BCC Minutes 04/13/1992 S Naples, Florida, April 13, 1992
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Comm~ssioners 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, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan
Burr L. Saunders
Max A. Masse, Jr.
Patricia A. Goodnight
ALSO PRESENT: Annette Guevin and Kathy Meyers, Deputy Clerks;
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; MarJorie Student, Assistant County
Attorney; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Ed Kant,
Transportation Services; Elly Soto, Michel]e Edwards, Dave Weeks an,J
Pam Lows, Planners.
Page I
April 13, 1992
Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director, advised that each item on
the Board's agenda should include eight items, to wit, an executive
suuary, location map, zoning map, Section 10.6 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance (ZRO), a copy of the Compatibility Exception
application, the Staff's determination letter, a copy of the
Compatibility Exception Appeal application and copies of the
appropriate sections of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) for
the existing zoning as well as that of the zoning district recommended
by Staff. He reminded the Board of the procedure set forth in the ZRO
for the determinations of both Staff and the Board tn this process.
RX~OLUTIOI 92-223 RE PETITIOI CKX-010-MI/A, FOR GOODL&RD, INC., FOR
PltOPERTY 0Jr TH~ SOUTHEAST CORNER 0P C.R. 892 (S.R. 92-A) AND SUNSET
DRIV~ O~ GOODLAND (.69 ACRES] - &DOPTED GRANTING APPK&L FOR
COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION TO RETAIN C-4 ZONING
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
March 28, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened.
Commissioner Vo]pe swore in all those intending to offer testimony
in connection with this application.
Mr. Blanchard explained the subject property is currently zoned
C-4 and designated as Urban Coastal Fringe on the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) Map, which permits up to a maximum of four units per
acre. Ne reported the property is on C.R. 892, which is the on1¥
access road into Goodland, and is in a traffic congested area. He
said permitting the property to develop as currently zoned will not
only increase traffic on the main street, but will allow additional
access points on C.R. 892, which could disrupt traffic Into Goodland.
He concluded Staff recommends the application to retain C-4 zoning be
denied, and recouends the property be rezoned to Village Residential
(VR) with a maximum permitted density of three dwelling units per
gross acre.
Mark Logan, representing the petitioner, stated his opinion that
Page 2
April 13, 1992
there ~ay be a slight Injustice In the Growth Management Plan, because
Of the designation of the entire town of Good/and as Urban Coastal
Fringe. He indicated the citizens of Good/and feel strongly there Is
an activity Center tn Goodland, and the subject property lies within
its center.' He submitted that C-4 zoning for this parcel ts totally
consistent with surrounding uses which are all commercial, with the
exception of Lots 11 and 12 which are undeveloped. He asked that he
be allowed to submit photographs Into evidence.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney
Student stated It Is the Board's option to determine if the pho-
tographs are prejudicial to Staff's position.
Mr. Blanchard Indicated his concern that the photographs may not
show all the surrounding properties, but only those of a higher in~en-
sity of use.
Mr. Logan explained he does not have photographs directly south of
the subject property, however, photographs of the surrounding area
were described In the pre-hearing submittal.
~uto~er amenders ~ov~d, seconded by Conlsatoner Hesse, to
· ccept t~e ~otopT~q~h~ u evidence.
Zt~ tb~ con~en~-u~ to &ccept the photogrmphs u evidence.
Joe Curcte Indicated he took the photographs, and explained what
they depict.
Mr. Logan, In summation, stated when all the surrounding areas are
considered, Including the residential to the south, the commercial to
the west, east and northeast, it is obvious that the C-4 ~estgnation
for this parcel is cons/stent with existing surrounding development,
and to rezone the property to VR will be Inconsistent with existing
In rebuttal, Mr. Blanchard emphasized that Goodland ts developing
me & low density mixed use area. He said given those considerations,
he recommended the subject property be rezoned as VR.
C~ilstoner Smunders ~oved, seconded by Coutseloner Shanahan
¢~rri~ ~t~onsly, to close the pub/lc hearing.
000. 05
Page 3
April 13, 1992
Om~al~ion~r Saunders moved, seconded by Co~issloner $1~anahan and
carried ux~nimou~ly, to grant the exception as requested by the peti-
tioner, based on the fact that the a~rroundtng properties do not
appear to be ccmpattble with residential develolment, thereby adopting
Rmmol~tton 92-223.
000.,.: 06
Page 4
April 13, 1992
92-224 l~E PETITION CE~-O15-MI/A, FOR SALVATORE C. CANGIANO
~ ~~ ON ~ ~T SIDE OF ~ S~T ~ 150 YE~
~ ~ ~ ~ (12.52 A~S) ON ~CO IS~ - ~~
~~ TO ~F-4
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on
March 28, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened.
Commissioner Volpe swore in all those intending to offer testimony
in connection with this application.
Mr. Blanchard explained the subject property is currently zoned
C-1 and is designated Urban Coastal Fringe, which permits residential
development up to a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, commer-
cial land uses subject to criteria, as well as other non-residential
uses such as essential services and institutional uses. He noted the
property Is located tn a traffic congestion area, as is all of Marco
Island. He summarized for the Board how property is developed in the
surrounding area. He advised allowfng this property to develop as
commercial will permit a significant intrus~on lnto a platted single
family neighborhood. He requested the Board deny the Compatibility
Exception appeal and uphold the recommendation to rezone the property
to RSF-3.
Attorney Salvatore Scudert, representing the petitioner, noted the
subject property has been zoned C-1 since Deltona platted Marco Island
in 1968. He pointed out the various commercially developed properties
in the Immediate area. He mentioned shortly after the present owner
purchased the property, the Collier County School Board commenced
litigation which tied up development of the parcel. He stated the
owner had plans to develop and had preliminary site approval, however,
the suit was not resolved until December, 1990, by which time the
Growth Management Plan was in effect.
Mr. Scudert asked the Board to accept Dr. Neno Spagna as an expert
witness tn Urban Planning.
C4~/~tone~ Sannders ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Sh~ and
07
Apr11 13, 1992
carrted vnantmously, to accept Dr. Neno Spmgna as an expert witness.
Dr. Neno Spagna provided the Board with his written opinion, and
explained his Justification for stating the subject property should
re~aln C-! as ~rren~ly zoned.
(D~. Spa~a~s presentation ex~ended tnto Tape ~2, Counte~
H~. Scude~l asked t~at t~e Board accept Bruce R. Hessells
exper~ tn the marketability of single-family lots on Marco Island.
~ig ~aly, t~t B~ce R. Wessells ~ acc~t~ u
H~. Hessells b~te~ed the Board on the marke~ fo~ ~estdenttal
p~operttes on Halco ~sland.
~n response to Commtsstone~ Volpe, H~. ~esse~ls gave
that additional ~estden~tal p~ope~tes wtll have a negative effec~
holding do~ the p~lces of ot~e~ ~omes tn the a~ea.
Zn answe~ to Co~tsstone~ S~ana~an, H~. Blanc~a~d explatn~d
co~erclal conversion opportunities avat]ab2e to thts p~ope~ty
~ezoned to RSF-3.
Zn sugary, H~. Blancha~d ~emtnded ~he Board tha~ the
de~ermtntng the compa~tbtltty de~e~mtna~ton asks if the zoning
district ~a~ ts consts~en~ with ~e G:o~th Hanagemen~ Plan 1~ com-
patible wt~h the surrounding area. He concluded with Staff's belief
that ~n th~s case, RSF-3 ~s compatible wlth the majority of the
~rrounding area, which Is single-family.
Co~ssioner Hasse inquired ~f Mr. Blanchard would concede that
the RSF-4 zoning district may be more compatible to the area than
RSF-3?
Mr. Blanchard concurred, expla~ning when this determination was
made, the ULDC had not yet been adopted, which is where the oppor-
%unity exists to place caps on zoning districts.
Mr. Scuder~ asked that a correction to the proposal as submitted
be made under Tab ~5. (Copy not provided to the Clerk to. the Board.)
Page 6
April ~3, [992
Re explained the requested zoning is RMF-12, rather than SMF-12 which
does not exist. He concluded that his main concern is the taking of
the property without Just compensation, and the fact that Florida law
provides for the petitioner to be left with reasonable, beneficial use
which will not be possible under a rezone to RSF-3 or RSF-4.
Commissioner H~e seccrnded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried
~-~t~n~1¥, to close the public hearing.
Co~m~eeloner H~se ~oved, seconded by Co~lsstoner Shanahan, to
rezone the mabJect propert~ to the RSF-4 zonin~ d~strict.
Commissioner Volpe encouraged the Board to consider allowing a cap
of 72 dwelling un,ts to be developed on the subject property.
Upc~ call for the question, the lotion carried 4/1 (Co~iesioner
Velds ~l~=~ld), thereOF ~doptin~ Resolution 92-224.
Page ?
April 13, 1992
*** l~ce~ed: 11:10 A.M. - Reconven~d 11:32 A.M. at which
De~t~ Clerk Mem/ere replaced Depnt~/ Clerk Guevtn
KP~,Or~2TXON 92-225, l~ CE~-O29-MI/A, ARTHUR L. BERGER REPRESENTING
AIM~NI~O ~ ii'PEALING TH~ DENIAL OF THE COMPATIBILITY EXCEPTION
AA~PLI~ATXON FOR P~OFE~TY LOCATED ON THE }IORTHKAST CoRRrE~ OF VALLEY
A~ ~ ~ COLLIER BOULEVARD - APPROVED WITH RESTRICTIONS
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on
March 28, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CEX-029-MI/A
fi]ed by Arthur L. Berger, representing Ratmundo Estrada, requesting
an Appeal of the Growth Planning Director's determination for denial
of the Compatibility Exception application for property located on the
northeast corner of Valley Avenue and South Collier Boulevard, Marco
Island, conalating of .39 acres.
Commissioner Volpe swore in all persons offering testimony in con-
nection with this Petition.
Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director, reported that this
Appeal is a .39 acre parcel, located in the Marco Planning Community
on the northeast corner of Valley Avenue and South Collier Boulevard.
He noted that it is currently zoned C-3 and is designated Urban
Coastal Fringe on the Future Land Use Map.
He noted the surrounding properties as follows:
a) North - a vacant abutttng lot which has an approved
Compatibility Determination Exception ~o retain the C-3 zoning, to the
north of that is lot 3 with a Moose Lodge, and lots 4 and § are con-
sistently zoned via the Commercial Under Criteria provision in the
Growth Management Plan;
b) East - a 30 foot alley, east of that is a single family sub-
division zoned RSF-4;
c) South - Valley Avenue, the property across Valley Avenue is
zoned RT and is developed with a four story condominium;
d) West - South Collier Boulevard, and across South Collier
Boulevard is RT zoning with a nine story condominium developed at 12
unite per acre and two 12 story condominiums, both developed at 21
units per acre.
Mr. Blanchard discussed that the application was reviewed by
Growth Planning and it was determined that the typically proposed con-
sistent zoning district would be incompatible with surrounding land
10
Page 8
April 13, 1992
Uses. He added that an analysis on the RSF-3 Zoning District deter-
mined that it would be incompatible, as well as the C-3 Zoning
District, but the C-1/T District was deternined to be compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Slanchard suggested that under the consistent zoning district,
which was originally considered the residential district, the subject
lot could be developed with only one single family dwelling, which
would be compatible with properties to the east, but ~ncompatible with
the comJaercial directly to the north and multi-s~ory condominiums to
the south ~d to the west. He added that a s~ng]e family home on the
~bJect property would definitely be out of scale and character with
the abutting co~erctal multJ-family uses.
In determining that the existing C-3 zoning district was not com-
patib~e, Hr. Blanchard noted that it permits a variety o~ co~ercial
uses, ~hich may generate noise and increase traffic.
He noted that certain uses In the C-3 Zoning District such as a con-
venience market could average up to 738 trips per day per 1,000 square
feet of development, a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru could
average 632 trips per day per 1,O00 square feet, and traffic volume on
a~ttlng streets could be Increased substantia~ly ~ith these t~es of
uses. Hr. Blanchard indicated that an office building developed con-
sistent with the C-I/T District, on the other hand, could generate
around 24 trips per day per ~,000 square ~eet, i.e. a medical dental
office could average 34 trips per day per 1,000 square feet. He
concluded that these uses obviousiy have a significantly Iower traffic
i=pact on adjacent roadways.
Hr. B[anchard summarized that the Compatibi]it~ Exception
Application was denied, and the Applicant was advised that the pro-
perty would be recommended ~or rezoning to C-I/T. He advised the
Board that the AppIicant As requesting that the Board overturn that
determination, and that the existing ~oning district for C-3 be
retained on this property.
Page 9
April 13, 3992
Commissioner Volpe referred to a package of documents which was
submitted by Arthur Berger prior to this meeting (Copy not provided to
the Clerk to the Board) to each of the Commissioners.
Mar~oris Student, Assistant County Attorney, advised the Board
that the County Attorney's opinion is that the Deltona Settlement
Agreement does not render Unit 10, in which this property is located,
does not render it a DRI, which would make it exempt from this process
ttnder the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. She noted that the Just/fi-
cation for that is that the Settlement Agreement speaks of certain
t~nits 1-24, that received a letter of vested rights from DCA, vesting
from having to go through the DRI process, not vesting because of
Growth Management and therefore, did not go through the process. She
reiterated that it is the County Attorney's Office's position that
Marco Island is not a DRI and that this specific unit was not a part
of the units that were considered or that the Deltona Settlement
Agreement dealt with.
Arthur Berger, representing Mr. Estrada, reviewed that presently
Mr. Estrada's property is zoned C-3, and the proposal from Staff is to
change the zoning to C-1/T.
Mr. Berger aired the following perceptions:
l) the Growth Planning Director's determination supporting C-1/T
is not supported by competent evidence and is contrary to the
criteria established in Section 10.6 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance because all the properties which he
polnted to, that front South Collier Boulevard are zoned C-3,
including Mr. Estrada's, and they will retain their C-3 Zoning,
except Mr. Estrada's If it is rezoned;
2) down zoning Mr. Estrada's property from C-3 to C-1/T is spot
zoning and is contrary to accepted zoning principles, and is
contrary to the criteria set forth within the Land Development
Code;
3) the existing streets and alley provide a logfcal boundary
separating the existing C-3 Zoning from the ad3oining zoning
areas, and therefore, the existing zoning pattern ~s a reaso-
nable one;
4) presently the property is zoned C-3, which has a minimum lot
size of 10,000 square feet, and Mr. Estrada's property has
17,O00 square feet, which means that the property complies with
the C-3 minimum lot size requlrement. However, if the property
is rezoned to C-l/T, it has a m~nimum lot s~ze of 20,000
square feet, and since Mr. Estrada's property has only 17,O00
square feet, it would become a nonconforming lot;
5) due to the isolated and small size, the effectiveness of this
property acting as a transitional zone is questionable; and
April 13, 3992
8) Mr. Estrada has agreed tn Exhibit B, to delete a number of
C~m~nt~ner Sanndsrs mc~ed, seconded ~ Co~ss~r ~se ~
~r~ 4/0, (C~ss~oner O~h~ not present), to clo~ t~ ~bl~c
~l~r S~re ~ed, second~ ~ Co~2ssi~er S~~ ~
=rl~ 4/0, (Cmtestoner G~ght not pre~n~] ~o a~r~e the
~t~b~l~ ~cept~on A~al to ~t the deet~tion of the ~
~t~ ~ t~t site, ~d there i~ to ~ filing in the ~blic record
t. ~1~ ~t, eo a ~~~t ~c~er ~ld ~ notifid of
Mr. Berger stipulated that he would agree to a recorded restricted
coven~t with respect to the list of uses that would be prohibited on
the ~bJect property.
Page
April 33, 1992
~ L. MADISON ~tLBI~tITH APPF2tLING TH~ DENIAL OF THE
C0~TXBILITX EXCKFTIO~ APPLICATION FOR I:~OPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SID~ O~ DIXIE DRrFE - CONTINUED TO MAY 12, 1992
Bruce Anderson, Attorney, stated that it is his preference to have
a full Board present when this Appeal is heard.
~~ion~ S~undsrs ~oved, seconded by Co~missioner Shmnmhan mhd
ca~ 4/0, (C~emto~r G~tght not pre~en~), to continua this
Appeal to the regular M~¥ 12, 1992, ~eeting of the Board of Cc~nty
:: Coe~AeaAoners at 9:00 A.M., due to the absence of CoaatasAoner
It*~#3F
~-OO1-E~/A, ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE, Mo~r~s A~D ASSOCIATES, INC.,
~IN8 ~ & A~ F. ~ILTON ~ING ~ D~I~ OF
C~ATXBILI~ ~CE~ION ~ICATION FOR PROP~ L~A~D ~ST OF
AI~ ~, SO~ OF C~USA A~E ~ NOR~ OF U.S. 41 ~T -
CO~ TO ~Y 12, [992
Robert Duane with Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., stated that
his client would appreciate the continuance of this Appeal until a
full Board is present.
C, emm/~to~er Shanahmn moved, seconded try Comlsaloner
~~ 4/0, (C~sel~er G~lght not present), to continue th~s
~al to t~ r~l~ ~y 12, 1992, ~ettng of the ~d of Co~
~~t~rm at 9:00 A.M., due to the absence of
D~I~ OF ~ C~ATIBILI~ ~CE~ION ~PLICATION
~R ~~ ~A~D ON ~ ~T SIDE OF AI~RT-~LING RO~
S~ ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and
~~ ~ ~2, 1992, ~et~ng of the ~d of C~
9:00 A.M., ~ to the absence of
Page 12
April 13~ 1992
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meettng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 12:10 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
MICHAEL $.~ VOLIJ'E
, CHAIRMAN
Page 13