BCC Minutes 06/22/1992 S Naples, Florida, June 22, 1992
LET Iq' BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Ccjmtssioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Flor)da, w/th the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan
Patricia A. Goodnight
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Burr L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT: Kathy Meyers and Debby Farris, Deputy Clerks;
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; MarJorie Student, Dennis P. Cronin,
Assistant County Attorneys; Edward Kant, Transportation Project
Engineer; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Barbara Cacchione,
Chief Planner; Dave Weeks, Senior Planner; and John MadaJewskt,
~'~.,~' Project Review Services Manager.
O1
Page 1
June 22, 1992
ORDllEAllL~ 92-43, RE I~?ITTON R-92-4, CO~I~ D~LO~
D~I~ION ~Q~TING A CO~NSI~ ~ZO~ OF ~SID~IAL, CO~CI~
~ ~S~I~ ZO~D ~OP~RTIES TO V~IOUS ~SlD~IAL, C~CI~
I~I~ ZONING DIS~ICTS, ~ DETE~I~D TO BE ~PRO~IATE ~ TO BE
91-102 ~ ~ D~LO~ CODE - (CO~ION TO PETITIONS R-92-5
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
June 3, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the
Clerk, public hearing was opened.
David Weeks, Senior Planner, reported that this item ia the batch
rezontngs, and all the properties are unimproved and are tncon-
etstently zoned with the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Weeks discussed
that these property owners were notified by mail almost two years ago
advising of the Zoning Reevaluation.
MarJorte Student advised the Board that since this is a rezontng
action, it will require four votes to approve an item.
Referring to page 1, Mr. Weeks reported Parcel § is recommended to
be rezoned from C-4 to C-3, and Block 10, Lots 1, 2, 21 and 22, and
Block 11, Lots 1 through 5 are recommended to be rezoned to C-1.
Referring to page 2, Mr. Weeks reported Block 26, Lot 6 is one of
the properties that a Compatibility Exception Appeal was approved by
the Board to retain C-3 zoning with restrictions, and Lots 1 and 2 are
recommended to retain C-3 zoning.
Referring to page 3 and 4, Mr. Weeks reported that both properties
~],', had a Compatibility Exception Appeal denied, and zoning remained at
[ RMF-6 with minimum base density.
Ms, Student advised the Board that these batch rezontngs ratify
t'he CEX Appeal process, and should new information be introduced that
was not considered at the CEX Appeal hearing, the Board would be
barred from its action at the Appeal hearing, and the item would have
to be continued.
Referring to page 5, Mr. Weeks reported that a port/on of parcel
40 As recommended to be rezoned from C-4 to C-3 with conditlons,
and noted the changes within the Ordinance:
Page 2
June 22, 1992
~0 iS recommended to be rezoned from C-4 to C-3 with conditions,
¥i and noted the changes within the Ordinance:
2. Height is limited to 35 feet, not two stories;
2. The 100 foot setback is from the north property line only.
~ · Referring to page 6, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 2 is also on
page 8 as parcel 10.1, and noted that the Board approved a
~.]~ Compatibility Exception Appeal retaining the C-4 zoning with con-
ditions.
~i- .~ Robert Duane with Hole, Montes and Associates, recommended that
.i~ithe preliminary subdivision plat be reviewed.
In response to Commissioner Masse, Mr. Duane confirmed that the
property is intended for subdivision.
Mr. Weeks suggested that a new procedure could be create requiring
that the site development plan related Information, i.e. building loca-
tions, architectural Information, landscaping, be submitted with
the preliminary subdivision plat to enable Staff to review it, and
should the property not be subdivided, the preliminary site develop-
ment plan would be brought to the Board for approval.
Bruce Anderson, Attorney, noted that his submitted definition of
:i! ~outparcel' comports with the conditions Imposed by the Board on the
. property.
F.~ ' Mr. MadaJewskt suggested that the term 'outparcels' not be utilized
to describe these properties, and instead use 'lots within the pro-
'~ posed subdivision', and Mr. Anderson agreed as well as Mr. Duane.
Referring to page 7, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 33 is recom-
~?:;! mended to retain 0-3 with conditions.
Referring to page 8, Mr. Weeks noted that parcel 2 is recommended
i. i.to remain RSF-4 with two conditions: that there be an interconnec-
· tion with properties to the east and access must be provided to both
Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbllt Drive; parcels 9 and 10 are recom-
mended to be rezoned to RSF-4 with a condition that there be an inter-
connection with adjacent properties; parcel lB Is recommended to be
irezoned to RSF-4 with a condition that there be an interconnection with
ffi 08 ag. 3
June 22, 1992
':&dJacent properties; parcel lA is currently zoned C-4 and Is recom-
mended to be rezoned to CF, allowing nonresidential uses on the pro-
~ perry.
Tim Hancock with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, discussed poten-
~'~ tlal access requirements.
Edward Kant, Transportation Project l~-ngineer, noted that ~he
Co~ty ts tn the process of refining its access management standards,
~d when L~v~ngston Road is eventually built, any s~te development
pl~ will need to reflect compatibility w~th the access management
standards. He added that because LivinGston Road ~s ~n the final
pl~in~ stages, a provision ~s needed for potential future riGht-of-
~%.~' way as a condition of th~s rezoning if It becomes a necessity.
Mr. Kant suggested that the Petitioner provide at a m~lmum an
additional 25 foot setback along the future Livingston Road r~ght-of-
way, if the County would find ~t necessary. Mr. Hancock agreed.
Regarding page 9, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation is
to retain the current zoning and cap the density at 3 un,ts per acre.
Regarding page ~0, Mr. Weeks reported ~hat the reco~endat~on Is
[ ' to retain the ~F-12 zoning and cap the density at 3 units per acre
~d to rezone the C-~ parcel to RMF-12 with a cap of 3 un,ts per acre.
Regarding page 11, Mr. Weeks reported that all parcels are to
Fe~aln the current zoning except the C-1 and ~F-16 parcels which are
to be rezoned to ~F-12 ,~ith a cap of 3 units per acre.
Regarding page ~2, Mr. Weeks reported that Staff reco~ends ~hat
all the properties retain the zoning except the ~F-16 and C-3 parcels
which are to be rezoned to ~F-12, w~th a density cap of 3 un,ts per
acre on all the properties on this page.
George Vega discussed the platted areas and requested a h~gher
density cap.
Mr. Hancock, representing A. L. Dougher~y Company, Inc., did not
,f,. agree w~th the density cap of 3 un,ts per acre.
Mr. MadaJewsk~ suggested that the Board consider additional stipu-
lagoons for all the properties, and that the Item be continued and
June 22, 1992
· ?returned for the preliminary subdivision platting process before any
development commences. The Board concurred.
Referring to page 13, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
"' ia to retain the RT zoning with conditions, through a Compatibility
!. ~xceptton application.
Referring to page 14, Mr. Weeks noted that parcel 1 ts withdrawn
due to failure to give notice, and parcel 6 Is requested to be
withdrawn and to be heard at the time as parcel 1.
Referring to page 15, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
Is fo~ Block ?, Lot 14 to retain Its C-3 zoning.
Referring to page 16, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
i'
Is for the subject lots to retain their C-3 zoning.
Referring to page 17, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
Is to retain C-3 zoning with conditions on the subject lots.
Referring to page 18, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
fo~ Block 52, Lots 6-13 la to retain the C-3 zoning, and Block ~?, Lot
4? tm recommended to be rezoned to C-3.
Referring to page 19, Mr. Weeks reported that Lot 72 is recom-
mended to be rezoned to RMF-6 with a cap of 3 units per acre, with one
condition that Staff has the authority tn reviewing the site develop-
merit plan to limit the height to provide development compatible with
the surrounding area; Block C Is recommended to retain RMF-6 zoning
and cap the density at 3 units per acre; and Lot 1, Block G, ts recom-
mended to retain RMF-6 zoning without a density cap.
Re,erring to page 20, Mr. Weeks reported that all properties on
this page are recommended to be rezoned to
~. Referring to page 21, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 2 ts recom-
mended to be withdrawn because parcel 2.1 was improperly noticed, and
they will be considered together. He noted that parcel 6 ia recom-
mended to retain RMF-6 and cap the density at 3 units per acre.
~; Referring to page 22, Mr. Weeks reported parcel 1 is recommended
2. to retain the C-3 zoning. He noted that the remaining lots 1-5,
~. 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 28 and northern half of 18 on Santa Barbara
Page 5
3une 22, 1992
Boulevard mrs recommended to remain C-R, with a condition that the
landscape buffer is to be provided along the east property line
abutting residential and must include landscaping, not Just a fence or
wall.
Tips ~2
Mr. Kant pointed out that anything that the Board could implement
to encourage or require shared access for those lots on Santa Barbara
Boulevard would get Staff's support, because it ]s diff~cult legally
for Staff to make those requirements.
Patrick Neale, Attorney, advised the Board that there is already
some development on the lots, and to enforce an after-the-fact fron-
tage road for already designed and/or built properties that are
currently in conformance w/l/ be d~fftcult. Commissioner Masse
responded that having an access every 50 feet on a main arterial road
does not make sense and requested this situation be reviewed.
Edward Kant suggested that where adjacent parcels exist, rem-
porar¥ shared access could be given pending the development of the
next parcel and then requiring a shared access agreement, and
encourage the use of common driveway areas.
Mar]otis Student, Assistant County Attorney, requested a con-
tinuance for these lots for further review as to Mr. Kant's
suggestion.
Referring to page 23, Mr. Weeks reported that Lot ! is within the
same area a~ the previous lots, and deemed that it will have the same
recommendation from the Board.
Referring to page 24, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
is that the parcels retain C-4 zoning based upon a Compatibility
Exception, with a condition for a preliminary subdivision plat
requirement for these two parcels.
Referring to page 25, Mr. Weeks reported that al/ of Blocks !
through 4 are recommended to be rezoned to RMF-12 zoning with a den-
city cap of ? units per acre.
Referring to page 26, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
09
Page 6
June 22, 1992
~ :'' As to retain the RMF-6 zoning and cap the density at ? units per acre.
Referring to page 27, Mr. Weeks reported that Staff recommends
that the two parcels remain C-4.
Referring to page 28, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
is to retain the C-4 zoning for the lots within Col-Lee-Co Terrace.
He noted that portions of Lots 124 and 125 are also found on page 29
and that a portion of Lot X24 is recommended to remain C-3 and Lot 125
is recommended to be rezoned to C1/T and RMF-6.
Referring to page 29, Mr. Weeks reported that Lots I through § of
Demere Landing are recommended to retain C-4 zoning with shared access
requirement.
Referring to page 30, Mr. Weeks reported that Parcels 10 and 11
are recommended to be rezoned from C-4 to C-3 and the RMF-6 zoning is
i::.to remain with conditions.
Referring to page 31, Mr. Weeks noted that this ts a continuation
of the previous parcel.
Referring to page 32, Mr. Weeks reported that the subject lots are
recommended to remain RMF-6, based upon the Compatibility provision.
He noted that Staff has received one letter of objection requesting
that the zoning be limited to single family.
Commissioner Volpe expressed that he is supportive in limiting the
subject lots to single family residentlal, RSF-6. The Board con-
cuffed.
Referring to page 33, Mr. Weeks reported that the portion of Lot
103 be rezoned to RMF-6, and Lots 105 and 106 are recommended to be
rezoned to ~F-6 with a density cap of 3 units per acre. He noted that
parcels 109.1 and 109.2 and 108.1 and 108.2 are recommended to leave
the MH zoning as is, based upon a Compatibility finding, and to rezone
~he C-4 to C-2.
Referring to page 34, Mr. Weeks reported that the recommendation
is to rezone Lot 95 to RSF-4 with a density cap of 3 units per acre,
and Lot ! is to retain C-5 zoning with conditions.
Commissioner Saunders recommended that Lot I be rezoned to C-3 and
June 22, 1992
the Board concurred.
.'. Referring to page 35, Mr. Weeks reported that Lots 68, 74 and 75
~'"'.ars recouended to be rezoned to RSF-3.
Referring to page 36, Mr. Weeks reported that parcels 2 and 7 are
recommended to be rezoned to RMF-12 with a density cap of ? units per
acre. He noted that the property owner has written a letter objecting
to the rezontng.
Referring to page 37, Mr. Weeks reported that parcels llS, ll0, 55
,.'!- and 64 are recommended to be rezoned to RSF-3, and parcel 119 is
recommended to remain as is.
Referring to page 38, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 14 and 24 are
recommended to retain RMF-6 zoning with a density cap of 3 units per
.acre.
Referring to page 39, Mr. Weeks reported that the subject lots are
recommended to retain C-4 zoning with conditions.
Referring to page 40, Mr. Weeks reported that the subject lots are
recommended to retain C-4 zoning with conditions regarding height
restrictions and shared access.
Referring to page 41, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 2.2 Is recom-
mended to retain C-4 zoning with conditions.
Referring to page 42, Mr. Weeks reported that all subject parcels
are recommended to retain C-3 zoning subject to conditions relating to
shared access.
Referring to page 43, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 5.2 ts recom-
mended to retain C-3 zoning with conditions.
Referring to page 44, Mr. Weeks reported that parcels 3, 4, 8, 9,
and 10 are recommended to retain C-3 zoning with conditions, and par-
' Cel 102 ts recommended to remain RMF-I$ with a density cap of 8 units
per acre.
Referring to page 45, Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 102 ts recom-
mended to retain RMF-16 zoning with a density cap of 8 units per acre
and parcel 11.2 Is recommended to be rezoned to TTRVC.
Referring to page 46, Mr. Weeks reported that parcels 10 and 14
Page 8
June 22, 1992
~-?~re recoamended to retain their NM zoning with a density cap of 3
per acre.
Re,erring to page 47, Mr. Weeks reported that parce! 6 ia tacom-
a'.sanded to be rezoned to TTRVC.
Larry Baeik, o~ner of the subject property, objected to the
rezoning because there is already $860,000 worth of improvements
coapleted, and rezoning will result in devaluation of the property.
Conissioner Wolpe recommended that the determination for this
parcel be continued and the Board concurred.
$se'~s~ at 12:50 &.~. - Eecoavened at X2:00 P.M. see
Referring to page 48, Nr. Neeke reported that Tract Bie racom-
sanded to be rezoned to the Agricultural district.
Patric~ Neale, Attorney advised the Board that this property
i? .Subject to the action of a Bankruptcy Court and has not been resolved.
~e noted that this property should not be rezoned during the
bankruptcy proceeding.
Co~leeioner Volpe recommended that this determination be con-
'tinued0 and the Board concurred.
Re,erring to page 49° Mr. Weeks reported that parcel 136 is recom-
~'aende~to reaatn N~ zoning0 based upon the compatibility ~lnding.
Referring to page 50, Nr. Needs reported that both parcels are
reco~.,ended to remain C-4 zoning subJec~ to condi~Aons.
Re,erring to page 51, Mr. ~eeks reported tha~ Eot ~ Is reco~ended
to retain 0-4 zoning ~A~h one condition ~o limi~ ~he height ~o 25
~eet, because tt Aa abutting a residential lot.
~r. ~eale, representing the proper~y owner, agreed with
reco~enda~ion as to the C-4 zoning, but requested a height
50 ~eet.
~ Co~ieeAoner Shanahan recommended the height limit be restricted
to 35 feet ~d the Board and Staf~ concurred.
Re,erring to page 52, Nr. Wee~s reported that ~ote 1 and [5 are
racom.sanded to remain C-3.
Page
$,'~e 22, 1992
~.* 'Referring to page 53, Mr. Weeks reported that the northern portion
of Lot 8 ts recommended to retain C-1 zoning.
Referring to page 54, Mr. Weeks reported thst Lots 1 and 19 are
recommended to retain C-3 zoning.
Referring to page 55, Mr. Weeks reported that Lots 9 and 10 are
recommended to be rezoned CF.
Referring to page 56, Mr. Weeks reported that Lots 11 and 12 are
recommended to remain C-4, based upon a compatibility finding.
Co~mtesAo~er Hues moved, seconded by CommAsetoner Goodn~ght and
cmxTAe~~ola~l¥, to close the ~bl~c hearing.
Co~esloner Volpe directed Ms. Studen~ to collaborate with Ms.
Cacchtone to ~dentify the various maps requiring s~ec~flc motions, and
the Board con~inued to ~he next item. This item was dlscussed later
in the meeting at which ~ime, the Ordinance was adopted.
Xt~ ~B
O~I~ 92-42 ~ PETITION R-92-5, COLLIER CO~ GR~ P~ING
D~~ ~Q~STING A ~ZO~ ~OM ~F-4 TO C-l/T, ~ CO~ITIONS
~R ~0~ L~A~D ON T~= SO~ SIDE OF C~USA A~ ~OXI~TELY
22~ ~T ~$T OF C.R. 31 - A~ED WITH CO~ITIONS
Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on
June 3, ~992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the
Clerk, public hearing was opened.
Mr. Weeks referred to the details of the Executive Summary
',!~regardAng this PetAtion. He noted that concerns among neighboring
property owners are related to the anticipated traffic increase.
Mr. Kant advised the Board that he does not agree with the pro-
posed angled driveway onto Calusa Avenue. He suggested instead that
the driveway be a right angle Intersection.
Tom Hamilton, Petitioner, reviewed that he owns lots 9 and 10 and
the property to the south. He discussed that he did not ~n~ttate this
rezoning process.
The following persons spoke to this Petition:
Elleen Weber
Ken Tr¥on
eSeDepntF Clerk Ferric replace~ Deputy Clerk Meyers at this
June 22, 1992
Gene Darer
,!.,. Tom Hamilton, Petitioner, theorized that the County put him in the
,.!' situation he now finds himself due to rezoning of his property.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Hamilton verified he has no
?. objections to putting the roadway on Lots #7 and #8.
~...... Pursuant to Commissioner Hasse's inquiry, Mr. Hamilton stated he
has owned the subject lots for forty years.
Edward Kant, Transportation Project Engineer, suggested approval
should be subject to the following considerations: 1) the access
:'.: should be limited to one single driveway from Ca/usa Ave., which
should be a right angle intersection; 2) that a traffic impact state-
ment be required at site development time; 3) that any work done on
this site is coordinated with the work about to be undertaken for
the s~x-lan~n~ of A~rport Road; and 4) the County reserves the
to provide access stipulations at such t~me as a site development plan
or subdivision plan ~s presented.
Followin~ brief d~scusslon, Commiss~oner Saunders suggested that
Lots T, 8, 9 and 10 serve as access w~th the road surface centered
~'[~ on Lots 8 and 9 ~n a r~ght an~le, providing for Lots 7 and 10 to be
~ used as a buffs=.
Mr. Kant explained the restrictions and subsequent possibilities
'3" re~ard~n~ driveways pursuant to the Land Development Code.
Planner Weeks reiterated the proposal that lots 6 through 10 be
changed from RSF-4 to
Co~ssloner Goodn~ght lef~ the meeting at this time.
C~sltonlr Sanders ~ed, seconded ~ Contsstoner Sh~ ~d
c~ 4/0 (C~ssloner ~l~ht not present}, to clo~ the ~bl~c
~~t~er Sa~rm ~, seco~ ~ Co~lsstoner S~
C~ ~ ~tng to C-l/T, there~ adopting Ordl~ce 92-42, ~
~t~ ~ ~d1~ce ~k 53.
? (ZeeS)
Page
June 22, 1992
ORDINANCE 92-43, RE P~TITION R-92-4, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~]IT SB~VICES
DIVISION ]IF~U~STING A COMPREHENSIVE REZONE OF VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL,
~IAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTIES (COMPANION TO P~TITIONS
R-92-B AND V-92-15) - ADOPTED
This item was discussed earlier in the meeting.
Planner Weeks explained staff's notes reveal the following changes
are to be made: Map page 2, Lot 6, in Bonita Shores - need to clarify
additional uses, Petitioner seemingly not in agreement but failed to
appear today; Map pages 4 and 6, 21 acre parcel at the split of U.S.
41 - need to clarify the Unified Plan of Development, definition of
outparcel and changing to "lot"; Map page § - change to conditions as
reflected on the tape to change the height setback: Map page 8; pro-
perty adjacent to parcel at intersection of the 41's - retain C-4
zoning with some limited access onto U.S. 41, increased setback of 50
feet, and the same conditions ae from the adjacent property
Compatibility Exception Appeal; Map page 14 - property to be withdrawn
and considered at a later date due to improper notice; Map page 12,
Wiggins Pass Landings lot - requirement that property come back with
. ..preliminary subdivision plat and all lots to be allowed six units per
acre~ Map page 21 - withdrawn for consideration at a later time; Map
pages 22 and 23, Golden Gate lots on Santa Barbara Blvd. - to be con-
tinued after review regarding access; Map page 24, parcels ! and ?,
Golden Gate, near C.R. 951 - preliminary subdivision plat requirement:
Map page 32 - property to be rezoned to RSF-6~ Map page 34 - Rezoned
to C-3; Map page 47, Larry Basik's property - to be continued~ Map
page 48, Naples Shores property - to be continued; Map page 51, lot on
'~. Marco Island - ~ncrease height limit up to 35 feet~ Map page 52 -
minor clarification on the uses a/lowed on proper~y granted a
Compatibility Exception Appeal; regarding Pages R8 and 29, Mr.
Hami~ton~s property, the appeal was approved and, therefore, no
changes.
Ce~/~to~er Shanahan ~oved, secon~ ~ Co~ss~oner Sanders ~d
c~l~ 4/0 {C~eeAo~r G~ght not pre~ent), to a~r~e the
.Tune 22, 1992
t*~l~lBl,~ ~, th~reb~ a~o~tL~ ~A~ce 92-43, ~ ~t~r~ ~
~I~ ~ ~ D~~ CODE, ~ C~GING ~ ZONING
~SZ~TZO= OF ~C~Z ~, ~0~ L~A~ O~ ~ SO~ SZDZ O;
U.S. 4t ~ ~ ~O~ OF ~Z~Z ~ - CO~Z~D ~ ~; O;
~/~/~;
Fo]lowing brief discussion and upon advice of Assistant County
Attorney Student, Commtseloner Shanahan moved, seconded by
CO~t~~ B~un~ers ~d c~r~ 4/0, (Co~se~o~r G~ght ~t
~t) to ~tl~ ~tttton ~84-28(1) to the ~d oF C~t~
~1~ ~ing of ~ly 21, 1992.
~Z~ ~ ~XO ~ (C.R. 856) ~ ~T OF A~RT-~ZNG RO~ -
Following brief discussion and upon advice of Assistant County
Attorney Student, Oom~t~eloner Shmnahmzl ~ove4, ~econded by
· : Cc~almim~r ~.m~er~ and carried 4/0, (Coamlssloner Ooodntght not
'~t) ~ continue l~tltlon PUD-88-23(1) to the Board of County
~r. Co.~teet~z~ ~t/ng of July 21, 1992.
PETITION P~D-87-36(1), ORDINtJICE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THg
~OLLZ~:~. OOt~ ~ D~O~ CODB, BY ~GIRG ~ ~RING
~X~TION Off C~N ~S ~, ~OP~ ~A~ O~ ~ NOR~
· XD~ OF ~ RO~ (C.R. 846) ~ ~ST OF 1-75 - CO~X~ TO
Following brief discussion and upon advice of Assistant County
Attorney Student, Co~m/seloner Shanahan moved, ~econded bF
~:.;': ~t)'~ ~t~ ~tttl~ ~87-36(1) to the ~d of C~
~mJm mtt~ of 3~1~ 21, 1992.
.Tune 22, ~gg2
IIAFL~S FLAI~IN0 COI~U~ITY AND TH~ ROYAL F~KAPALN PLAX~INQ
LIBT~D A~ K~IBIT~ TO ORDII~NCE NUNBKR 91-85 - CONTInUeD TO
7/21/92
Following brief discussion and upon advice of Assistant County
Attorney Student, Comlastoner Shanahan moved, seconded b~
Co~t~im~ Saund~ra and c~r~ 4/0, (Co~tes~oner G~ight ~t
~t) to c~tl~e the Corrective Ordl~ce ~ndlng Ordl~ce 91-85
~0~ ~A~ ON ~ SO~ SIDE OF 94~ A~ NOR~ ~ ~ST OF
Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on
Sune 8, 199~, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publlcatton filed w~th the
Clerk, public hearing was opened.
Planner Weeks identified the ]ocstton of the subject property as
will am the nature of the request to r, instate the variance allowing
for any development under the C-3 district.
Michael V. Cerrato confirmed he ts tn agreement with staff's
recommendations, but expressed his belief that one of staff's dimen-
sions Is wrong.
O~lldeei~nir S~unders ~oved, leconded by COUllalOnir Shanihan ind
c~JH 4/0 (Cmill~oner Go~ght not present), to c~ole the ~bl~c
c~t~ i/O (Cmils~onir G~ght not prelen~], to a~r~e Petition
V-92-15 ~ ~~nded ~ ataff, there~ adopting ~eo~u~ 92-35~.
Page 14
June 22, 2992
There being no further bustnese for the Good of the County, the
?~i~meetlng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - T~me: 1:35 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COI~4ISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
'MICHAE~' VOtPE, CHAIRMAN
.~..
by the Board on
or as corrected
Page 15