land TOR's. He said that the proposed changes include allowing for transfers to contiguous lands on a one-to-one basis with .ST" lðnds used as part of the open space of the overall development and the transfer of non-contiguous lands on the basis of 1/2 of a unit for eÐch 10 acres of "ST" land with the "ST· land be~ng deeded to the County along with any minernl rights. He said an additional change is to limit the period for transfers to two years. Mr. Virta aaid that the question still needs to ~e addressed related to the mineral rights and he added that he has not heard the results of an investigation by the County Attorney regarding tho legalities of mandating the dedication of these right~ as part of the TOR process. . * . Commissioner wimer joined the meeting in progress - Times 1:38 P.M. . ~ . , . .', ,'~ Page 2 .- ------------------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----- July 28, 1981 There was a lengthy discussion regarding ownership of mineral rights and the need to transfer them to the County when they apply to land involved in the TOR process, during which Commissioner wenzel stated that he believes that if a person owns the mineral rights, then he should be required to transfer them along with the land that is the subject of tho TDR process. Mr. Virta stated that this brings up the possibility of someone who owns the mineral rights and the surface land selling the mineral rights prior to the TDR process being initiated. County Attorney pickworth agreed, saying that as a practical matter, he is not sure the County has to worry about obtaining the mineral rights in respect to the purpose that the County is trying to accomplish with the TOR process relating to "ST" lands. He said that, certainly, if a person owns the mineral rights, then, tney ought to transfer them to the County in addition to the surface ownership of that land. Also discussed was the possibility of only allowing TOR's for land that is suitable for development. Commissioner Kruse pointed out that if the purpose of the TOR process is for the County to rLcscrve lands that might otherwise be developed, then, why offcr TDR's to ·ST" land at all. Mr. Virta stated that the ·ST" overlay does not mean that land cannot be developed, and that under certain circumstances, it can be. Another point of view discussed was the retenticn of mineral rights for the purpose of ùrilling for oil, etc., and that this would not necessarily have to equate with disturbing the land, because oil resources can be ta pped through offset or slant drilling, as outlined by Commissioner Kruse. She sald that the intent of the TOR process has to be defined clearly, and that the Bo a r d has to decide if its interest Page 3 &OOK 062 PACE 531' _------:----------------------------. . I lies in the preservation ot the land or tho oil/minerals under it. ----------~-----~ &;~062 -;.cE532---------- July 28. 1981 I County Attorney Pickworth outlined the relative criteria upon which an owner of mineral rights can disturb the land which lies above a mineral find, and he explained that the incident ownership of mineral rights supercedes surface ownership. Certain possible inequities regarding the mandDting of transfer of oil and mineral rights to the the County was discussed as well as the County Attorney's explðnation that the surface ownor is giving up hie right to develop that 1Dnd in roturn for development rights elsewhere, and, the mineral rights owner is not going to get anything. Also, that the County hðs contributed to the creation of a "false· market for the' TOR's of ·ST· land by inititating the relevant Ordinance was discussed, during which Commissioner Wenzel said that "ST" land is currently taxed on the basis of $50 per acre, yet the SDme ·ST" land has reportedly sold at prices as high a3 $1,000 per acro just because the County allows this land to be eligible for TDR's. The size of parcels that c1.1rrcntly have an "ST· overlay on them was discussed, during which Commissioner Wimer objected to small parcels of land having this overlay because they could be of. no use as a preservation area even if the County owned them. Be objected to the fact that they arp. eligible for the TOR process. planner Lee Layne outlined the areas where most of the ·ST" lands lie, including the mangrove areas along the coast ðnd along Range 25 and 26 which is mostly cypress heads. Tho fact thðt the State and the Federal Government already have regulations that prohibit development of mangrove areas was discussed paq. .. ..- - -- -- ---- - - --- -- - -- - ---- ---- --- --- ----------------------~ July 28, 1981 in length and, in answor to Commissioner Kruse, Ms. Lðyne said that the Board rejected an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance laBt year that would have removed "ST· from mangroves. The discussion continued, lncluding whether or not the property Appraiser would raiso the taxes on mangrovo propcrty that no longer was -ST·J what the rcsu1ts might be if mangroves were taken out from the ·ST" overlay criteria, the fact that under the present ordinance, development rights for approximately 6500 dwelling units could be transferred, based on 13,000 acres of ·ST· land eligible for TDR's. Mr. Virta stated that if the amendment that was proposed lact May haè been adopted, that number would have been reduced to 650. After a lengthy discussion regarding the tax base for -ST- lands, and the unconfirmed reports that such land is selling for as high as one hundred times that amount per acre, Commissioner Wimer stated that he believes that the County should purchase all tho ·ST" land at the $50 it is asscssed ðt and eliminate ðll the problems associated with TDR's. County Attorney pickworth said that if the owners of th~ ·ST" land were not willing to sell at $50 per acre and the Covnty went through condemnation proceedings which resulted in proof that the land was worth 10 times that much, than the ·ST" lðnds could be taxed at a higher base and the County would profit anyway. ^fter further discussion as to the viability of continuing the processes of ·ST· overlays and the -TDR's of same, Mr. Ed Kant, reprcsentlng Collier Development Corporation, addressed the proposed amendment soction by section and offered his comments and/or questions regarding same. He outlined the portions thereof that he felt Page 5 ~OOK 062 PACE 533 --~-----------~--~--~~---------_. ----- --------- ------ - --------- - - -- aOOK 062 PAGE 534 July 28, 1981 demonstrated certain inequities and inconsistencies. He referred to the amendment as lacking in continuity and uniformness. He referred to certain definitions that he feels are inadequate and he stated that by requiring some land owners to deed their property to the County and certain others to only guarantee non-development could be construed as the creation of a -favored- class. * * * Commissioner Brown left the the room during the above-referenced presentation at 2:10 P.M. and returned at 2:18 P.M. * * * Mr. Kant also objected to certain portions of the amendment that outline cnlculations for TDR's, stating that they are confusing. He also stated that the portions of the amendment that refcr to a two year time limit are not ~pecific in that they do not explain when the time begins. Upon conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Kant stated that he believes the present Ordinance ~s working fine and that the amendment is not necessary. He asked the Board to conBid~r another workshop on the proposed amendment after the staff has corrected the various areas that he has shown to be in need of clarification. A discussion ensued regarding the methods of taxation of these .ST- lands and Mr. Kant's statement that these lands are taxed the sðme as any lands with the same zoning, i.e. ·A-ST- is taxed the same as vacan t · A· land. Commissioner Wimer stated that he does not agree with guaranteeing some land and donating others in the TOR process if surface land Page 6 - ----- -- -------------------------- ----------------------------------- July 28, 1981 ., rights are to be giver. up, so should the land. He said thðt this i8 the only way to guarantee non-development of land. He said that ðll land involvod in the TOR process should come into public ownership and that the TOR process should only be applicable to tracts or land large enough to be of real benefit to tho public and sufficient in area to be ~anðgeablc. Commissioner pistor agreed. * * .. Commissioner Brown left the room at this time - 2:37 P.M. . ... * Commissionor wimer stðted that, if the County is going to use· this as a tool to acquiro the lands, he suggcsts that the staff re-evaluate the lands presently under the "ST" overlay and determine which lands would be of real benefit for public ownership and why. Further, he would like to see the Plðnning staff bcgin this inventory ðnd set values on that beneficial land, i.e. mangroves should be identifiEd as mangroves; marshlands ðS marshlands; and, then, each should be identified with /J value, I.e. mangrove areas should be given a lot higher density credit and marshland located inland sho~ld be given ð lower density credit. He said that all small piaces of land should be eliminated. He added that he still prefcrs to buy the land Dnd eliminate this idea altogether, however, this method will at least be more realistic. He said that the origin/Jl basis fo: ·ST· delineations were preparcd from a 6011s map drawn up around 1929, and he feels that -ST- lands need to be more accurate and reasonable. He further clarified that he finds no fault with the property Appraiser for the ~ethod In which he is taxing this -ST- land because of all the unknowns, however, if land is not desirable for public ownership, the Page 7 ~OOK 062 PACE 535 __ _ _. _._ _ _ _, __ _ _ ...__ _ _ __~ __. __ _ _.... __ __ _ _ _4_ -- - - - - - -- -" - -- - -- - -- - --- --- - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- --- July 28, 1981 BOOK 062 PACE 5.3ß -ST" 8~ould be removed and lt should be properly. taxed. He also sðld that the values of which he ls speaklng is to b. assigned according to value to the public, 1.0. recroatlonal, beach- front" estuary, watershed, etc. Commissioner Kruse stated that, if all the land presently under government control were eliminated, she does not believe that there will be enough land left that offers a value to the public to even worry about, and she concurred with Commissioner Wimer's suggestion. She also stated that she is opposed to certain criteria, i.e. the presence of dwarf cypress, as being used to define a value to the public, and she urged the staff to consider only lands that are a real benefit to all the people in the County as those worth ·ST· designation. Commissioner wimer concurred, adding th~t his intent is to assign high values to that land which is part of the nutritional food chain, etc. The discussion ðlso incl~ded the need for the TDR process to be applicable to everyone on a fair basis and not be geared cowa~ñs the large landowner only, as expressed by Commissioner Kr~se. Commissioner Wimer also brought up zoning of property in relation to the land use and said that he considers mangroves as mangroves, and that pcrhðps they should be zoned as mangroves and not RM-l or whatever district they fall in. This was discussed briefly, and Mr. virta asked the Board for specific direction. Comminsioner Wimer stated that he WQuld like the staff to pretend that the existing zoning classifi- cations do not apply and they should study the land and decide how it ought to be zoned, according to proper land use. Thore was a len9thy Pag. 8 .- - .-- - -. ..- - .--.-- -.-----...---.--. --- ..-.-..... --' -.------------------ -------------------------------- July 28, 1981 discussion regarding what might happcn 1f a person has property that 1s presently zoned multi-family and aftcr this study thc staff decides that, according to land use, a preservation type of zoning classification is appropriate, during which Mr. Virta said that he did not believe that the County can deprive a property owner thÐ right to use his land. Commissioner Wimer clarified that he is interested in the best use of the land and that other countics have undertaken this kind of zoning and the Courts have upheld the rezonings. He said that if mangroves are not suitable for multi-residential they should not be zoned for them. This was discussed further ðnd County Attorney pickworth ~tated thõt Dade County has applied ð zoning classification for preservation and the Courts have upheld this. He said that there would have to be evidence that that land should be preserved, and Commissioner Wimer said that is understood. lIe said thðt st...f! should study the zoning in the County based on today's knowledge. He said that this is more desirable than the TDR proce5s, whereby false value on undevelopable lands have been created, or at least the mechðnism for creating these false values have been created. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the fact that the State end the Federal Governments alrcady protect mangrove areas and that because of the ·ST· overlay, owners of this land pay little taxe51 the fact that County ·preservation · requirements may not be neccessary, and, the possibility of rezoning the mangrove areas in Marco Island. Commissioner pistor reported that there are 7,000 * acres of mangrove on the Island and that most of it is Zoned RM-l or RM-3 with an ·ST· overlay. He remarked that if ·ST- is removed from this land and it is Page 9 MOK 062 PAGE 537 ______ _ ___.. ___a ~... ~_a_~____ -.-.-- --- -- - - ------ ---- ------ · ---------------------------------- BOOK 062 PACE 538 July 28, 1981 assessed at the price of other sim11arly zoned land, the tax base would grow rapidly In Collier County. ^lso discussed was how that land would be affected in regards to becoming -undevelopable- if 1t were zoned as a mangrove district, and County Attorney pickworth said that the land wo u 1 d not become undevelopable by virtue of this kind of zoning, what wo u 1 d happen is that the County would be saying tha t , if and when the owner obtained Fcderal and State pcrmits to dev£lop the mangrove, then, the underlying zoning would t~ke precedence. The affect that this would have on the tax base was discussed again, and Commissioner wimer stated that assessed value is not at issue, what is ðt issue are lands of value to the public. Commissioner wimer asked thðt this topic be brought back for another workshop, and said that he would like to see the amendment stipulate thDt all TDR's would require an automatic transfer of deed, whether contiguous or non-contiguous. Commissioner pistor agreed. County Attorney Pickworth also rccommended that the transfer of deed include a guarantee of preservation deed restriction. The discussion continued after which Chairman pistor directed the staff to rework the ordinance with the recommendations outlineå by Commissioner Wimer and Mr. Pickworth, to take a second look at all -ST- land as recommended by Commissioner Wimer¡ and to prepare ð report for a workshop at ð later date regarding the appropriate zoning of land, based on land use. * * * RECESS - TIMEI 3100 P.M. - 3:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened with Commissioners Brown and Wimer absent. Page 10 --------------------------------- -------------------------------- July 28, 1981 * . . DISCUSSION REG~RDING TIME SHARE FACILITIES IN RELATION TO APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS AS PROVISIONAL USES - STAFF TO REWORK PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALLO\ilNG SAME IN "RT" AND" FVR" DISTRICTS ~S PERMITTED USES AND IN "GRC" DISTRICTS A5 PROVISION^L USE Chairman pistor expressed his feeling that time share facilities should be prohibited from all but the "RT" Districts and that they should be a provisional use. Community Development Administrator virtð stated that, pursuant to ð CAPC w~rkshop approximatelY two months ago, hls staff has developed an Ordinance which would treðt time share facilities in the sðme manner as hotels, motels, and apðrtment hotels as provisional uses. He said that this would rcquirc an advertised public hearing before the Board wherein the Board would have discretion over each such facility. He said that it is his opinion that there are certain problems related to land use and legal perspectives in prohibiting timo share facilities from the commercial districts and only allowing them in the "RT- districts, especially when hotels and motels Ðre allowe~ 1/1 ~ommercial districts. He said that if the Board concurs that tjme share facilities are to be treated in the same manner as hotels, motels, and apartment hotels, one faction of this group cannot be excluded from a district without excluding the others. He said at the present time, according to the zoning Ordinance, hotels/motels arc permitted in -RT-, "GRC" and "FVR- zoning districts. He said that, because they can be considered as similar to transient lodging uses due to certain unique qualities that they share, he is recommending that they all be considered as permitted provisional uses. He said that staff considers PlIge 11 BOOK 062 PACE 539 ------ - -- - --- - --. -- --- - ------ -- -- -- -- - --. --------------------- - ..----.---------- July 28, 1981 BOOK 062 PAGE 540 that time share facilities do not compliment reaidential or multi-residential land uses Dnd should not be treated as such, thus, they should not be permitted in the RM-2 or other residential districts. Discussed briefly was the fact that at the present time, hotels and motels are permitted in the -CI- district because this district enjoys all the principal useß of the -GRC- district, as pointed out by Planner Lee Layne. County ^ttorncy Pickworth explained that there are those who do not think that time share facilites should be treated as transient lodging facilities and that they should enjoy the same privileges as a condominium. Mr. Virta stated that his concern lies in discrimination between hotels, motels, etc., and time share estate facilities. Deciding upon which philosophy the Board will take and looking at this situation according to land use purposes was suggested by County Manager Norman. He reiterated that Mr. Virta has said that by virture of this comparison and/or because of similarities, the interval ownership facility is equated to hotels, motels, etc. He said that if this is the posture the Board takes, then, interval ownership facilities should be allowed in the districts currently allowing hotels, motels, ðnd apartment hotels. Commissioner Kruse said that if the choice is to treat these time share facilities aq either a condominium or as a hotel/motel type of use, she prefers the latter. Mr. pickworth agreed that they ought to be treated as a commercial venture and as a transient lodging facility. He said that he feels comfortable that there is suCficient rcason for this. He also Page 12 . -- - - - -- - -------------- --- ----------- . . ---------------------------------. July 28, 1981 concurred with Mr. Virta that the County must treat them in the same ~Dnner as hotels and motels and must guard against discrimination between the two in an effort to avoid unnbcessary problems. Com~iS5ioner wimer stated that he also believes that interval ownership facilities should be treated as hotel/motel uses. He said that he also is agreeable to treating all such uses as provisional use structures. He asked if it would be a problem if interval ownerships could be prohibited from "RT- districts? Mr. Virta said ~hatthe problem lies in discriminating between the interval ownership units and the hotel/~otel units and he added that, if they are all treated alike, and prohibited from being permitted in the "RT" districts, then, all the hotel/motel useS presently lying in "RT" districts, including Vande~bilt and Mðrco Beach, would become non-conforming. In answer to Commissioner Wimer, Mr. Virta stated thðt he does not see a problem with prohibiting these uses in the -FVR" di5trict. Commissioner pistor said that this would affect Goodland to ð minor extent. Chairman pistor stated that he would still like to see these interval ownership facilities prohibited in the "GRC" d~strict. Commissioner Wimer said that they are really a commcrcial entcrprise and, as long as they have to meet the stipulations of a provisional use, he does not see any real problem with having them located in the -GRC" district. Mr. Pickworth addressed the proposal to make all these uses provisional uses. He said that there are some legal problems involved in the proposal and that he did not feel that the Board could "make it stick". He said that hotels, motels, and all interval ownership Pðg e 13 aOOK 062 PACE 541 ---- - ----- -- ---- --- -- ---- ----- --- - --. . . facilities being treated differently than other kinds of commercial ventures could cause legal problems, and that to sustain this action tho Board would have to demonstrate certain unique features regarding -- --- --..- --- --... - -- -- --' - - -- - --,-- - - - - - JUl Y - 28,1981--- - -- -- -- -- - -\ BOOK 062 PAGE 542 these co~mercial ventures that would be in the relevant districts which mak6 them different from other commercial ventures in these same districts. He clarified that these differcnces would have to be land use related. He said that the argument would have to stand up to a comparison of these kinds of usea and the other 99 pcrmitted uses under the -GRC" zoning classification, for instance. He said that if the Board uses the example of those commercial establishments that have traditionally been treated as provisional uses, i.e. automobile services, then, the differences in that kind of venture as compared to other permitted uses is evidcnt, however, he is not sure that the same would apply when comparing motels, hotels, and time share facilities. He reminded the Board that the results of this comparison must be used as the basis for ·singling out" the transient lodging uses for a different form of regulation than that which is applied to other permitted USC3, b~5ed on land use considerations, in or~~r to justify applying the provisional use status. Further, Mr. pickworth stated that applying the provisional use category may not accomplish that which is the Board's intent in that a provisional use is granted to a petitioner meeting specific criteria as outlined in the zoning Ordinance. He said that if this criteria is met, a developer has the legal right to have the provisional use granted. II£! said that the criteria is the same for all provisional uses and 1s all land use related. He said that it is his belief that, in most cases, whatever Pðg. 14 - - -- - --- -- -- - ~--- - - .------- --- --- --- ----------------------- --- --,- - -----. July 28, 1901 it takos to meet tho criteria, wl11 be met by the determined developers and if thp.y are not granted the provisional use they will just go to Court to get it approved. He said that he believes that all that will be accomplised will be the Board becoming an intcrmediate step in the ðevelopment of interval ownership facilities. Commissioner Wimer questioned the need for considering the application of provisional uses for the subject types of facilities under the circumstances outlined by the County ^ttorney and Mr. Vrita said that he requested this be considered in response to C^PC direction. He said that the proposed ordinance was developed in response to the CAPC and that he considers it as ð vehicle upon which to dcvelop a discussion. He said that thcre were a lot of legal questions that required answers. Further, Mr. Virta said that he is not sure that, based on the definition of transient lodging and the nature of traffic that goes to the sight, often times the ancillary commercial that goes along with it could in itself be considercd as a unique impact. Also there is the impact of service perso~~~~ thôt would go along with transient lodging which would con~ribute towards the development of sufficient critcrið for making this kind of use a provision~l use. Attorney pickworth said that the burden of substantiation lies with the County, however, if the reasons are there, they are t.here. lie suggested that the districts where these kinds of uses might be applicable should be analyzed carefully and the present zoning considered from a land use point of view. He said that perhaps the Board could restrict the amount of land required for these kinds of uses, similar to what happened in the City, i.e. the City allQwed Page 15 800K 062 PAGE 543 ----- -;----;- - -- ---- ------ ---- -- --- -- --- - .__ _ _.,. __ __ _ ___ ___ _---- __ ___ _ _ _ __ - - -- --'- - --- - ---1 BOOK 062 PACE 5~4 July 28, 1901 I transient lodging facilities in the same district as they allowed residential condominiums for a long period of time and then, when the character of the area bocame predominantly residential, they changed the zoning so as to prohiblt the transient lodging facilities based on that fact. He said that this is on~ of the strongest justifications for a zoning change. The methodology of the City of Naples' handling time share facilities was briefly outlined by Mr. picKworth, according to information within a letter from City planner Roger 8ðrry, including the fact that the City permits time sharing facilities in certain areas and they are made "special exceptions" in others. He said that the County could, perhaps, do the same thing. The discussion continued regarding the proposed ordinance, provisional use applications, and the present .RT" districts. Chairman pistor said that he favors allowing the time share facilities in -RT" districts ðS permitted uses and as provisionðl use of some other special catûgorized use in other districts, if this could be accomplished legally. Mr. pickworth suggested that they also bo allowed as permitted uses Ln the "GRC· district, and Chairman pistor disagreed, stating that he considers that there is too much "GRC- property all through the County and that th~s would encourage too many time share projects. Commissioner Wimer stated that he did not believe that thero is that mJch "GRC" property that would be desirable for this kind of project to begin with and Chariman pistor pointed out that it may not be desirable but they still will be constructed. Complaints from residents and the areas from which they come was Page 16 ----- -- --------------------------'" -------------------------------- July 28, 1981 discussed briefly, during which Commissioner pistor stated that the most complaints come from people concerned about -RT- Districts, which includes Marco Island and Vanderbilt. Commissioner Wimer added that there is a lot of -GRC" property involved too. Commissioner Wimer stated that he does not believe that the Board is going to come to any resolvc at this time, however, every Commissioner has expressed a dcsire to greatly restrict this type of activity in response to many residents who feel that thic is not really compatible to the type of development that is desirable on a large scale in Collier County. He said that he would like to ask the staff for their help in developing the best method of restriction regarding time share projects. * * * Commissioner Wimer left the meeting at this time - 3:38 P.M. Attorney George Varnadoe, representing Captran Development, spoke in favor of interval ownership facilities and objected strongly to any comparison of them to transient lodging facilities such as hotels/motels. He stated that he considers interval ownersh1p no differently than he considers ownership for 52 weeks a yeðr by one .person who rents or leases his codominium to one or more tenants throughout the year. He said that the Board is not considering rcgulating land use¡ they are considering the regulation of ownership. He referred to the Florida Statutes which he claims prohibits form of ownership discrimination and stated that time share facilities owners Dre no different than owners of any other condominium. He said that he considers the proposals being discusscd today as -legislation by Page 17 " MOK 062 PAGE 545 ,1·' ~. '::.:~" ;~l - -- -.---- ------ ---- ------ -------- -- ----- --' ;? i~~{ '.'\1 ...\. - __ __ __ - __ - _--- ___ - - _-- - - __ - _'_ __ - - __ __ 0'- -- July 28, 1981 ßO~K 062 PACE 546 hysteria-, in rosponse to p~ople who have an unfounded fear of this new idea for time shared facilities. Commissioner Kruse said that sho cannot give examples of problems associated with time share facilities in Florida, however, there are many examples that she could point out that have resulted in Europe where time share facilities are widespread. She took exception to Mr. Varnadoe's references to objcction to ownership, and stated that her objections lic in the development in the community and its entire character. He said that there is a totally different commitment on the part of an owner who lives here 52 weeks a year than there is on the pðrt of 52 diffcrent owners who only live herc one week~ regar~i~g community responsibility. She said that it is a matter of investment in the community, i.e. lifestyle, development, interest in government, etc., or lack of it thðt bothers her. She said that the owner of a hotel has a large i~vestment to worry about regarding the community: Mr. Varnadoe stated that he does not believe that an interval owncr has any less commitment than does a year-round owner. Commissioner pistor outlined some problems that a friend of his has experiencp.J in ð time share facility, including the condition of the building deteriorating rapidly and the resulting inability to resell his portion of ownership. ~r. Varnadoe replied that these are not land use related problems and ~oncluded by asking the Board to consider his position ~hat time sharo facilities are no different that condominium facilities and, therefore, should not be restricted from being applicable to those zoning districts ~here condominium projects are permitted. He suggested that the staff give the proposals more research. Page 18 . ._~ - -- - - - --- ------ -- ---- -------- ----- 1 ' ' -- - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - - -- - - -JUl:;-2 -;:- -1-9 ~.- - - -- ---- Mr. Konn R. Koi~, President of Captran Resorts International, spoke in favor of interval ownership facilities and stated that he and his associates have worked closely with various governmental agencies, such as those governing Sanibel Island, in establishing guidelines regarding this kind of use, and offered to work with the Collier County staff towards this end. He disagreed with Commissioner Kruse's statements regarding lack of caring about the community on the part of the owners of time share facilities and he also replied to Chairman pistor's comments regarding rapid deterioration of a facility on the basis that this implies that it happens by virture of the kind of ownership, which, he claimed is not the reason that it happens. lIe said that the owners of time share facilities have a geat deal of money invested and that they do care about the community, the local governments, and the general upkeep of their units. Mr. Dob Taylor, representing Mariner Properties, Inc., spoke on the need for rcgulation directed at the method of sales practices rather than towards the kind of ownership and the proper plac~ for these kinds of facilities. He said that when time sh~re facilities are located in Commercial areas they are less attractive to the buyer and this generatcs questionablc sales practices. He said that he agrees that -RT- is the district that thesr. time share facilities should be placed and he reported that on Sanibel, they are permitted in Tourist/Multi-family zoning districts. He offered to work with staff to develop proper guidelines and stated that his firm has gathered relevant data and statistics which he will be glad to turn over to the ataff to help them In this effort. He remarked that he understood the Page 19 &OOK 062 PACE 547 - ---- -- - --------- ----------- ---. - -.- .1~~ -- -.- ~- -- - - -- --- - - - - - -- .-- - - - - -- - -.- ..- --' July 29, 19B1 062 PACE 548 concern of the Commissioners in respect to those time share facilitoa located throughout Europe and he pointed out that these are generally 500 units or more and that he does not fecl that this kind of a project would be appropriate to Collicr County either. He asked the Board to consider that the real areas of concern include location and sales practices. The idea of provisional uses for timo share projects was discussed again briefly, during which Mr. Norman asked M;. Taylor if he would be agreoable to this concept and if they would be willing to work with the staff to dcv~lop this concept? Mr. Taylor replied affirmðtively. Mr. Norman aSKed the same of Attorney Varnðdoe and he replied negatively, ðddlng that he sees no need because his client, Captran Development, 16 building condominiums. He said that how many people that his client is selling a condominium to has nothing to do with the kind of project thðt is being built and that he has no intention of backing down from that legal position. He ßaid that, anytime the County attempts to limit his client as to what he can build by having them go through the provisional use process for som~thlng that is permltte.d under the zoning regulations, his remedy is going to be In the Courts. Ho said that he would not subject his client to that kind of discrimination, which is what he believes it is. When asked if his client would sue tho County if time shðre facilities are prohibited in -RM-2- districts, by Chairman pistor, Mr. Varnadoe raplied negatively, explaining that his client believes that the appropriate place to build this kind of a facility is in -RT- districts. He added that he did think, however, that the County would have ð .legal battle if somebody wero to deciðe Page 20 .------ ..-_.~ .-.- -----..---- ---'- -- --'-'- --- - - -- -- -.------- ------------------------- --------- July 28, 1981 that they wished to construct ð time share project in the -RM-2- district, based on the Florida Statutes. possible legal ramifications of prohibiting time share facilites from being constructed in -RM-2- zoned areas was discussed briefly again, during which County Attorney pickworth stated that if the Board attemp~s to restrict time share facilities by making them provisional uses and not ðllowing them to be constructed in certain ðrCBS, the Board will undoubtedly force someone to try the County in relation to the -RM-2- district. Mr. Varnadoe stated that, although he totally disagrees with the classification, if the County decides that it is going to classify time share fùcilities the same as hotels and motels, i.e. transient lodging, then he does not see how one of thcse classifications could be allowed as a permitted use in ð district ðnd not the other. He said thðt, from a legal standpoint, the County would be inviting a legal argument. The possible strain or lack of strain on the utilities when ð time share facility is constructed was discussed, during which Utilities Manager Berzon explained the applications of use regardi~~ ~his kind of use, seùsonal influx versus steady daily use¡ and, the fact that the stresS would not show up regarding water and sewagc until the capability of the systems were reached, at which time, because they would be requiring the availability of utilities year round, it could pose a straining effect on utilItIes. He also stated that, because this could result in some problems, he suggested that the utility capabilities be studied carefully wherever this kind of a use is proposed. ^ftcr further discussion, Chairman pistor directed the staff to Page 21 M~ 062 ftltE5t9 _-- __ -r- ---------- - ---- ---- -- - --- -- ---- I\OOK I . -- - - -- -- - -- --'- -- --- -- ---- - - - --- -- --- July 28, 1981 062 PACE 550 re-work the ordinanco, eliminating time share facilitlea from ·FVR- districts, allowing them as permitted uses in the -RT- districts, and allowing them as provisional uses in the -GRC- districts. He alao ~Jggested that Mr virtð contact the gentlemen who spoke today and get their input. Mr. varnðdoe offered to work with the County at this po int. ADJOURNMENT - TIME~ ~:15 P.M. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting waS adjourned by order of the Chairmðn at 4:15 p.M. Page 22 , .-- -- - - --------.,--.------------ .. "-~