Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/30/1992 SNaples, Florida, March 30, 1992 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners 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 hereAn, met on this date et 9:00 A.M. in SP~OIAL SlSSION 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. Nasse, Jr. Patricia A. Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Ellis Noffman, Debb¥ Farris, Annette Guevin and Kathy Meyers, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrlll, County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services AdmAnistrator; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Mlchelle Edwards, Pamela Lows and David Weeks, Planners. 0! Page March 30, 1992 DXgCU~$XON l~ R~QU~ST FOR CONTINUA~Cw OF COMPATIBILITY ~XCEPTION ,~ CEX-026-SN/A AND CEX-O03-CN/A FROM THE APRIL 13, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVELY SCHEDULWD FOR MAY 5, !992 Planner Weeks explained that the appellants regarding CEX-026-SN/A and CEX-003-CN/A scheduled for public hearings on April 13, 1992, are requesting that their petitions be withdrawn and rescheduled to a later date since both property owners will be out of town. It w the consensus of the Conleaton that Petitton~ C~X-O26-SN/A ~ ~EX-OOS-CN/A be withdrawn and readvertiaed for May 5, 1992. DI~C~F~SXON H ~UXDELINE$ AND CRITERIA #ITH RESPECT TO CO~PATXBXLITY E~PTXON~S Growth Planning Director Blanchard advised that six appeals will be heard at today's meeting. He explained the criteria within Section 10.6 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance which provides for com- patibility exception applications, as included tn the Executive Summary. He indicated that his determination letter identifies the criteria used and the complete analysis of the findings. He remarked that each agenda item to be presented includes an Executive Summary, generalized location map and Section 10.6 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, the original application by the applicant, copy of the determination letter and the exception appeal. Xte~ ~t~$OLUTXON 92-291, 1~ C~-002-NN/A, CHRISTXAN F, ~ ~ ~XNG D~X~ OF ~ C~ATXBILX~ ~C~XOI ~I~TION ~R ~0~ L~A~D NO~T CO~ OF ~ST ~I~ DRI~ ~ NI~ S~T - ~D ~ C-S ZONIN~ TO ~IN ~ LIMITATIONS Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on March 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Growth Planning Director Blanchard referred to the locations1 map contained within the Executive Summary, detailing the subject pro- perty. He indicated that the property ts zoned C-3 which permits Page 2 March 30, 1992 retail, office and Institutional uses and noted that the property is designated urban residential on the Future Land Use Map which permits " residential development up to a maximum of 16 units per acre. At this time, all pertinent parties to be offering any testimony in connection with this petition were sworn in by Chairman Volpe. Mr. Blanchard outlined the zoning and development of the ... surrounding properties. He related that staff reviewed the submitted application in light of the criteria in the ordinance and determined .! '~;~' that the application demonstrated that a consistent zoning district would be incompatible with surrounding land uses but applying the {~ averaging test that the average intensity and density of the surrounding area was lower than that permitted within the C-3 zoning district. He announced that it was determined that the C-1/T zoning d~etrict would be compatible with the surrounding uses. He reported that the application for retaining C-3 zoning was denied and the ' applicant was advised that the property would be recommended to the C-1/T zoning district. Mr. Christian F. Powe11 questioned Mr. Blanchard with respect to h~a ~nterpretation of various Sections of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. Mr. Powell stated that staff's original determination was :~ Lade under Section 2.4.5 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. He referred to photos contained within the packet, noting that there is a dental/medical facility located on 8th Street and Lakeview and faces Lakev~ew Drive. He indicated that the zoning classification on 9th ~?'~ Street and E. Lakeview Drive are the same, and this is the location of hie corner lot. ,~':" Mr. Powe11 asked where the ordinance contains criteria to be &ppl~ed when both the corner roads are the same classification, to " which Mr. Blanchard replied there is none. Mr. Powell explained that the approved proposed fire station ? across the street will be exiting on 9th Street. He remarked if a line was drawn from the northwest corner of the fire station to the ~..~ southwest corner of Lot 5, it would cut his lot by 80/20 with the 80~ Page 3 March 30, 1992 ',~e~atntng In the C-3 district. Mr. Blanchard affirmed that Mr. Powell's lot ts conforming under C-3, but becomes legal, non-conforming under C-1/T which Is provided for in the Land Development Code addressing setbacks on legal non- conforming lots. Mr. Powell reported that he was Informed by staff that deter- ~i' alnatlons had been made with regard to all the other lots in Block 26 and all would remain 0-3 with the exception of hie lot. He voiced ~' concern that hie property would be the only lot on the street that would be recommended for a rezontng to a stricter classification. He noted that his property would only be allowed to have 10~ of the total traffic on that street. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Powell stated that he te being zoned into something totally different than every other property :~' on the block with eIdeyard requirements three times as great as those of neighboring properties. He revealed that the area of coverage and the amounts of use are so restrictive, he cannot even put in a flower i~::,- shop or beauty shop. Mr. Powell explained that under Section 2.4.5, "the Growth Planning Director shall determine the existing zoning districts on a particular unimproved property are compatible With surrounding zoned districts and land uses if any of the following criteria are demonstrated by competent evidence: the existing zoning districts on the sub,eot property are the same as or less intensive than the existing districts on Improved or exempt property conttffuous at least 50~ of the combined length of the etdeyards of the subject property without regard to intervening rights-of-way." He announced that he believes that this language gives him automatic compatibility. Mr. Blanchard replied that he did consider this issue and believes the exemption was processed accurately. He advised that there ts a provision in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance that identifies what the eideyards will be when they are located on a corner lot. Indicated that because these two roads are local roads, It ts 000. 06 Page 4 March 30, 1992 apossible to Identify which side lot line should be the side yard and there ts no guidance provided within that ordinance, Mr. Powell stated that as the owner, he should be able to make the determination as to which side he will front on. Mr. Blanchard addressed various arguments offered by Mr. Powell. In summary, he reminded the Commission that the test on these cases ts whether a consistent zoning district Is incompatible with surrounding land uses. He advised that staff analysis concludes that a consistent district is incompatible and the C-3 district ts Incompatible given the surrounding zoning and development, and recommend that the C-1/T meets the test for the averaging of intensity and density. There were no other speakers. Co~dssl~r Shanahan ~=m~ed, seconded by Comleeloner Hesse and carried ~n~ni~ously, to accept Mr. Blanchard'a qualifications z~ga~hi~ as an e~pert in this ~atter. ~lssioner Shanahan ~oved0 seconded by Comissioner Rases and ca. tied unanimously0 to close the public hearing. Tape ~2 Commissioner Shanahan questioned whether C-3 modified, with height restrictions, etc. as suggested by Mr. Powell, would be close to the C-1/T district. Mr. Blanchard replied that the modifications would be close to C-l/T, however, it does not address the types of uses but it begins to address some of the traffic Impacts. He indicated If the Co.mission determines that C-3 is compatible, staff would recommend certain development limitations. Commissioner Saunders remarked that staff has done an excellent Job tn recommending what would be the least Intensive use that would be compatible with the Comp Plan and surrounding land use. He cited that the medical/dental facility to the north was used to some degree as a rationale for recommending C-1/T on the adjacent property and C-3 zoning ts vested on that property and that use could change. He related that Mr. Blanchard indicated that the recommended C-3 with modifications aa suggested by the Petitioner, addresses the traffic Page March 30, ~992 concerne. that tt~ C-3 zoning be nainteined, with limitetion~ u recommended by the petitioner ~ich Include ltmLtat$o~ on the ~s of uss ~d a ~t~t l~tmtin on the pro~rty ~lemm they ~e not ~ ~t C-I xoatng clastftcatton~ ~t, the zoning tistrtct ~lch Is ~istet ~tth the gr~h ~a~at Pl~ ~lt ~ tnco~tlbla wi~ ~sl~ l~d ~es, there~ adopting Reeolution 92-191. Mr. Powell stated that he believes the motion ts a fair resolution w/th re~ard to this Issue. ~ ~11 for the ~st/on, the Ktlon c~rt~ ~lmly. 08 Page 6 March 30, 1992 10:40 A.M. - Reconvene~: 10:50 A.M. at which tlBo Clerk Ferric replaced Deputy Clerk Roll.un RISOL~TION 92-192, RE PITITION CEX-010-11N/A, GEORGE ~. VARNADOE, OF YOUNg, VAN ASSK]FDKRP, VARNADOE AND BENTON, P.A., APPEALING THE ~3tO~TH PLANNING DIRECTORtS DKTKKMINATION FOR DENIAL OF THE COMPATIBILITY KXCIPTION APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE APEX OF U.S. 41 AND OLD U.S. 41, CONSISTING OF 21 ACRES - ADOPTED ALLOWING C-4 ZONING TO REMAIN WITH CONDITIONS Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on March 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Conltsstoner Volpe requested that everyone Intending to offer testimony or evidence tn connection with this particular petition to stand, which they did, and he proceeded to swear them tn. Upon Attorney Varnadoe confirming he has no objection to staff offering themselves as expert witnesses, Commissioner Hesse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan ind curried unantBonoly, to accept 8z~h Plmmlng Director Blanchard u well u Planners Mtchelle It was the consensus to allow testimony dealing with market feasi- bility and mtnlnun beneficial use to the subject property. Attorney Varnadoe interjected that the Appeal was flied on January 14, 1992 and contained detailed ar0ument regarding minimum beneficial uae. 0rowth Planning Director Bio.richard briefly sunnarized the relevant factors associated with this Petition. Attorney Varnadoe proceeded to question Growth Planning Director Blanchard regarding staff's conclusion that RSF-3 zoning would not be compatible with surrounding land use8 due to traffic, noise, g/are, gas fanes, etc., end as to Justifications for ~F-6 zoning. He stated one of his main problem8 with staff's analysis Is it Indicates we are surrounded by residential land uses, or land uses that staff hopes will be residential, because they have embarked on this Zoning Reeva- luation Ordinance process on these properties, while a land use map or 000. 09 Page 7 March 30, 1992 ~-~ae~lal photograph indicates this property is surrounded by major road- ways, or will be in the immediate future. He questioned Mr. Blanchard regarding traffic statistics relative to the subject site. Attorney Varnadoe referred to his submitted blue book entitled "Petition Number CEX-OIO-NN Compatibility Exception Appeal Documentation", and commenced his presentation and argument that the subject property would be more accurately zoned commercial. Upon Attorney Varnadoe ca/ling Dr. Robert H. Tanner as his first witness, OOmLt~mioner S~und~rm ~K~d, ~con~e~ ~ ~M~n~ht and carr%edunani~ou~ly, to accept Dr. T~ner u ~n ex~rt In m of ~ ~1~ ~d control. Dr. T~ner explained his methods of analyz~n~ the noise levels at the subject site, as well as his findings, after which Growth Plannin~ Director Blanchard posed questions to him re~ardtn~ the effectiveness of fences ~d harms in such developments as ~ndemere, weather con- dAtAons at the tame of ~alyeAs, etc. .T~ ~ ~~ ~~IF, to accep~ ~rt (~b) ~e ~ ~1~. Mr. ~e stated tha~ co,arc/al zonln~ was placed on the subject property as early as 1969, with nothin~ today ~o suggest that the com- mercial zonin~ ts inappropriate and, tn fact, is more appropriate today th~ when i~ was initially placed on the property as a result of the plied extension of Livin~ston Road. UsAn~ various exhibits con- ~ained in the hereinabove referred to blue book and maktn~ one correc- tion to E~ibik I, he proceeded to explain his Justifications for concludin~ the co~ercial zonin~ is more appropriate. ~ Clerk ~ln replaced ~ Clerk A~orney Varnadoe presented Richard Armalavage as an exper~ real estate and market analysis. O00P, t 10 Jt~rch 30, 2992 R~chard A~ma~avage explained the pu~ooe of h~s aso~men~ was to study ~d analyze the sub~ect 2~ acres to determine the market demand ~d the economic v~ab~l~ty of residential land use for the property. He indicated he studied the physical characteristics of the property, lt8 oAze, shape, location, surrounding uses, road frontage, topo~aphy, etc. He mentioned having studied similar properties in the Naple8 and Bonita Springs areas to determine land uses and demand for residential housing for properties at major intersections or with major road frontage exposure alon~ major arterial roadways. He rsferred to Exhibit "El", s~at~n~ it reflects the results of his ana- lysis. He remarked there are no comparable properties available for ~alysi8 that suffer from the same conditions as the subject property, those being road frontage and triangular shape at a "Y" interse=tion. He reported having also studied all the properties selected by staff as comparable, however In his opinAc, n, those were not comparable loca- tions. He concluded the subject property is highly restrictive due to maze and 8ha~e, a8 well as ~raffic volume and noise primarily due to the "Y" Antersection and the existence of the two roadways and ~he plied ~hird roadway. He indicated he has concluded residential use As not practical on ~he subject property, there is no demand for res/- dentAal use as evidenced by ex~ensAve survey of the marketplace and residential use will not be economAcally viable. Mr. Blanchard pointed out the subject property Is no~ located An ~ Activity Center, while the majority of si~es referenced by Mr. Armalava~e are An Activity Centers. He said Activity Centers are are~ where residential is supposed to occur. He asked If that was t~en into consideration in the analysis in any way, or was It an ana- lysis of only the existin~ conditions? Mr. Armalava~e responded he made an analysis of the actual ~8rke~place and the exAsttn~ intersec~/ons. He said although an Activ~y Center may be designated for partial resident~al use, ~he Page 9 March 30, 1992 market dictates use, and there is no demonstrable residential use in any major intersection in Collier County. Mr. Blanchard commented that zoning reevaluation actions are being taken at the intersections of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard and Qoodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road, whereby the existing com- mercial may not continue to be there. He added the property on the northeast quadrant of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road is not there any more because of zoning reevaluation. Ne asked if con- mtderation was given in the analysis of the zoning reevaluation actions being undertaken? Mr. Armalavage indicated according to the land use maps he researched, the properties were under reevaluation. He reiterated, however, the adex of the trian~ular area at Davis Boulevard and Radio Road is currently utilized for commercial purposes, and there are other commercial uses in that location. Mr. Blanchard remarked that Mr. Armalavage referred 'to problems that are occurring in Northgate Village. He asked if Mr. Armalavage ia implying the reason for the problems is noise and location, or could tt also be a problem with marketing? Mr. Armalavage stated in his opinion it is very clearly because of the intersection, the roadway and the noise, as well as the objections that any typical person would have to living in that location. He said the proximity to Naples is one of the best, yet it still cannot be marketed. Attorney Varnadoe presented Robert J. Gray, A.I.C.P., with Strategic Planning Group, Inc., and asked the Board to accept him as an ex~ert in the area of development economics, feasibility and econo- mic planning. C~isetoner ahanahan ~ved, seconded by Co-~atsaloner Rases ~nd c~rTl~u~ntmou~ly, to accmpt Robert J. Gray u an expert in develop- ~ent e~e~ics, feutbtltty ~nd economic planning. Robert Gray introduced himself as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Strategic Planning Group, an International growth Page 10 March 30, 1992 ~anagement development economics firm. He explained he was asked to evaluate the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance (ZRO) and Staff comments. He indicated the ZRO provides for compatibility exceptions on untaproved property if the applicant can show by substantial, com- petent evidence that the zoning districts consistent with the Growth Management Plan would be incompatible with existing land use. He said the ZRO sets forth six criteria, the first being whether the land use pattern, densities or intensities allowed under the zoning district are compatible with existing nearby property. He agreed with Staff's position that single-family, three units per acre is not compatible, however, the same logic can be applied to six units per acre, He stressed from an economic development and planning perspective, that the i~aediate land uses of the subject property are major road rights- of-way which form the boundaries. He added the issue of res~dential on this property is not economically viable for many reasons. He indicated the second major criteria is whether land use patterns, den- sities or intensities allowed under existing zoning are compatible with existing properties. He strongly disagreed with Staff's findings that C-4 zoning is not compatible with ex/sting properties. He said the third criteria is whether the existing zoning district boundaries ars logically drawn and in his opinion, the existing C-4 zoning districts were not illogically drawn. The fourth criteria, he said, is whether a consistent zoning district will adversely impact or be adversely impacted by surrounding areas. He agreed with Staff that three units per acre would be adversely impacted by the surrounding areas, but so would six units per acre. He stated the ZRO also gives consideration of whether ex/sting zoning would adversely be ~mpacted or cause adverse impacts. He strongly suggested that the impacts, regardless of what happens on the site, actually occur to right-of-way because the land uses that abut the subject property are right-of-way. He reported the fifth criteria is considera=ion of public safety. He said traffic ~mpacts as they occur at different times will be a criti- cal issue, specifically related to noise, ingress and egress and the March 30, 1992 perception of safety. He noted the sixth and final criteria is' ~.' . whether consistent zoning district is out of scale or character with the existing uses. He advised given the unique characteristics and the size of the subject property, the C-4 district is a logical choice for commercial use. He referred to Exhibit "M", the Commercial Performance Standards Table, stating the property lends Itself to cer- tain specific types of uses, one of which ts community level retail. Ha said the performance standards set forth in Exhibit "M", both from & development economics standpoint and land planning, make this use totally compatible with surrounding land uses. He mentioned limita- tions on compatibility exceptions, stating the surrounding uses are not residential and the property abuts an Activity Center which allows for mixed use development, with the other side being industrial. In terms of averaging, he said, their proposed use falls way within any averaging technique Staff would like to use. Mr. Blanchard asked Mr. Gray if Old U.S. 41 is closed off, does that affect the impact? Attorney Varnadoe objected to the question, because there is nothing in the FLUE or the Transportation Element that indicates Old U.S. 41 wiii be closed. Commissioner Volpe instructed Mr. Gray to answer the question. Mr. Gray stated his opinion would not change, because major arterial would surround It on all but one side, and the other side is still a ~aJor collector road. In response to Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Gray agreed the ZRO states that Staff ~rust find the zoning district compatible and consistent with the Mr. Blanchard referred to comments made regarding public safety. He asked Mr. Gray if it is his opinion that there is no way the sub- Sect property can be designed for residential to effectively protect ;.' public safety? ;~.~ Mr. Gray replied there is no economical way to do so. '~ ' Mr. Blanchard inquired if any residential development on this Page 12 March 30, 1992 mite, including those at the cap of 16 units per acre, would be incom- patible with the surrounding area, to which Mr. Gray responded tn the affir~attve. Mr. Blanchard asked if the C-4 district with the restrictions as outlined tn the submittal, will meet the test of averaging density and intensity of surrounding areas? Mr. Gray answered 150,000 square feet, taking into account the district, the Activity Center to the south which Immediately abuts the property after the right-of-way, the Industrial to the side, as well aa the most intense use which is the right-of-way, will most defini- tely fall w~th~n that parameter. Mr. Blanchard ~nd~cated Staff has not concluded, as it was outlined in the written submittal on the appeal, that the site ts lnappropr~ate for residential. He said Staff has concluded that the site ls 5napproprtate for single-family residential, however, mu/ti- fully is appropriate on this site. He remarked Staff recognized that at. some point tn time the property will be completely surrounded by roads, but that does not negate the fact that the land uses · urrounding this s~te are predominantly residential. He stated com- patibility analysts looks at both the site itself and the surrounding areas. He aa~d impacts of surrounding development on the subject pro- perty are only one of the considerations, as are the impacts of poten- tial development of this site on the surrounding uses. He said an ~mportant issue ia whether a consistent zoning district ts incom- patible with surrounding land uses. He submitted that single-family, which is the ultimate consistent district tn thls case, ts tncon- slatent but by making use of the commercial conversion, RMF-6 is not inconsistent or incompatible. He mentioned it has been recognized there will be too much commercial zoning ~n Collier County by the year 2015, and ~f this property te allowed to remain C-4, a continuance of the strip development pattern along U.S. 41 may occur. He reminded the Board that the average intensity test must be made if the Board determines that consistent districts are Incompatible. He advised the Page 13 March 30, 1992 district chosen by the Board cannot permit densities or tnten- greater than the average on surrounding properties. He indi- cared should the Board determine the density and intensity of the surrounding area exceeds Staff's recommendation, the intensity deter- mined as the average must be stated. He added the Board must also choose a zoning district and address any conditions. Attorney Varnadoe recalled testimony that nowhere on the subject site can a house be built that meets the Noise Ordinance for residen- tis! use. He said tn order to accommodate that, a wall or fence at least 20-30 feet high must be constructed. Be indicated the Board ~uat allow the owner a reasonable use, which includes a marketable uae. He said there te no market for residential given the constraints of this site, or tn areas that are comparable to this site. He reported this site was zoned properly more than 20 years ago because it meats the characteristics for commercial property. He suggested the Board allow the current zoning to remain and impose the conditions contained in the performance standards. Ceeee/ut~ner S~unders moved, ~econded by Co~leaion~r Ha~e and c~t~iedm~~ly, to clo~e the public hearing. Commissioner Saunders commented he is pursuaded that this site may be more appropriate for some form of commercial designation. He said, however, he ts not convinced that the entire tract should be designated as 0-4. He asked the County Attorney if the Board deter- mines that a lower intensity commercial use ts appropriate for the site, may the Board affirm that the C-4 zoning will remain In place pending a down zone of the property to a less intensive commercial use that would be evidenced by a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Document? County Attorney Cuyler advised the Board should be as specific as possible because of the possibility of an appeal. He said it may be tn everyone's best interest to have a PUD Document. Attorney Varnadoe Indicated he does not want to be put In a posi- tion of going through the PUD process, because of Staff opposition to this site remaining commercial. 000P, i6 Page 14 March 30, 1992 Couissioner Saunders mentioned a concern with having the same tyl~e of development as exists along U.S. 41, and the only way to avoid that is to require a planned development for the subject property. He asked how to prevent the owner from dividing the site ~nto small indi- vidual commercial lots if the C-4 zoning is maintained after this Planner Weeks suggested the Board has the ability to limit certain uses under the current zoning. He indicated if the property remains C-4, Staff would like to see some of the more ~ntense uses allowed ~der C-4 eliminated. Commissioner Shanahan communicated his opinion that the best use of the property is commercial, however, his concern is with the deve- lopment standards as proposed. Co~missionsr Hesse ~ndicated he is convinced that the intensity of noise and traffic does not lend itself towards a residential area. He suggested if the site is not allowed to be divided into small parcels, commercial development should be allowed. Com~iesioner Goodnight concurred, adding the area will always be a high traffic area for the agricultural community. She said commercial development should be allowed with specific criteria set. Attorney Varnadoe indicated he will agree that development of this site wall be presented to the Board as a unified plan under a Site Development Plan. Planner Weeks recommended that certain C-4 uses be deleted, such al automotive dealers and gasoline stations, automobile repair and automobile services, building materials, hardware and garden supplies, ~Alcellaneous repair groups, drive ~hrough restaurants and possibly motion picture theaters. He indicated those uses should be deleted from the standpoint of traffic impact as well as potential v~eual impacts on the nearby residential properties. He emphasized that Staff is suggesting deletion of those uses as free-standing uses. He said there would be no objection for ~nstance0 to automotive repair Page 15 ,,~t March 30, 1992 i':when part of a larger use such as a Sears automobile center. t ~ ~~to~er S&und~r~ ~e~d, eecond~d by C~l~e2oner G~tgh~, to ~ C-4 z~l~ ~t ~ onlF ~ ~~t ~ ~t~ to ~d a~r~ed ~ the Board of C~ty Co~teetonere. Co~tss~oner Sh~an asked that consideration be g~ven ,~ deleting gas stations and drive-through restaurants and llmtt to two, the n~ber of outparcels. ~fl~ h t~ ~ttt$~er'm ~lb~t In response to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Varnadoe a~reed that at /east 50~ of the s~are footage will be devoted to co~tty com- mercial uses. ~ ~11 for 000P, 18 Page 16 March 30, 1992 ~.. .!!:. lta:lO~,OTZ0~ e2-:te~, 1~ F~TZ~Z0~ CZX-043-lm/A, J01m #. ~ASSZlX~0 0F APPT, AE~,I~ TH~ ~ PL&NN1'IlG DIKECTOR~$ DETEI~,I'rNATZON FOR D~I"rAL OF THE ~S~I~ITXB'rLXT~ ~XCEFTION APPLICATION FOR FEOPE~TY LOCATHD ON ~ ~ SZD~ OF U.S. 41 AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE LEE/COLLIER COUNT'f LIER - ~ ALLO~IN~ I~MF-6 TO ~EMAIN WITH CONDITIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on March 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidav~t of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CEX-043-NN/A filed by John M. Passidomo of Frost and Jacobs, repre- senting A. L. Dougherty Company, Inc., appealing the Growth Planning Director's determination for denial of the Compatibility Exception App/icat~on for property located on the east side of U.S. 41 and the south side of the Lee/Collier County line, consisting of 4.36 acres. Attorney Passidomo with the law firm of Frost and Jacobs explained he is not seeking to restore commercial zoning on the sub- ~ect property, or obtain density for more resident/a/ uses than would otherwise be permitted under the density rating system. He acknowledged that the density of development permitted on the land will be governed by the density rating system established under the FLUE of the Growth Management Plan. He remarked there are two issues on appeal. He said the first is whether the ZRO, the FLUE or the Growth Management Plan restricts the use of the property to exclusi- vely single-family uses. He said the other issue is whether the Growth Planning Director can require the rezoning of land under the ZRO, notwithstanding his prior determination that the existing zoning district on the land is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. He advised they wish to retain the same right to develop mu/ti-family uses on the land that is enjoyed by all other properties in the surrounding area. He referred to his submittal of arguments in sup- port of the appeal, stating it contains ample and compelling evidence to establish that the Director's determination to deny the Compatibility Exception is contrary to the criteria contained in the ZRO and is not supported by substantial, competent evidence. He March 30, 1992 ~*cBncluded that the purpose of the ZRO ts to bring Into balance planned Uses and public facilities as well as eliminating strip commercial and reducing densities in hurricane evacuation areas. He said none of those purposes are served by eliminating this multi-family use. In response to County Attorney Cuyler, Mr. Blanchard advised the RMF-6 zoning district itself is not consistent, which Is why the pro- perry is subject to the ZRO. He said Staff does not have a problem with Mr. Pasetdomo's argument, however, it is their responsibility under the ZRO to recommend the most consistent zoning district, which the single-family at three units per acre. Planner Weeks explained under the old Zoning Ordinance, Staff did not have the ability to place cape tn the RMF-6 zoning district. He said the new ULDC says for various residential districts, six units per acre is the maximum allowed, but the actual density on the pro- perry is as permitted by the Growth Management Plan. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Passidomo stipulated that his legal argument tn this petition is identical to his position regarding Petition CEX-0§4-NN/A. Comed~ioner Saundere ~oved, seconded by Couaiseloner Sh~n~han ~nd to close the public hearing. Saunders moved, seconded by Cowaisaloner Shanahan, to the RMF-6 zoning designation which will be ~ub~ect Co~issioner Volpe stated for clarification that the motion is for the property to remain RMF-6 with a base density of three units per acre and that the property will come back as part of the batch rezon- ings. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the merits of the above proposed action. County Attorney Cuyler asked Attorney Passtdomo If it will serve his purposes if the Board authorizes the petitioner to proceed through the process, i.e., towards pulling permits, or putting together a SDP, so that he ts not held up in any way, and this property comes back to Page 18 March 30, 1992 the Board as part of the batch rezones with multi-family with a cap of 'three units per acre? Attorney Passtdomo responded tn the affirmative. ~/eei~ ~u~dere ~ended the ~t~on, ~co~ ~, to e u npst~ a~ ~ ~ ~11 for t~ ~stion, the ~tton carried ~tnly, Page 19 March 30, 1992 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on March 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication fi/ed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CEX-O54-NN/A, filed by John M. Paeeidomo of Frost and Jacobs, repre- senting A. L. Dougherty Company, Inc., appealing the Growth Planning Director*s determination for denial of the Compatibility Exception Application for property located along the south side of the Lee/Collier County line, ± 1/4 mile west of Old U.S. 41 and north of the apex of Old U.S. 41 and U.S. 41, consisting of 47.57 acres. Discussion of this Item was heard in conjunction with Petition C~X-O43-tr~/A. Cemmimmioam~ ~mundmrm moved, m~on~ C~tmmi~r S~ ~tM ai~ly, to clo~ the ~blic hmmr~. MiMi~r ~rl ~, ~c~d~ ~ Co~lm~oner S~ ~d ~~ ~ly, to mppr~ ~AntmAnAng the ~-6 z~Ang ~ ~t~ ~lutt~ 92-194. Page 20 March 30, 1992 aes ~ at 2:30 P.M. - Reconven~d at 3:08 P.N. at w~ich ti~e Delmt~ Clerk Ne~ere replaced Deput~ Clerk 0uevin eee iI:~:~OT,~TZOII 92-198 P.X C~X-OI2-NN/&, F1UOICZS D. HUSSEY, JP.., N.D. ~I'N~ ~ ~ PLANNXNG DZR,ECTOR'S D~I'E]~IZNATZON FOR DB:NI&L OF COMP&TZBZL/I"T B:XCEFTZOR APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE MgST EIDE OF OLD U.S. 41 AND + ~ MILE NORTH OF THE APEX OF OLD U.S. 41 U.S. 41 - &,DOFT~D, PERMITTING C-3 ZONING NITH LIHITATIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on March 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public heartng was opened to consider the Appeal of Compatibility Exception Application CEX-O12-NN/A, filed by Robert Ihlml~e of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., representing Francis D. Huasey, Jr., M.D. appealing the Growth Planning Director's deter- mtnatton for dental of the Compatibility Exception Application for property located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 and ~ ~ mile north of the apex of Old U.S. 41 and U.S. 41 in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5 ~ acres. Attorney George Vega informed the Board that there are five exhi- bits ~ertaining to this Appeal (copies not provided to the Clerk to the Board). Mr. Vega expressed that Dr. Tanner's previous testimony is to be ~ade part of this record, as well, in order to save time. County Attorney Cuylar commented that this would be acceptable as long as there are witnesses present. Co~umtseloner Volpe at this time swore in everyone present that was offering testimony or evidence in connection with this hearing. Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director, reported that the subject property is & 4.86 acre parcel in the North Naples Planning Community it the southeast corner of the recently approved Planned Unit Develop- lent of Meadow Brook Estates, and specified that it is at the inter- section of Old U.S. 41, what is the northwest quadrant of the Intersection of Old 4! and the future County Road 860.. He noted that It ia currently zoned 0-4 which permits a variety of office, institu- tional or retail uses wlthtn structures up to lO0 feet in height, and Page 21 March 30, 1992 that At ia located within the mapped traffic congestion area and ia desi~nated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan, which permits residential development at a base den- sity of 4 units per gross acre, and may be added to or subtracted from, based on the density rating system of the Future Land Use Element. He specified that the maximum permitted density in this land use dest~nation is SO dwelling units per gross acre. Mr. Blanchard explained that the Urban Residential Designation also permits commercial land uses subject to criteria as well as other nonresidential uses such as essential services and institutional uses. Mr. Blanchard noted that the surrounding properties are all unimproved with the exception of a mobile home park to the southeast, and described the surrounding properties as follows: a) to the north of this property is an unimproved 34 acre residen- tial Meadow Brook Estates Planned Unit Development. This PUD permits adult congregate living facilities as well as mu/ti- family dwellings at a density of approximately 9 units per gross acre. This directly abutts the subject property to the north; b) to the east is Old U.S. 41 as well as unimproved property which ia zoned Industrial: c) to the south is an unimproved portion of Meadow Brook Estates PUD which has been reserved for right-of-way for future County Road 860, and C-4 zoning; d) to the west is the unimproved Meadow Brook Estates PUD. Mr. Blanchard summarized that Staff reviewed the submitted appli- cation and determined that the application failed to demonstrate that a consistent residential zoning district would be incompatible with ~rrounding land uses, and that Staff has determined that the RMF-6 Zoning District, a zoning district which is consistent with the plan through the utilization of the conversion of commercial provisions of the density rating system would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He surmised that a higher density residential district would be compatible with surrounding land uses and that the develop- ment standards of the proposed zoning district would allow the flexi- bility needed to mitigate any negative impacts. Mr. Blanchard stipulated that the subject property could poten- Page 22 March 30, 1992 tlall¥ ~ developed as a coordinated plan, meaning shared access and buffering with the adjacent Meadow Brook Estates PUD, because both parcels are under the same ownership. He advised the Board that at the time of rezoning of the Meadow Brook PUD, the subject parcel was excluded from the acreage property description at the time the PUD was applied for, with the knowledge that the remaining 0-4 portion of that property was Inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Plan and was subject to Zoning Reevaluation, and tn fact, the rest of Meadow Brook Estates PUD would have also been subject to the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance if it had not gone through the rezontng taking advantage of the conversion of commercial. In response to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. Blanchard suggested that the ~ub~ect property was not directly adjacent to environmentally sen- eltive areas. AddItionally Mr. Blanchard concluded that development permitted by the existing C-4 district could create or excessively increase traffic congestion on adjacent roadways. Specifically he outlined that the · %lbJect property is large enough to accommodate approximately 50,000 sq~lare feet of commercial, and estimated that a center of this size could generate an average of over 5,000 trips per day increasing the dally traffic volume count on Old U.S. 41 to over 13,000 trips per day. He compared this to a multi-family development at 6 dwelling ttnits per gross acre which would generate approximately 170 trips per day. Regarding Dr. Tanner~s generic testimony, County Attorney Ouyler stated that he did not have a problem with it being incorporated, but that it is up to Mr. Vega to make certain that he addresses whatever le necessary for this property, and it is up to the Board to weigh the relevancy and give way to the testimony. Dr. Tanner, a noise expert, expressed that by the year 2000, the traffic on Old U.S. 41 increases at the rate that is expected, the noise at the property line will be 74 DB, and will not meet the HUD guidelines of 55. Page 23 March 30, 1992 Robert Duane with Hole, Montes & Associates, advised that this parcel was left out of the PUD for Meadow Brook Estates, and that they had never presumed that it would be suitable for anything other than comrctal land use. He further noted that they converted 34 acres of commercial zoning to residential zoning, and wanted the Board to recognize that there has already been a substantial downzoning of this property, and that this is a small parcel of what ts left over. Mr. Duane discussed that Livingston Road Is expected to have 15,000 vehicles per day, according to the Comprehensive Plan. Considering this and the fact that the site is across the street from Industrial and Commercial, he deemed that it ls not a conducive site for residential development, and the acreage ls Insufficient for screening and buffering and cjustering to result in a compatible resi- dential land use at this intersection. He stated that the following performance standards have been suggested to Staff: a) there is to be a minimum of 100 foot separation between any commercial structures on this property and the northern portion of this property in addition to a 30 foot buffer; b) to limit to two stories any commercial structure on this property. Mr. Duane summarized that in considering the size, the con- figuration and the projected traffic volumes, this site is not suitable for residential land uses. Richard Bart, Traffic Analyst with Bart, Dunlop and Associates, Inc., stated that his testimony will reflect traffic Issues and traf- fic characteristics In the area of this site, for both existing and future conditions. He noted that this site Is at the location of the future intersection of Old U.S. 41 and Livingston Road and that ini- tially Livingston Road will be a two-lane facility, but tn the future, is planned for four lanes. Mr. Bart reported that projections indicate Old U.S. 41 today carries about 10,000 vehicles dally, in the peak season and will carry about 11,100 vehicles per day by the year 2000 and 15,000 per day by Page 24 March 30, 1992 the year 2009. Co~aenting on Staff's Report that 5000 vehicles a day would be added to Old U.S. 41, Mr. Bart disagreed with this. He stated that not all the traffic will be new traffic, there will be a considerable a~ount of pass-by traffic or trips that would be captured off the existing traffic that would already be on the roadway, and added that there will be a distribution of traffic from this commercial site to the east and west on Livingston Road and also the north and south on Old U.S. 41. Mr. Bart concluded that because of the character of the area, the level of traffic and the amount of turns at this intersection, this parcel ia more suitable as a commercial site. In response to Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Bart indicated that a 50,000 square foot commercial retail sate will, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineer Studies, have a sl~nificant amount of captured pass-by trips. C~t~ton~r 8aundmra ~oved, seconded by Co~tealoner Sh~ mhd C~2TAed~ni~ou~l¥, to recognize Robert Duane, Richard Bart and Staff C~A~io~er ~aundera clarified that Bob Blanchard has been cl~ified ~ ~n expert in Planning, not Traffic Analysis. ~m/eeA~%~er Ha~we ~v~, ascended by Co,~missioner Goo~ni~ht and ~A~~,a~l¥, to clams the public hearing. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Duane confirmed that the performance standards limit the building height to two stories, and a 30 foot buffer along the northern edge of the property, as well as the assurance of 100 foot setbacks from any structure on that northern property lane. Mr. Duane reiterated to the Board that Dr. Tanner has testified 'that even without Livingston Road, there are unacceptable levels of noise on that property, Just given the existing traffic on 41. O~w~iul~r Sanndmrm ~oved, seconded by Com,-lesioner Shanahan and %~a~m 25 March 30, 2992 ~ ~mm~tmo~sl¥, to ~rant in part the Conpattblltt~ ~ceptton to ~ ~t ~t C-3 ~ing tm ~nttted on thtm mite, h~r tbrm ~11 ~ ~ ~ etati~ or drt~-t~ f~t f~ rosta~ntm, ~ t~ ~ ~ ~tt~ tract prs~t~ to t~ hrt of 0~ O~lmmio~rm f~ ~1, ~ including all the other ~rfo~ce ~lterla ntl~ ~ t~ filin~ ~ the ~tltloner, tbere~ ad~ttq ~lutton 28 Page 26 March 30, ~99R Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on March 14, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication fi/ed with fha Clark, public hearing was opened to consider CEX-OO1-UE/A, filed by Robert Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc., representing Marvin T. Levtn appealing the Growth Planning Director's determination for denial of the Compatibility Exception application for proparty locatad ~ mile wast of Intarstate 75 at the northeast corner of I~u~okalae Road and the Future Livingston Road, consisting of 7 acres. Commissioner Volpe swore tn evaryone offering testimony or evi- dence for this appaal. Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director raported that the subject property ts the commercial portion of the Carlton Lakes PUD and con- elete of approximately ? acras, and ts designated Urban Residential on tha Futura Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Ha norad the surrounding properties as follows: a) to the north all properties are part of the undevaloped Carlton Lakas PUD and the property directly to the north on thetr site plan is planned for a health club and recraation; b) to the east all properties are part of the undavaloped Carlton Lakes PUD and are planned for multi-family use; c) to the south across Immokalee Road and the canal right-of-way are undavaloped lands zoned A, Rural Agricultural and also the undeveloped April Circle PUD, which Is approved at a density of approximately 13 units per acre, as an affordable housing pro- Ject; d) to the wast is the 200 foot Livingston Road right-of-way, to the wast of that right-of-way is undeveloped proparty which ts zoned RSF-3. Mr. Blanchard reported that neither additional residential nor a natghborhood commercial center would compromise Immokalee Road, but commarcial uses would have a greater impact. Cemm/Ntoner S~undera ~o~ed, ~econded b~ Com~ta~toner Shanahan ~nd March 30, 1992 . ~z~~~ly, to accept Robert Duane u ~n expert in Planning, led Ittchard M u ~ e~rt tn Tr~rtatton. zontn~ was place~ tn 1988 on thte property, principally to serve the needs of the existing residential p=o]ect which ts the 240 acre C~ton L~ee site. He noted that the areas of disagreement are the t~acts of noise and traffic. Mr. ~ane etate~ that If the co~erclal zoning were removed from thte property it would re~tre all properties located north of ~lvtngston roa~ to access the actlvlty center at 1-75 or travel to the Intersection of I~okalee Road and Atrpo=~ Road. He relate~ that this will increase travel time, put more vehicles at the intersection and ~ld not ~ an efficient utlltza~ton of this proper~y at this inter- section. He a/so co~ented that it ts relevant to no~e that net~h- ~rh~ co~erctal uses may not develop tn the activity center - they ~y have orientation towards highway co~erctal uses. Mr. ~e contended that residential development at the tn~ersec- tton of two ma]or roadways ts not an approprta~e use. , Mr. ~e asserted that co~erclal zoning at the subject site ts well-~lte~ to meet not only the needs of the residents of Carlton ~es but also the adjoining propertte~. Mr. ~e presented an e~tbt~ showing Livingston Road (not pre- eented to the Clerk to the Boar~). He asserted that after buffering ts put tn approximately 5.3 acres wt~1 be left, ~ that screening and ~ffertng wtll not overcome the limitations of this site. Richard Bart, Traffic Analyst, reviewed that I~okalee Road tea t~-~e facility carrying approximately 18,000 vehicles per day tn the ~ season. He Indicated tha~ this sect/on is currently two l~es ~t w111 be four-laned, tn the future, and w111 carry approxima- tely 28,000 vehicles per day by the year 2000, and by the year 2009 trafftc could reach as high as 40,000 vehicles per day at the peak of the season. He noted that also a~ this Intersection is the proposed Ltvtngeton Road. O0 Page 28 March 30, 1992 He concluded that in consideration of the future traffic con- ditions in the area, this site is appropriate for a commercial site. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Blanchard responded that the permitted uses for a commercial tract within a PUD are similar to C-3 zoning, and they are listed within the PUD Document. Mr. Duans expressed that concerning Piper Boulevard, If there is ally need for any additional right-of-way, which may come off the fron- tage of this commercial tract, his client would be willing to accommo- date that additional right-of-way if he could reconfi~ure the same number of acres. ~ ~l~ ~nlmonsl¥, to close the public ha~rtn~. Comm/seto~er S~mnd~rs ~, secon~d ~ Co~tsstmr ~tght ~ ~i~ ~i~ly, to a~r~ the Cogtibtli~ hcaptt~ ~ i~la t~ offer of the rtght-of-~y r~lre~nts if f~ ~t~ ~l~d, all~tn~ for r~confi~atta of ~, t~ ~ttq b~lutt~ 92-196. Page 29 March 30, 1992 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 5:00 P.M. *,9~'tek app.?red by the Board on ' ' '.. ~ ~*~l as pre~ent.ed ~ '~or as corrected BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL MIC~AEL Page 30