Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/05/1991 SORIGINAL COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING September 5, 1991 5:05 p.m. Third Floor Boardroom Collier County Courthouse Naples, Florida 33962 Reported by: Jaoquelyn D. McMiller Deputy Official Court Reporter Notary Public State of Florida at Large TELEs OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Carrothers Reporting Service, Inc. 20th Judicial Circuit - Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 (813) 732-2700 FAX, (813) 774-6022 OFFICIAL COUR~ REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT~ I'll call the meeting to order. All rise. Mr. Dotrill, if you will lead us in a word of prayer. (Invocation .and pledge of allegiance was had and board meeting continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Good afternoon or good evening, it's still afternoon. We have a new lady that's taking minutes tonight so if you'll please make sure that you give your name for the record because she's not familiar with all of us, so if you will identify yourselves. I think she knows the commissioners because she sees our name plates but otherwise if anyone else speaking if they'll identify themselves for the record so we can get our minutes correct, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Good evening, commissioners. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 My name is David Weeks and I'm the Senior Planner with your Growth Planning Staff. The purpose of tonight'~ hearing, which is the first of two hearings, we'll be having the second hearing on the same subject matter at 6~00 p.m. in this room on September the 16th. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the rezoning of properties that are inconsistently zoned with our Growth Management Plan and that are unimproved. This is being done through the implementation of the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance which was adopted pursuant to policy 3.1(k) of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plans. A brief background, which is also included in your executive summary, the Growth Management Plan was adopted on January 10th of 1989 and included within that plan is the Future Land Use Element which is a key for providing guidance to the development of the county. Part of the Future Land Use Element is the aforementioned policy 3.1(k) which provides for the establishment of a Zoning Re-Evaluation Program and then when we adopted our Zoning Re-Evaluation O=dinance in March of last year that was the implementing land. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 development regulation. There are certain reasons or several purposes for the Zoning Re-Evaluation Program. Key amongst those, as identified in the executive summary, was the concern for the hurricane evacuation capa~ility, concern for the wide disparity between the County's ability to provide public services and facilities and the projected demand for those services and facilities based upon the potential population under the existing zoning on the ground. The finding that affords a density of four units per acre in the urban area is a generally appropriate density subject to the provisions of the Density Rating System and concern over the development patterns resulting from the existing commercial zoning on the ground, both in isolated locations in some instances and also the strip pattern. As far as the process of the Zoning Re-Evaluation Program, we've accomplished the majority of this already in sending out certified mail notices to property owners in July ¢,f 1990 or, shortly thereafter, advising the property owners that their property was subject to a potential rezoning, through this program, advising of a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 120 day time period in which to submit applications in an effort to preserve their zoning. It included the holding of workshops in each of the planning communities whereby staff was available to discuss the process and the applications with the public and of course provide for the actual fezone hearings, this being one of the fezone hearings. As you recall, we concluded on January 7th of this year the rezoning of about 40, excuse me, about 50 commercially zoned properties under this program. Tonight we're dealing primarily with residential property. We have a few unique properties, one commercial and, I think, an agricultural in there but the majority of properties for tonight's discussion are currently zoned residential of some sort. We sent out notices on -- earlier this year in July advising of this public hearing as well as the one to follow and the two Planning Commission Hearings. Now moving on to the discussion of the subject matter at hand, the actual rezoning of the properties. The Density Rating System, which is included in the Future Land Use Element provides for a base density of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 four units per acre for properties in the urban area, also includes provisions to increase that density or to decrease that density based upon a variety of criteria. One of the criteria is activity centers and then the density bands around those. We came before you, Staff, November of last year and discussed properties that would fall within density bands, if it might be appropriate to go ahead and award the additional density of three units per acre and at our suggestion you concurred and gave us that direction, that it was appropriate to consider the additional density. Another issue that we had discussed before you had to do with the accounting for infrastructure requirements for residential development. Staff's position from the beginning in evaluating properties has been to make a recommendation to fezone properties to the base density in the urban areas, generally three or four units per acre. And, when you take into account infrastructure requirements that the RFS-3 single-family zoning district is the closest without going over that base of four units per acre and that is primarily the zoning district that we are recommending as we go through the properties and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 as the maps have identified, we have varied that recommendation as we deemed appropriate. In all cases, for our recommendations the existing overlay districts are to remain in tact. For example, the ST Special Treatment Overlay. Through this process, it is not our intent to remove any of those overlay districts. We have one, in particular, unique circumstance, and again we'll discuss it further when we get to the property, out in the agricultural rural designation on U.S. 41, east, a property that was rezoned from Mobile Home Subdivision to Agricultural A-2 during the previously mentioned commercial round of rezonings concluded on January 7th of this year. That rezoning occurred erroneously. It was due to a mistake on Staff's part that we described the wrong property. The property that was, in fact, :~ezoned was improved, and therefore not subject to this process. So, in fact, we're recommending that property be rezoned from A-2 back to Mobile Home Subdivision, the zoning that it previously held. Again, that was because we didn't have the authority to fezone it in the first place through OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 this process. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: as a mobile home? MR. WEEKS~ Is it consistent with the plan It's consistent, via policy 5.9 of the Future Land Use Element, which provides that improved properties are consistent and allow to -- to development. We have three PUD's included in tonight's rezoning, all located on U.S. 41, East, on the south side of the trail in the urban coastal fringe and also within the traffic congestion area. These PUD's, based upon the Density Rating System, are limited to a maximum density of four units per acre. Again, we'll discuss those more specifically as we come to those. Something a little bit unique about one of the PUD's is the Lake Avalon PUD. Unique, in the sense that the property has applications pending, not yet reviewed, which means we should not be taking any zoning actions on those, however, the property owner has specifically requested that we do include their property. So, it is being included and will be discussed. All of PUD's have a few things in common as far as recommended changes go. One is, of course, to reduce the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 8 density to a consistent density, in this case, three units per acre; changes both within the master plan and the text to reflect that; adding or modifying a statement of compliance to explain why the project is consistent with our Growth Management Plan; deleting defunct terminology such as Zoning Director since we no longer have a Zoning Director by title. It's now the Planning Services Director and other similar terms that are no longer applicable. Also, regarding the provision for interconnection, which is one of the provisions in the Density Rating System, we've made the statement in each of the three PUD's that it is not appropriate to interconnect with adjacent properties. Commissioners, as you might recall earlier this year in February at a night hearing, the Growth Management Plan was amended to now require interconnection with adjacent properties if it's deemed appropriate and physically possible and that if that interconnection is not provided, where it is deemed appropriate and it's possible, then up to one unit per acre can be subtracted from the density for the property. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 9 In our analysis of these properties, with one exception, we are making the finding that interconnection is not appropriate and therefore are not recommending any reduction in density based upon that. The one parcel is a commercial parcel and again, we can discuss it more specifically as we get to that property. Moving on towards wrapping up my presentation initially, the Conklin Point Island parcel is a property up in North Naples also where an application, under the Zoning Re-Evaluation Program was granted, but property owner has requested that be included in this process. The owne~ts representative is here to speak further to that. The options that are available to us in rezoning these properties are a little bit more expanded than perhaps we initially had thought. Number one, we can fezone these properties to a district consistent with the Growth management Plan, utilizing the Density Rating System Provisions. Secondly and thirdly, there's the ability to not fezone properties at all or to fezone them to another district that is otherwise inconsistent with the plan OFFICIAL COUI~T REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 based upon finding that rezoning the property to a consistent district would not result in development that is compatible with surrounding properties; and/or secondly, that rezoning the property to a consistent zoning district would not result in a minimum beneficial use of the property, in effect, a taking of the property. Potentially, in some cases, we might rezone a property and you might make the finding that if we rezone that to a consistent district, the property owner has to reasonable use of their property and then potentially we would be guilty of a taking of that property, taking awayi their rights and not compensating for that. In Staff's review of the properties we have not made the finding in any case that rezoning to a consistent district would not leave them minimum beneficial use. H~ever, we have in some cases, uses that are compatible with the surrounding zoning. In each case these are identified on your maps and as we go through the pro~rties I'll point that out as well. The planning commission has met twice to discuss 11 agent and again, these properties, the first time on August the 5th and then the second time where they made their formal recommendation to you on August the 19th. There were sc~ue public speakers, they are -- who are here and I believe the same ones to speak on specific properties, and wetve also received some letters, six of them, and as we go through the properties again Itll point out the letters and the correspondence that we've received. The Lake Avalon PUD I mentioned, in particular, because of its unique status in that it has an application pending but the property owners requested it be included. Another unique circumstance about this PUD is that the property owner is also asking for additional uses to be added, most specifically, for county parks and for affordable housing. Itve included in your back-up, and it's the last handful o~ papers before you get to your map set, it is the proposed PUD document prepared by the agent for the property owners, the Lake Avalon PUD, and it includes in bold print the changes proposed by the property owner's that's regarding affordable housing. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 12 Again, we can discuss that further but I'm just letting you know 'that Staff, as well as the Planning Commission, did not endorse the proposed changes. As far as the fiscal impact goes, it is very likely that by rezoning these properties to reduce their density or intensity that there may be some reduction in their assessed values. Bowever, given the relatively small number of properties and their sizes compared to the county as a whole, we find that this is an insignificant reduction in fiscal impact. As far as the growth management impact goes, we are implementing policy 3.1(k) of the Future Land Use Element by taking action on the subject properties. As I mentioned at the outset, this is first of two hearings, the second being on September the 16th. the purpose of tonight's hearing is to discuss the propertie~, perhaps to do as Planning Commission did at their first hearing and take a straw vote on each property, such that at their second hearing it may be a matter of simply saying, "Yes, we still agree with that. Let's mow~ on." And, also of course to hear from the public as well OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 as from us, your staff, end to give us any direction you might deem appropriate, ask for any additional information to be presented to you at the second hearing. 13 Mad.am Chairman, in conclusion, the very last page, eight and a half by eleven before you get to your map set, is an explanation, a key, of the map set itself, what the different writing and scribbling and so forth on there means. The properties that are highlighted in yellow are the subject properties. These are the properties that we're discussing tonight for potential zoning action. The properties that are highlighted in blue are properties that have an application pending, which means we can not take action on them. We've identified those properties, those with applications pending in blue, so that you can see why in some cases we're recommending action not be taken on certain properties. Just as we did for the commercial properties, on several properties tonight we'll be discussing, Staff is recommending that we not take any action to rezone certain properties because in very close proximity is a property with an application pending. The outcome of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 14 that application would affect our ultimate recommendation to you on what to do with the subject properties. The Planning Commission's recommendation, as well as Staff's, is provided on the map set and it should be highlighted to draw your attention to it. We've included both for your information but as you know the formal recommendation that comes to you is that of the Planning Commission. Also, where there are PUD's on the zoning map in most cases you'll see we've identified the density of that PUD for your information. In some cases, we have the letter "C" or the word, Compatibility, that's where Staff, as I mentioned earlier we would, we've recommended that the zoning remain the same so as to allow from for uses compatible with the surrounding properties. Finally, in some cases you'll see the letters "W/H", cex pending near -- CEX, Compatibility Exception pending nearby. That's, again, indicating that there's an application c~ose by that's under review. Madam Chairman, my last comment is this, that the second hearing in front of the Planning Commission, the OFFICIAL COU~T REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 15 acting chairman decided it might be best if we first would look at the properties for which we have members of the public here to speak so that we could do away with those and then come back to the remainder properties and I offer that as a suggestion to you. I'm prepared to identify the map numbers and the parcels and so forth if you so desire. COMMISSIONER RASSE.. You're not suggesting we do away with the public, are you? I just wanted to make sure of that. MR. WEEKS~ No, sir, not at all, just a matter of convenience. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It's a little play on words there, David. MR. WEEKS~ Pardon me. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That's a little play on words there. MR. WEEKS, Yes, sir. No, just as a matter of convenience. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT = Okay. If Fou'11 identify the ones that have some problems to them, then. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 16 MR.. WEEKS~ Yes, ma'am. I'll take them in the same orders as they would come in the maps. It's the very third map. The map numbers are in the lower right-hand corner and I'll be referring to those. The very third page which is map number 8509-S. COKMISSIONER SHANAHAN: 8509-S. MR. WEEKS~ Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's the third map? MR. WEEKS~ Yes, sir. This is the one and only property that's zoned commercial. It's C-4. As the map clearly shows, to the north and south are properties zoned A-2, agricultural. This is located on Tamiami Trail on the east side, north of the split between old and new U.S. 41. Adjacent to the east of this property is the Meadowbrook Estates PUD. Now, this PUD allows multi-family uses at nine units per acre. The entire western half of the Meadowbrook Estates PUD, that is the half that abuts the subject property, is all preserved area, both wetland or upland preserved area which means it will not be development with residential uses. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 17 Then across the street we have the Retreat PUD which is an improved property so we'll be allowed to continue to develop at three and a half units per acre and then property highlighted in blue is the Village Place PUD at a density of about five and half units per acre. It has a ZRO application pending. Staff~s recommendation was to fezone the property -- or is to fezone the property to RSF-3 and with a requirement to interconnect the properties to the north and south. Planning Commissionts recommendation, again the formal recommendation to you, is to fezone the property to RMF-12, cap the density at 9 units per acre and require an interconnection to the north. CH~..IRMAN GOODNIGHT z Okay. Do we have some speakers? MS. ORSHEFSKY~ Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Debbie Orshefsky. Itm an attorney with offices in Fort Lauderdale representing the owner of the property, Doctor William Anderson who's here this evening. With me also is Bob Dwayne with Hole-Montes who has been our planning consultant in this -- in these proceedings. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 18 ThXs is kind of an interesting situation. The site as you see it in the pink right there, we have been proceeding to try to work with Staff and respond to the Planning Commission's considerations, if this is a residential site. We've been all long seeking an RMF-12 density that would allow some a multi-family residential developm~nt here and of late, we've been reviewing the map and preparing for these proceedings and what we'd really like to ask you to do tonight is not fezone this property but rather to keep it in its present commercial designation or consider some other appropriate commercial designation, but keep it commercial. through -.- CCPC? And let me go COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Was that request made to our MS. ORSBEFSKY~ No, it was not. COmmiSSIONER VOLPE: So, you're making that request for the first time this evening? MS. ORSHEFSKY~ That's correct. We understand that that's within -- among the options that this Board has to consider this evening, as Mr. Week~ described just a few moments ago. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 19 CO!~ISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Cuyler, is that proper? MR. CUYLER~ I think it's within the Board's discretion to do that, as David said, it's one of your options. It does cause me a little concern that the Planning Commission wasn't given that option. But in any event, they did not recommend that. They recommended RMF-12 with a density of -- cap of 9. So, I guess you can take that as a recommendation of denial for the commercial request being made by the Petitioner and proceed Gn that basis. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Was that discussed by the Planning Commission, commercial, in this area? MR. WEEKS~ No, it was not. MR. CUYLER: It wasn't discussed because it wasn't requeste6. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's the problem that I have. My understanding -- you know, your theory, but in this instance I assume what you've said is that you've been working with our Staff and you've been working towards a residential zoning and the question has simply been an issue of density whether it's three which was -- 20 argument or that was the presentation that was made before the CCPC which is our advisory board. So, I find it a little incongruous at this point for you to say, notwiths'=anding what we've said up to this point for the first time this evening, t~he first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, we'd like to have you consider leaving the zoning at C-4. theory, I think it's inappropriate. order. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS= I understand the I think it's out of Madam Chairman, one thought, we'll pose this as question to the Petitioner. I don't ]lave any particular problem with this remaining commercial as we consider this. I don't have any particular problem considering that as commercial tonight. If other members of the Board are reluctant to do so because this was not considered by the planning commissi¢,n, it may be appropriate to ask Petitioner if Petitioner would be willing to or desirous of having this presented to th~ Planning Commission and then brought back to us for consideration of commercial. MS. ORSHEFSKY: We would have no problem with that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 21 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS= That's assuming that the commission or members of the commission feel reluctant to hear that commercial request because of the failure to make that request before the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have question. On the map, we have C-4 and then we have RSF-3 and But up there, there's only C-4 and then we have A-2. A-2. MR. WEEKS I believe I can explain that. The piece of RSF-3 property to the south, as I mentioned we had -- no, I didn't mention that. At any rate, the property that's currently shown as RSF-3 on the maps that you have, Madam Chairman, that property was rezoned as part of the commercial fezone by mistake. Once again, Staff included the wrong legal description. We described that piece of property. So, that RSF-3 parcel you see there was previously zoned A-2, at the January hearings it was rezoned to RSF-3 and it's included tonight as part of this hearing to fezone it back to A-2, what it previously was. That's why I think -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT= It is appropriately A-2 today, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 22 thouph? MR.. WEEKS~ Pardon me? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: It is A-2 today? MR. WEEKS: It' s RSF-3 today. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT~ But, it wasn't properly rezoned to RSF-3, so, you have it up for reconsideration today? MR. WEEKS~ That's correct. But, we have not provided notice -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So, it's legally still A-27 CO~IMISSIONER HASSE= It would seem to me, wouldn't it to you, Mr. Weeks, that if the lower southern part of this proI~rty is C-4 and the majority of this property is C-4 or was C-4, I don't understand the two different designations in between. I just don't understand it. MR. WEEKS: Okay. ThE: subject property itself, which is striped, is parcel 1~:, that's currently zoned C-4, and that's what we're di~cussing right now, changing. The parcel right below that, which is designated as RSF-3, that's a separate parcel that's included. CO~tMISSIONER HASSE: I heard that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 23 MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure if I understand your question, Mr. Hasse. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, it just seems peculiar to me that you've got a C-4 piece of property and below it, two pieces of property away, another C-4, that's a hodge-pod~e. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, the C-4 to the south, isn't that a part of the activity center? MR. WEEKS: I'll certainly check and see. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Debbie, does your client own what he has said is RSF-3 that was rezoned in January, the 1.1 acres? MS. ORSHEPSKY: I ~uess if it, well, we -- my client owns 9.6 acres and if that -- our property was improperl? noticed which is why Doctor Anderson didn't have representatives back here in January when you had all of your commercial rezoning, down zonings. So, that 1.1 may be a piece of his 9.6. ~?::'- COMMISSIONER HASSE. Well, who knows? ::ii?~' . MR. ORS~EFSKY~ I think that the important point -- ~'"':~_,,....i" . I haOn t seen this ma~ until ]us~ ~e~in~ here ~oni~ht OFFICI~ ~RT ~PORTE~ COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 24 Our understanding is that today, as a matter of law, what is properly, the proper legal zoning, is as reflected on that map which is the C-4 that is -- MR. HASSE.' Kathy, please take the mike. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ The C-4 -- this A-2, I assume is still A-2 and there may be a little sliver of ours that was impro]?erly rezoned, that's the 1.1, RSF-3, which was not properly noticed, which is why our full acreage of 9.6, almost 10, acres is before you this evening for a rezoning ~o, as Staff recommends, the RS-3. But., as legal matter, our entire 9.6 acres is C-4 today. That one 1.1 is the glitch why we' re here and we weren't here in January. Does that sound right? MR. CUYLER~ I agree, technically the rezoning of the RSF-3 --.yes, I agree that it's A-2 because it wasn't I disagree on the notice point. I think done properly. we discussed-- COMi.qISSIONER SAUNDERS Ms. Orshefsky, you're saying it's C-4 and you're saying it's A-27 MR. CUYLER: No, she's not talking -- you're talking about the 1.1 -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That's a different glitch, David? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT.' Okay. MR. WEEKS~ Yeah, the subject property is still zoned C-~, in total, all 9.6 acres. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT.. Then David, the RSF-3 that has been improperly zoned, does that belong to her client? MR. WEEKS.. No. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT.. That's a separate owner and then there's a separate owner for the A-2 property that's below that or is this -- MR. WEEKS.' The A-2 and the RSF-3 is all one parcel and it's all owned by the same person. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And, it's all zoned A-2 today? MR.. CUYLER~ This was the parcel that Lucia Dougherty -- Lucia works -- MS. ORSHEFSKY: Lucia's my partner. MR. CUYLER~ -- works and Debbie. Remember Lucia OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 26 Dougherty came in and talked to all the commissioners about a scribner's error and there was a problem and they felt that the scribner's error was not a scribner's error but in fact it had not been rezoned properly. We went.through some discussions back and forth and we basically said, we will consider your C-4 property as still C-4, that will come back and we will go back and in fact fezone the A -- we'll do what -- we'll reverse what we did before Just to clean the record up. But, this is the parcel that she discussed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS.. Right now, tonight, it's C-4. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What is the zoning at the present moment of RSF-3? MR. CUYLER~ David, is that correct or not? MR. WEEKS.' Yeah, that's correct. MR. CUYLER: Okay. The CL4 is C-4. That's -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And, it's been C-4. It hasn't been changed? MR. CUYLER-. That' s correct. That' s what the subject o~ tonight' s -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The RSF-3 was the one that was OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 27 changed ~.ncorrectly and it should have been A-2 and it is presently -- that's the request tonight to return it back to A-2. MR. WEEKS= That is correct. The ordinance that was adopted on January 7th, rezoned the property from a A-2 to R~F-3, tonight, aside from this property, tonight we're asking that that be rezoned back. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= I assume that what happened, I think I understand the scenario, I assume that what happened was because an error in the legal description we rezoned the wrong piece of property. MR. CUYLER: It was purported to be rezoned. COmmISSIONER VOLPE= Right, it was purported to rezoned and property we intended to fezone was her property, her client's property. MR. WEEKS= That is correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS= Would it be accurate to say that, as a matter of law, you can not rezone the wrong piece of property. I mean, you can't make a mistake like that. It"s not effective. MR. CUYLER: That's what we have agreed with them that we would not take that argument, we would bring it OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 28 back and let the Board consider it a9ain. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT.. Commissioner Shanahan. COF~4ISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, my position is that there is adequate enough confusion here that I would support either the Petitioner -- Petitioner's choice going back through the CCPC with the proper approach, if that's the proper approach, and/or I would not be reluctant to hear it tonight. MS. ORSHEFSKY'. Whatever the pleasure of the Board. COflMISSIONER HASSE: legality of that, really. CO~[MISSIONER SHANAHAN'. it on the. floor. CO~.MISSIONER SAUNDERS ~ in hearing it tonight either. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: hearing it tonight either. COMMISSIONER VOLPE .' issue, I understand the confusion, it I'm just curious of the That's why I wanted to put I don't have any reluctance I don't have problem with The reason why I raised the seems to be, that's come up, doesnt really relate to any of the merits of ' · ' ' to what we ~.e discussion, we re trying identify what piece of property got rezoned. The fact of the matter is OFFICI~ COURT RE~RTERS, COLLIER COUNt, NAPLES, FL 33962 Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance, a separate application, / so you re here this evening to make an argument as to / what the proper zoning should be on your particular parcel of land. COMHISSIONER VOLPE You'=e here, afte: having met with our Staff, after having had two meetings before our CCPC, our adviso~ body, based upon a r~uest, as Ive understood it, as it s developed so far this evening, MS. O~HEFSKY~ Let me clarify that. MR. VOLPEr Okay, that's good. . MS. ORSHEFSKY. ~ad the notice situation worked, and I have to refer back to that, worked out properly, this property -- back in January, when you were doing the ZRO actions on commercial properties that were supposed to, under the Growth Management Plan, go to residential, then you would have considered this for a residential zoning at that time. Because that situation got screwed up, we have now OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3O taken that opportunity and moved it to these proceedings which is why we're the only commercial piece in the bunch that you're seeing tonight. i.~ The concept of -- so we didn't ask -- I would '~}21.11~.~.i prefer not to have it rezoned at all. We didn't ask to i~..~~ be part of the process but we are part of the process ~?'.'~:'.'i because we are a commercial parcel subject to ZRO. Now, with that said, as we've reviewed the ~i~!11!iiii~ijl surrounding at,a, the activity, the road network, !:-' infrastructure, et cetera, it's been our conclusion that ~/~'~'~ this site should stay as a commercial parcel and we'd t k t e o as you o consider that this evening. ~?~' COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My recollection, in some ~?~.'~.~ discussions with Lucia Dough erty was that I don't think ~. :.,.. ?~.;~?:~ that there was ~rceptton on the part of the Petitioner ~?~:~:-:': ~ at that time that commercial zoning was even an option ~":" ~ because o~ the process we're going through right now ~ which is a residential rezoning process and that may be ~~~~'~:' ~rt of the reason why there wasn't a r~uest earlier ~(~j~?" because there wasn't-- the belief that that was even an :~~~.: Th~ county attorney has indicated and Mr. weeks has ·.~:~.. .,~'.:.? . 31 indicated also that that is an option. I don't have any particular problem in considering that option tonight but I certainly can understand why the Petitioner perhaps has not requested it prior to tonight. MR. CUYLER~ I guess, if you're using the term option, you're correct. It's wholly an option under the criteria that David set out. COMMISSIONER HASSE: But It would also be the petitioner's option of having it reheard again by our -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE = CCPC. MR. CUYLER= It would or the Board could direct that. We get into a little bit of unusual circumstance because this is part of a batch fezone. We' re having two night hearings. Normally, if you fezone one parcel property you don't have to go to two night hearings and they're -- you know, we're basically doing it as a big i~f7:7' CD group. We'd have to extract that and -- ~:~:i': COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS. If we extract this one then ~:~..':~.'. we could -- I assume what you're saying is if we extract Iii:~i~.,i~i': this one, then we could do it at a regular board meeting. do 't to h ve two night h arings. '~~~~. M~. CUY~E~ ~ell, it's a guestion of whether 32 you're following the ordinance, if you do that, but I assume, if the Petitioner waives on the record any complaint about that I don't think any third party can challenge that but -- unless they could establish standing in some other manner. I guess at this point it's up to the Board to decide how you want to handle it. I think as far as the Planning Commission you can take it as -- they had asked for RMF-16 at the hearing and the Planning Commission gave them are RMF-12 at a cap of 9. So, I assume they were not looking for any intensity as far as C-4. I think you reasonably can assume that that would have been the recommendation of the denial. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's my point, Mr. Cuyler. It seems to me that somehow there's been a waiver of that. I mean, that's the whole thing. We're at the point here at the first public hearing after all of this processing for them to raise that issue, excuse this, but that happens to be my feeling, that there's been some kind of -- I'm not sure weather it's compatible or not but we're at this point in the process, that's the whole thing. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 33 Th~y had asked for RSF- 16 and now they're saying we want C-4. We go through what analysis has been done. No one's found that -- no arguments been presented other than what we' re going to hear this evening at the first public hearing. I don't know. It seems to me it's out of order. MR. CUYLER~ Well, that's something you need to decide. I can't legally tell you that you -- CO~IMISSIONER VOLPE= That's the way I feel about the procedural process that -- it seems to me that, like Ms. Orsh~ifsky has said, she's sort of accepted that this is residential rezoning. It would have been a part of process if it had been properly noticed. They didn't get into the process because of an error in the legal description. Here we are. It's commercial, being considered for a fezone to residential. They went before the CCPC on two separate occasions and said what we want is RSF-16, Staff says 3, CCPC says, no, it should be 12 with a cap of 9 based upon gross densities, you have densities and now we stand up this evening for the first time and say think it ought to be the C-4. I have a problem with that process. If you want to OFFICIAL COUI~T REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 34 take it back before the CCPC and make that pitch to them, I dontt have a problem with that. But, I, for one, hearing that request de novo under all the circumstances, it seems to me to be out of order. Thatts my personal feeling. CO!~MISSIONER HASSE~ It's out of order to put it back to CCPC? COMMISSIONER VOLPE= No. I~d agreeable to that. I would at least like the input of our advisory committee on that. If she wants the option of making that agreement, making that presentation to our advisory board, I don~t have a problem with sending her back to the CCPC ~nd letting her do that. COMMISSIONER HASSE~ That seems about the logical thing to do now in any sense of the word because it don't seem that we're going to hear it accordingly, as you want C-4. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ If the pleasure of this Board is for us to go back to the CCPC then we would certainly do that. COI{MISSIONER VOLPE= Well, I think, Ms. Orshefsky, it may ~hoove you -- I raised an issue of waiver. But, OFFICIAL C00RT REPORTERSt COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 35 what we've got is, we've got a Staff recommendation based upon certain findings that our Staff has made, we've got recommenc~tions from the CCPC based upon presentations that were made before them, certain findings that were made, presumably by our CCPC. I would think the opportunity of succeeding is improved considerably if you could go back and you could make a presentation before the CCPC and it comes to us with a recommendation from our CCPC that it should be left at C-4. COMMISSIONER SBANAHAN: which is a possibility. COMMISSIONER HASSEt Or some other compromise Now, they originally talked about the RSF-12, didn't they? And then they talked about 9? MS. ORSHEFSKY~ Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HASSEt So, you're ahead of the game by going back to them I would think. I'm just telling you. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ us to do that and then to bring it back to you after their consideration, we'd do that. COmmISSIONER VOLPE: I'd like to make a motion -- If this Board would like to direct OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 36 COMMISSIONER HASSEt I'll second it. COMMISSIONER VOLPEt -- that we grant this Petitioner to go back before the CCPC with this application. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Before we vote on the motion, Ms. Orshefsky, do you have any particular problem in having this considered as a regular zoning matter at a regular scheduled Board meeting or would you insist on two night hearings? MS. ORSHEFSKY= No, I would have no problem with taking it to one meeting thereby minimizing further procedural difficulties that this property seems to be creating. MR. CUYLER= I just need to make sure that if there's any additional advertising requirements or anything that the Petitioner is responsible for that. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ We would cover the costs, yes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: And, then when we get our next map we'll see what everything is zoned for properly. COMI{ISSIONER VOLPE: That's fine. Whether it's handled as a separate rezoning and the Petitioner doesn't have any objection to that one hearing before the CCPC. OFFICIAL COUFT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 37 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. I have a motion and a second for this item to go back to the CCPC and bring it back to us in one daytime regular BCC meeting. All in favor signify by saying "Aye". (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOO£)NIGBT: Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. MS. ORSHEFSKY~ Motion carried unanimously. See you again. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Not too soon. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman, the next property is two maps further, number 8517-S. The specific parcel here is the -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Hold on 'till I find it. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HASSE: 8517-S. MR. WEEKS= Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HASSE: You got it. MR. WEEKS: This is the island portion of the Conklin Point Subdivision. This is a property that currently has it's own RT, Residential Tourist. It OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 38 currently has a site development plan approved and an exemption approved based upon that site develoI~nent plan which will require development to begin by January 10th of 1992 and to continue in good faith without interruption through completion of the project. The property owner, as will be explained by the agent, would like to have the property instead up for rezoning tonight so it can be discussed and they don't want to be bound, I don't believe, by time lines established in the ZRO nor do they wish to have to develop in accordance with the approved site plan. The. surrounding zoning, as indicated on your zoning map, there's C-4 to the north which contains a marina, a large marina structure. There's some undeveloped RMF-6 property to the, also to the north. There's RSF-4 single family zoning that's undeveloped to the northeast. Immediately to the east of this property is the mainland portion of Conklin Point, which is owned by the county, this is the proposed park site, which is also included in tonight's rezonfng. COMMISSIONER HASSE~ Is that -- that isn't the commercial tract. Where is that located, the county 39 property? MR. WEEKSt right on the west side. and the property in blue. COMMISSIONER HASSE= The county is parcel number one, it's It's in between Vanderbilt Drive Oh, yeah, I got it. MR. WEEKS: Further east, across Vanderbilt Drive is the Wiggins Bay PUD at a density of 4.8 units per acre. It allows multi-family development and there is a commercial tract in the corner, developed RT to the south and waterway on three sides of the property. Staff's recommendation is to fezone the property to the RMF-6 zoning district based upon compatibility, to allow uses and a density that will be compatible with the surrounding properties. The Planning Commission's recommendation, again the formal recommendation to you, is to fezone the property -- excuse me, leave the property RT, cap the density at 9 units per acre and enter into a development agreement between the county and the Petitioner to prohibit the hotel and time-share uses, that is ensure that only multi-family development will occur on the property. I need to point out to you that as it currently OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4O reads, o= development ag£eement ordinance would not allow this to ¢.ccur. It o~ly is applicable to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance, the development agreements. However, there are proposals underway now and they will be coming to you fairly soon, to amend the development agreement ordinance to widen its -- or broaden its scope. Again, Planning Commission's recommendation is subject to that development agreement ordinance being amended to enter into a development agreement with the applicant:. CO~tMISSIONER VOLPE.- Mr. Weeks what was the property to the south outlined in blue, that's subject to the -- art application for a zoning re-evaluation. MR. WEEKS: That's correct, RMF-12 and also C-1 and there's a Compatibility Exception Application pending. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There's been no action taken on that yet, is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The distance is about th::ee hundred feet to the closest point of that property to the south. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What does RO Zoning allow? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 41 MR. WEEKS~ That's the recreation open space dist£ict and the principal permitted uses are extremely limited such as a park -- excuse me, not a park but an open space reserve, horse trail, extremely passive. The provisional uses in the RO district or what allow the more intense uses like a public park, marina, racetrack, zoos, a whole variety of things. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= So, if this property were rezoned to RO, consistent with the property that is owned by the county, which is RO -- MR. WEEKS= Proposed to be rezoned RO tonight. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= -- then the property would be subject to an application for a provisional use. MR. WEEKS~ That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= as marinas? MR,, WEEKS= COMMISSIONER VOLPE= COMMISSIONER HASSE= this area? Which would allow such things That's correct. Okay. There are marinas located in MR. WEEKS= Yes, sir. Immediately to the north, the property that's zoned C-4 -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 42 COMMISSIONER HASSE: No, you missed my point. Are there any marinas on this property or any docks or are they -- MR. WEEKS: There are docks completely around the subject property. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I think I recall that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: There's some 180 docks -- slips at this point in time? MR. WEEKS: I believe so and I'm sure Mr. Reynolds can speak to that further. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Allen. MR. REYNOLDS= Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chairman and commissioners. My name is Allen Reynolds. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Just a second. I want you to only .get five minutes, Allen. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. I'll watch the lights. My name is Allen Reynolds with the firm Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek and I'm the project planner. Also here 'this evening, to answer any questions you might have, are Lou Hegsted, Susan Watts and Steven Bartan from Westinghouse Communities and Don Pickworth and Sam Hall who are the legal counsel on the project. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 43 As Dave has explained, this piece of property is a little, and a bit of a unique situation, and we have essen~ial requested to be here tonight to have you consi.]er recommending the retention of the present zoning on the.· property which is the RT Zoning subject to a downward adjustment in the density that will allow us to proce4.~d with a provisional use for a yacht club facility as well as 136 dwelling units. As it stands today, the property with it's current zonint. j, would allow a maximum of 16 units per acre. ThereIs an approved site development plan on the property and an exemption to this proceeding that allows us to construct 227 dwelling units on the property along with some associated facilities and there are 191 existing boat ~lips on the property as well that were built some years ago. The STP that exists on the property right now is tied J.nto a commencement construction time period of January of next y~ar. So, if we were to proceed with that option we would be basically building the presently approved site plan. What we are proposing is to make some adjustments OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 44 that, taken individually, are each consistent with your comprehensive plan and taken together we think presents a vast improvement to the type of project that you're going to get were we to proceed under the current exemption. To begin with we are proposing under this scenario to reduce the density by some 40 percent, from 227 to 136 dwelling units. So, that is a reduction of 90 units. That particular reduction is tied into your comprehensive plan under Policy 5.1 which allows adjustments downward in density if you are going to modify an approved site development plan which we presently have. The yacht club and the associated facilities that we are proposing will require a provisional use approval which would come back to this Board as subsequent step before we would be allowed to proceed. The yacht club use is a use that is consistent with your Growth Management Plan and in fact for this kind of property in this location is encouraged as the appropriate kind of use and I would read to you, just briefly from your comprehensive plan, where it talks about water dependent and water related uses being allowed in the urban area. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 45 The types of sites that are prioritized for those kinds of uses, which the yacht club and the boat slips are, the four highest priorities are presently developed sites, sites where water dependent and water related uses have been previously established, i.e., the boat slips, sites where shoreline improvements are in place. Once again, the shoreline improvements are completely in place on this particular property, and sites where damaged, dividable and actual functioning in wetlands are minimized and in this particular case this site has been virtually stripped of all if its native vegetation and the proposal would be consistent entirely. So, the uses that we are proposing, I would stress, are both consistent with the comprehensive plan. The benefit that we see to ourselves -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Reynolds, just so I understand, excuse me for interrupting, I accept what you've said, I agree with what you've said, that the uses that you are proposing are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Is the RT zoning consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I understand what you're saying that the provisional uses within the RTR is consistent OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 46 but is the RT, I mean is your position the RT is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, MR. REYNOLDS: The RT zoning, the land uses that are allowed with R are consistent with the plan. The problem with the RT, as would need to be addressed under this petition, is the density on the property because the RT district allows a maximum density of up to 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, with a reduction or putting a cap on the density within an RT zoning district at 9 units an acre in your opinion make that zoning classifi~tion consistent with our Growth Management Plan? ~. RE, OLDS= Yes, sir. It does it in two ways as I see it. The first way it does it is under policy 5.1, which allows -- if we were to exercise our present STP, 15 units ~r acre is consistent because we have an exemption. If we exercise Policy 5.1 and modify that site plan and reduce it by 40 ~rcent, that is also consistent ~cause the policy allows that to happen. But, the third venue, which is the one that really yOU should probably consider the strongest tonight is OFF~C~ COURT RE~RTERS, COLL~E~ COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 47 compatibility and we believe that if you look at this piece of property and you look at the surrounding land uses that abut us and the characteristic of the develo~ent that has already taken place we think that there is a very strong argument that in fact we have a compatible zoning density at 9 units per acre on this proper ty. So, really, under each of those analyses we think that there's a consistent with the comprehensive plan. We think that this is a win, win situation for both the county and the Petitioner. The advantage to the Petitioner is that we, if you would concur with your Planning Commission and recommend the RT with a 9 unit per acre cap, what that does is gives us the assurance that the zoning we have is acceptable and as we proceed through the provisional use process with the yacht club it would relieve us from the commencement of construction tim$ date in January. We think that's a benefit not only to us but it's a benefit to the county because that allows us to go back and to modify that site plan and not be under an artificial constraint of having to commence construction. ,, COURT RE~RTERS, COLLIER COUNt, NAPLES, FL 33962 48 So, frankly, we think we can do a better job in planning this property and working with the county in cooperation as you all proceed with your plans for the boat ramp, than we could if we had to continue on with the exemption. The benefits to the county are several. The first we think is Just the reduction in density is a positive benefit, say, 40 percent reduction as I mentioned. Am I cut off or should I proceed? CSAIRMAN GOODNIGRT= You can finish. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Finish, but make it quick. MR. RE~OLDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That' s enough. Mr. Reynolds. If I might ask this. You've canceled it for me in any case. By being granted a marina there or -- what did you call it7 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yacht club. MR. REYNOLDS= Yes, yacht club. COMMISSIONER HASSE: A yacht club is better than a marina anyway. You would put 137 units on this property? MR. REYNOLDS= 136, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HASSE= 136, I'm sorry. What assurety OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 49 do we have that you won't come up with 227 if we grant it. I mean, evidently, there's some looseness in this. MR. REYNOLDS= Well, I think the looseness is that the mechanism that is, in discussion with the Staff, would be used to tie down the density to 136 units is a development agreement that we would enter into with the county. We are prepared to do that. I think your Staff is prepared to work with us in doing that. The glitch right now is that your present development agreement ordinance does not have a provision for development agreements pursuant to the zoning re-evaluation process. Your Staff is presently, I believe, in the process of modifying that ordinance to allow that to take place. So, the assurance that you would have would be a development agreement that would tie, specifically, the density. COMMISSIONER HASSE= The two together. MR. REYNOLDS~ They would tie the two together, that's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPEt Mr. Reynolds, have you looked at the parcel number ene, which is the county own parcel, there's an'.application to fezone that parcel to RO. Have OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 50 you looked at what the potential uses of the parcel that we're discussing now would be if it were rezoned to RO. Would you be able to allow that to development out residentially at a certain density? MR. REYNOLDS~ No, it would not allow the residential use under the RO? COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ else but this -- MR. REYNOLDS~ But it would permit everything It would be probably permit the club under probably some interpretations and a provisional use but it would not permit the residential use? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: One of the -- we've discussed this particular parcel on a number of different occasions. One of the questions that had come up in the past was building heights and I know that you've got your SMP and all that and you're subject to begin construction within certain period of time. What would be the building height that you would be limited to under the RT zone? What you would be thinking in terms of building heights? MR. REYNOLDS: The RT zoning district allows a maximum building height of 100 feet? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 51 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. So, are you still proposing that you would want the ability to put these residential units in a 100 foot building? MR. REYNOLDS~ Well, that would be the maximum under the zoning. I think the design of the buildings themselves, we're frankly not at the point where we've designed buildings, but logic would tell me that in the reduction of the number of units we would probably not be building up to maximum height under the district. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just raised the issue of height because that was an issue that was hotly debated and I do recall the presentations that were made. So, I would think as part of the discussions -- you know, I understand where we're talking about compatibility that maybe we ought to have some of this discussion directed toward building heights and maybe maximum building heights. MR. REYNOLDS: That would be fine. What I would suggest as a possibility is the final Site Development Plan that was approved on this property I think the buildings were capped at a height less than 100 feet, if I recall. They might have been anywhere from four to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 52 seven stories or something like that. I think I could probably safely commit that we would live by the same heights that were allowed under the STP that we presently have. But, I'd have to look at that -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: You don't know what that is. MR. REYNOLDS= I would have to come back probably at the second hearing and give you some more specifics on that. COMMISSIONER HASSE{ COMMISSIONER VOLPE= Good idea. Well, part of that, Mr. Reynolds, that I think for me just raises an issue and that is, that I think that that was one of the issues that was debated and because of the history of this particular piece of property the Board had very little flexibility with respect to the building height. So, there were, I think, some residents within the area who were about building heights. So, what I'm suggesting maybe we can talk about a different building height than up to the 100 feet. Again I'm not sure, you say you have a plan, I'm not sure in terms of compatibility, I'm not sure whether you had in mind your conception plan was three stories or four OFFICIAL [~OURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 53 stories. I just don't know. MR. REYNOLDS: To be very candid with you, the effort right now has been in looking at the design of the yacht club because that's our first phase and the residential is something that's probably going to be designed a little bit down the road. But, what we can do is look at what the present STP allows, look at what the surrounding properties presently have in terms of height and come back to you with some suggestion, I guess, of a height that would work with us. If not, what the district allows as a maximum. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, with the maximum coverage 136 units, you would be able to stretch the point a little bit on height, a considerable bit, I should say. And, seeing you have how many slips around, they go around this piece of property? MR. REYNOLDS'. Yeah. The existing boat slips encircle virtually the entire property. It's already been bulk headed and they go all the way around. COMMISSIONER HASSE: MR. REYNOLDS= Yeah. COMMISSIONER HASSE= Yes, I've looked at it. Number one piece of property OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 54 is county property, correct? MR. REYNOLDS~ Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What impact that we or are you going to have or are we going to have on this piece of property with the property that we own, access wise and things like that, road, turn offs and things like that? MR. REYNOLDS~ Well, the present designs that I have seen of your proposed boat ramp facility, utilize a common entrance to this piece of property. It's basically the existing entrance. So, what kind of impact I think is more along the lines of a cooperative effort between our applicant and the county in arriving at a common design that works well for both properties. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'm talking about turn lanes and things like that you people would cooperate in paying for. MR. REYNOLDSz I think, if I am not mistaken, the turn lane may already be in, the right turn -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: It's in already? MR. REYNOLDS~ -- lane to the property is already built? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 55 COMMISSIONER HASSE.. That's too bad. I'd like to have had you pay for it. MR. REYNOLDS~ Well, I'm sorry. I think its already there. There are some things, frankly, on both sides that are going to require cooperation. I think the county needs some cooperation from us with respect to some of the existing easements, with respect to some of the setbacks that may exist between your facility and ours and conversely we want to cooperate with the county because that's our front door into the project as well. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Allen, aren't some of those discussions ongoing and haven't some of those discussions been already held as to what potentially could happen here if in fact the approvals are granted? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, it is. It's a subject that I think at this point just needs to be reduced to the development agreement, again, which is going to be the other part of this that ties up those issues. COMMISSIONER SHANA~AN~ Don has probably got some burning information there in so far as the heights are concerned because he was totally involved. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I agree with that. He gets OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 56 paid by the word too. MR. PICKWORTHz Then I won't get much because I won't have much to say except -- you're right, I've been through the height issue on this for more years than I want to talk about. The height problems that came up before were based upon a 200 foot height -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Don, give your name. MR. PICKWORTH: I'm sorry. For the record, Don Pickworth, representing Conklin Point Development Corporation. The height issue arose over a 200 foot height. In fact, the individuals who commented on the project being too high essentially their position was the zoning ordinance says 100 feet and that's what it should be. So, basically what we're proposing is we're going to stay at that which, like I said, the people who commented on it, that's what they wanted. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I just heard somebody say there, by the name of Mr. Reynolds, that it would probably be lower than 100 feet. MR. PICKWORTH~ I think the Site Development Plan OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 57 is probably a little lower than 100 feet and as he suggested it'd probably be best to deal with that in the site development stage because obviously what you want to try to do is get as much open space type of thing. So, I think we can stay within 100 feet and come up with a nice design. You don't want to spread it out too much and get a wall of condos either. You've got to hit a balance between them so that you get something that's looks good -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.. I think we' re particularly interested in satisfying the previous agreement at max of 100 feet, at least, I am. MR. PICKWORTR~ The previous agreement max'd it out at 100 feet. They were at 100 feet, in fact, some of them were a little lower than 100. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.' I remember that. I'd certainly like to see this development move along. It's been out there a long, long, long, long time. COMMISSIONER HASSE.. It's a derelict now as far as I'm concerned. It's about time you did something with it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Particularly, we' re kind of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 58 talking about what your potential plans are for the site. We~ve got so~e general parameters that has been recommended to us by the CCPC in terms of the RT zoning and the cap and then subject to a develo~ent agreement prohibiting certain types of uses but it doesn't say anything about a yacht club or any of the other uses that we're talking about. I'm just wondering if all of this is subject to a development agreement at a later point in time which is going to require an amendment to our existing ordinances to allow a development agreement for this particular piece of a property. Just procedurally, if, for whatever reasons, this particular Petitioner, this particular owner, decides between the time of the action of the Board on this particular parcel of land and the actual signing of the development agreement what would be the zoning of the property? Would it continue to be RT, subject to the 9 cap or does it go back to SMP. What I'd like -- I think we want a level of certainty, just as you always are asking us that you'd like some certainty. We'd like a level of certainty that this parcel is going to finally be developed out in a certain form in that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 59 we're going to see a yacht club, we're going to see some residences, it's going to be something that's going to be compatible with the surrounding area as well as our boat ramp site. MR. PICKWORTH: ~ere's -- let me tell how we will propose a new development agreement. We have a draft development agreement that's still being discussed internally but, obviously, much of it is done and essentially, the proposal will be this, that what I would envision happening is the final zoning action on this parcel will take place simultaneously with the execution of the development agreement. So, what we, have -- if it happens that way, we have RT with a development agreement that absolutely limits what can be done. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And, if the rezone doesn't take place, what will it be? MR. PICKWORTH~ I guess we're back to where we are now. We have RT zoning and we have an exemption. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You got 227 units and-- MR. PICKWORTH~ Yeah. We have an improved site development plan for 227 units. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And, you have to commence OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 construction before January 10th of 1992. I doesn't all happen before then you've lost your You've lost the exemption that you had, right, because you .e~e to commence construction. MR. ~IC~RTH, ~at we're proposing, as I sta to express is that essentially, there's three elements ,,., have to go together. You've got a rezoning act i co.~led wi,h a develo~ent agreement and then a separate issue a provisional use because the RT would .110. a yacht club as a provisional use. ~at provisional use appli~tion, in fact, ha filed and is being reviewed right n~ by the county 6O started rezoning action and then as a has been Staff and will probably, I would assume in the normal course of how these things work, come before you in late November or early December would be my guess about the timeframe is when that would be there. So, we would propose a development agreement which would become effective upon the granting of the provisional use. In other words, once the county grants the provisional use and obviously you cannot commit to a legislative act like that but all it says is, once the county grants the provisional use and if it grants the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 61 provisional use at that point the development agreement goes into affect, we loose our exemption righ'ts to do the 227 units and the property developable solely and only in accordance with what the development agreement says. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: First off, I'm just trying to -- we may end up -- we're shortening the time period. You've got to commence construction by a certain date, is that correct? MR. P ICKWORT~{ ~ COMMISSIONER VOLPE what the date was. MR. P ICKWORTH Yes, sir. What's the date? I forgot January 10th. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.' Of 19927 MR. PICKWORTH.. January 10, '92. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, all of this has to happen before January 10th of 19927 MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir, probably. There may be, and Mr. Cuyler and I can discuss the possibility of how that can be extended somehow. Yeah, we think it ought to happen before January 10 and we think it's feasible. I mean, the normal processing time of things it should happen before January 10th. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 : 62 COMMISSIONER SHANAHANs If you remember an intricate part of that previous site development plan was the January 10th, 1992 start up. That was an intrical part of the whole thing. MR. PICKWORTH.. Correct. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.' All I'm saying is -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. What I don't want to see -- excuse me for interr -- and I understand the good faith with which you've come before the Board. I don't want to get us to the point where January 10th, all these things have not fallen into place. I'm not sure what the zoning is on the piece of property and we hear you saying, we've got vested rights under this agreement, we've got our SMP. You took certain actions which we relied upon and we're entitled to another six months, you know. MR. PICKWORTHs The way I would understand it would be that either all of this happens or we simply have to build under our current exemption because that's the only thing that would be in place. If we didn't start construction then we'd loose our exemption and then we'd be back in the, you know, next cycle of rezoning because then we wouldn't have our exemption anymore. But, as I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 63 say, I'm told by the attorney's office and the planning department that the amendment to the develolz~ent agreement ordinance and I haven't seen the draft but I understand that there is a provision in there which would allow development agreements for this purpose is they intend to be able to advertise this for a hearing before the Board on October 8th. Is that correct? MR. CUYLER: There could be. It's supposed to be finalized by the middle of next week. It needs to get advertised if we're going to meet our time schedules as well as the petitioner. It just happens to have the same type of time schedule. We were looking at the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to find out if the Board wanted the comfort of a development agreement in order to ensure some of these development standards. If it could fit in under that, we're still looking at that. I'll talk to Mr. Pickworth about that. If we can do it under that ordinance depending on what adequate public facilities are there, are offered, are needed by the county, whatever it may be. We -- our preference is to do that. If it doesn't look like it's going to fit under that, then yes, we'll OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 64 probably add it as another category for the Development Agreement Ordinance. MR. PICKWORTh.. That would be my preferred way would be to simply proceed under the Adequate Public Facilities and then we could get right down to that development agreement right now and not wait for this amendment but, if we have to do it then we'll do that. That's the second alternative. MR. CUYLER.' I mean, we were talking as recently as today about this whole situation. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There's no possibility as a part of this discussion to consider this parcel as we considered some of those commercial parc. els along Golden Gate Parkway that the fezone would be subject to a PUD. I mean, I think everybody would like a PUD in this particular parcel of property. I mean, I think that makes good sense. MR. PICKWORTH~ The problem at this point, Mr. Volpe, is time. In fact, when we initially started discussing this we suggested a PUD. The Staff felt more comfortable in simply flowing this one in with a normal process rather than have some separate process out here. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 65 So, we're just too far down the road to do that now. think probably for consistency with the other things they're dging, I think they felt that this is better. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other questions? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN~ What do we need; a straw vote from the Board? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We need a straw vote. We'll start with Commissioner Shanahan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I'm in favor of the CCPC recommendation and the development agreements. COMMISSIONER HASSE~ I am too. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I am too. Commissioner Volpe. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= Yeah, I am as well, with some additional discussion taking place about the building heights and how that may -- just firming that up, whether it's at 100 feet, whatever that -- the proposal is I'd like to at least have that put forth in these develola~ent standards. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGRT= Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: At this point, I have no objection to the CCPC recommendations. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 66 Next item, David. MR. WEEKS.. Four more maps over, it will be map number 0513-S, the Lake Avalon PUD. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN'. 0501-S? MR. WEEKS~ 0513-S. Lake Avalon PUD. As you can see, a portion of the PUD is colored in blue, that's the commercial component of the PUD, which allows uses comparable to the C-3 zoning district. There's been an exemption approved for that property based upon an improved site development plan and in fact, development is currently underway on that site. The proposed rezoning will not affect the commercial component. The residential portion of the PUD is what we're proposing to change. The current density is about 3.8 units per acre, we're proposing to reduce that to 3.0 units per acre. The surrounding zonings I identified on the map and as I noted at the outset for these PUD's, Staff is recommending that we not require the interconnection, that it is not appropriate. In this case we have a PUD that permits multi-family uses and it's primarily surrounded by single-family development there along the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 67 south as well as a significant portion to the north. The recommendation of Staff is to reduce the PUD to three units per acre. The CCPC endorsed that. As I noted also at the outset some of those changes to the PUD such as the statement of compliance and so forth. Additionally, there are a couple of other amendments and you may wish to refer to the PUD document that is in your packet. Again, it's about the last hand full of pages prior to your map set, bold print. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Where do you got these numbered. MR. WEEKS~ It's the last of the eight and a half by eleven sized papers. Some of the changes proposed, number one is -- there's a statement in there it's within the PUD, I believe it's on the fourth page, that regarding the interim sewage treatment plan that requires that there be no construction started on that sewage treatment plant for 18 months. So, that time period long since past. So, that language is being deleted as Staff's recommendations. There are three changes proposed by the applicant OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 68 that has previously been discussed from the outset and it has to do with setbacks. The PUD currently requires a 30 foot setback from the streets. It's proposed by the applicants to change that to 25 feet for public right-of-ways and then for private streets to change that to a 20 foot setback from the back of curb. A change to the minimum waterfront yard from 30 feet to 20 feet with a change in the language from the top of the lake bank, instead, to a control elevation. We've discussed all of these changes with the planning services section and project review services and they have no objection to these amendments. We view them as relatiw.~ly minor. The Planning Commission also had no objection to these. One additional proposal that came up is as identified in the bold print to the PUD document I referred to and that's where the applicant is proposed to add affordable housing as a use to this PUD. Staff's opposition is for a few reasons. Number one, the purpose of these hearings is to fezone properties to make them consistent with the plan. We've viewed that from the outset as reducing densities and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 69 intensities. In this particular case what is being asked is to add a use to the PUD for affordable housing and county parks. Secondly, it's kind of a philosophical or procedural type question. Secondly, is the question of by adding this use here, what type of review is occurring for the appropriateness of this increased density. Now, we're talking about from 3 units per acre to as high as, as a maximum, 11 units per acre, utilizing the affordable housing provision of the density rating system. There's been no analysis for that high of a density, no analysis for the traffic impact or compatibility with surrounding properties, et cetera. That's another one of our concerns. So, our recommendation is not to, and the planning commission had endorsed this, not to add the affordable housing or county park uses to this PUD. I'm sure A1 would like to speak to that further. COMMISSIONER HASSE= So, the maximum density is what, three? MR. WEEKS~ Three units per acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The same philosophy, though, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 70 Mr. Weeks, I was going to ask a question, even on the setbacks, is that appropriate for us in the context of a rezone having to do with intensity and density to talk about changing setbacks. That seems to me to be a subject that you'd come back through an amendment through the PUD process and not as a part of this process. So, I'm not in favor of making those changes to the PUD using your reasoning. MR. WEEKS~ Right. That question was also raised at the Planning Commission hearing. the changes as minor. strict -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We didn't object because we viewed But, you're right using the We can't use it one way and use it the other and say, well, we happen to agree with this, we don't happen to agree with that so our philosophy is -- it's not the purpose of this type of a proceeding, is what you've told us, that's why we shouldn't considac affordable housing. Let them come back with an amen~;ent to the PUD. This is an old PUD too, it's a 1983. MR. WEEKS= Yes, early '80's. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 71 MS. STUDENTs Madam Chairman, if I may, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, for the record. I would Just like to add that I looked at the affordable housing bonus density ordinance in preparation for the meeting tonight and there are provisions in Section 6.7 and 6.8 of that ordinance that require that when the density or intensity is increased, pursuant to the density rating system for affordable housing, that even though it wasn't originally coupled with the PUD or PUD amendment or cite specific fezone request, that the procedures for rezoning still have to be followed. It was my position at the Planning Commission meeting and it still is my position that this is outside of the procedure that we're here tonight to consider. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Good, thank you. Alan, is this yours? MR. REYNOLDS: Good evening again, Allen Reynolds, Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, representing this property owner. Let me just start out by saying as David mentioned we had asked to become a part of this process again. We volunteered into it. This piece of property has a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 72 pending exemption based on a dedication to the county of right-of-way that was used to realign the entrance of the Lakewood Boulevard, you're probably with Ted's Sheds in that area, and this particular property owner made a dedication and filed for an exemption on that basis and that has been pending. Were that exemption to be approved, we would retain the 469 units that are presently zoned on this piece of property. We have asked to become a part of this process, once again, from the standpoint of having it evaluated in a timely way, and from the basis that we were willing to accept the density of three units per acre on the property in return for getting into this process and basically getting the PUD brought into conformance with the plan and not having to spend the time go back and amend it, yet again, and take another six to nine months to do that. What we are doing with this request is we are eliminating, again., 91 dwelling units from the PUD. The balance of the PUD remains virtually unchanged but there are some adjustments being made. I look at the adjustments in terr~s of setbacks and the terminology that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 73 we have asked for to be very similar to what your staff is doing in terms of changing some of the other provisions in these PUDs as they come through the process. Your Growth Management Plan does more than just call for a re-evaluation of density. We're in a re-evaluation process in total and keep in mind that we have been brought into this process by the county for re-evaluation. The changes that we've proposed, as far as the setbacks and control elevations, were changes that bring this PUD into closest conformance with your new development codes and the codes that you have today and the present PUD. So, from the standpoint of bringing it into consistency with the. plan, the way I would look at those is those changes are very similar and it doesn't seem to be logical when we're in a process to amend the PUD to do that once and then imposed on the Petitioner to have to come back yet another time to make adjustments that everyone at least up to this point have agreed are acceptable and I would reiterate that your Planning Commission as well as your Staff and all the departments OFFICIA~ COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 74 agreed with those modifications. The one modification that we have asked for that is not in agreement, as Dave mentions, is to add language into the PUD in two regards. The first is under Section A, where the permitted uses talk about recreational lands, structures and facilities. What we have asked is that the words "including county parks" be added into the PUD. The reason for that is in my mind the language that is in there right now is unclear as to whether or not if we chose to have a neighborhood park within this property whether we could, in fact, dedicate that to the county as a neighborhood park. Now, I think that's something that is beneficial to the county in my sense. I don't know why the Staff would object to it. I don't think it's changing the use it's merely clarifying that if we in fact opted to have part of this property used for park purposes and the recreational uses are already allowed that would include a county park. But, if you all choose to not want to make that change that's fine with us. We thought it was something that would seem to be beneficial. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 75 The other change which is the language that addresses affordable housing. I think it's important, at least in my mind, to differentiate the use of affordable housing from the density increase. What we are not asking for today is any density increase. The way this PUD would be approved by you all if you would recommend it or agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation is 378 dwelling units. That's all that's authorized by this PUD even with the language I've added. From my point of view, affordable housing is both a use and it has an element under the affordable housing density bonus that there are some incentives that can be derived by entering into an agreement. What we thought was appropriate is that we at least identify that affordable housing is a potential use within this PUD, recognizing that were we to go forward with affordable housing we would have to come back to the Staff, the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, we would have to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement and that Affordable Housing Agreement under the ordinance is subject to the same public hearing process as a rezoning. It's very clearly spelled out in COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 76 the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Whether or not you request affordable housing under the agreement you must be reviewed under the rezoning public hearing process. The idea that this somehow lets us off the hook from having due public notice of process is erroneous. That's not the case. I think that affordable housing is an important enough issue in this county. We're having a difficult enough time finding suitable locations. Frankly, I think that this is an ideal location for affordable housing. And, were we be able to integrate some affordable housing into the project, I think that that's something, not only that your comp plan encourages but y'all should encourage as well. Again, we're Just -- we're in this process, we're making adjustments. We thought that we would suggest that as an alternative. If you feel that that's an inappropriate request so be it. We won't make that kind of a change. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Reynolds, I would prefer to leave it at the three units per acre now as you have proposed. I'd like to make one change if I may. I get a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 77 little bit upset when you talk minimum off street parking. It's two spaces per dwelling unit. One and a half shall be improved. You know, that's always been a source of problems to this commission and to the residents of the area because somehow or another it never works out that the other one is improved and you' re parking on lawns and grass and things such as that. I wish to suggest to Staff that they look at that very carefully and see that we have the paving put in place. We've had nothing but complaints about that. MR. WEEKS, Commission Hasse, if I might respond to that. Staff's approach to these rezonings of the PUDs has been, tempting as it may be, only to rezone -- do the minimum necessary to bring PUD into compliance -- into consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Under today's standards, in talking to planning services, Staff would not recommend approval of having a half space in reserve. However, again we're attempting to do the minimum necessary to make the PUD consistent. There's that, there's certainly other changes within the document we would recommend as well, to make it in conformance with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 78 the way the PUD would be approved today but we view it as a -- I don't want to say a fairness issue necessarily, but as something that we would try to change the PUD as little as necessary through this process. COMMISSIONER HASSE: In other words, you don't think it's fair by providing two parking spaces for these units when you know most of the units have two cars? MR. WEEKS= Commissioner Hasse, I think that would be appropriate. Again it's a matter of -- Staff's position, and certainly you would have the right to disagree with that, is that we make as little change as possible. As it is, we're taking the properry's density down to that which is consistent with the plan trying to make as few other changes. Certainly, if y'all want to make other changes you have the authority. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I would like to see that happen. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was just going to say, I think Mr. Reynolds makes an persuasive argument. But, I'm also influenced by what our County Attorney's Office has advised us and she has told us that this is outside OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 79 the process and it's unfortunate that we get caught up sometimes in these procedures. But, I think that that issue and I think even with the setbacks, I think it's -- I don't think we should get involved. You're saying they're minor changes and we shouldn't do it. If we're going to require them to go back through and they apparently have an intent to do that, to amend their PUD, then it would seem to me that that would be the opportune time to address issues such as parking requirements, setback requirements, bringing it into conformance with our current development standards. This is an old PUD, which is one of those that's been there. There aren't any improvements. It's not -- he -- Mr. Reynolds has said, though, he might be able to -- as I said, there isn't any improvement here but you might have an exemption is what you've said under the dedication of a right-of-way? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, the exemption that is pending .right now basically would be done away with were this Board to act on the PUD. COMMISSIONER VOLPEg I understand, but if it wasn't, if it got just the change in the lowering of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 80 density, I assume you would still proceed forward with your exemption? MR. REYNOLDS~ If we were to receive -- if we were to proceed forward with the exemption and received the exemption -- we would not have been -- asked to be in this process if we had intended on proceeding forward with the exemption. But the exemption, right now, would permit us to have, obviously, a higher density than we have. Frankly, I think it would have been granted but we're -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE= application, Mr. Reynolds? Have you abandoned that All I'm trying to get at, is there going to be the possibility -- if the items that you've discussed about affordable housing being given the opportunity to dedicate a certain piece or parcel for a county park, some of the issues that Mr. Reynolds -- Mr. Weeks has addressed, is there -- that would be your plan then to come back through the process to amend your PUD under the density that's been set to bring those into --, MR. REYNOLDS: No, if you were to act the Planning Commission's recommendation to you tonight, then it would not be necessary for us to come back through a PUD OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 81 amendment -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE= I understand that. MR. REYNOLDS~ -- unless we chose to utilize the affordable housing density bonus and come back to you with an agreement, in which case it would require an amendment to this PUD as well. Were you to act upon my recommendation we would still have to come back to the Board for the affordable housing agreement but not for the PUD amendment. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. I'm just asking you, though, about your application that's pending. MR. REYNOLDS: The application pending on -- if you choose either of those alternatives is withdrawn just by the action of having approved our -- the request before you, the application is then withdrawn from consideration. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Volpe, if I could add briefly to that. I think I mentioned at the beginning, this is one of two or three properties that have applications either already approved or pending in which the property owners said, forget it, I want to be included. Our agreement with the property owner, we've got OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 82 this, I believe in all cases in writing, if we haven't we will get it certainly, where the property owner is stating, I withdraw my applications and am allowing you to take action on my property. However, the property owner reserves the right to withdraw their property from the rezoning process at any time. For example, if at the next hearing it looks like the property owner is not going to get what he wants, he or she has the right to withdraw that appli -- withdraw that property from the rezone consideration and then Staff will go back to acting on their applications. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think what Mr. Reynolds has said, if we go along with simply what the CCPC is recommending which doesn't include the revision to the PUD for affordable housing or for the .opportunity to dedicate a community park, that he is still going to withdraw, at least at this particular ]point in time. He's still going to withdraw his application. MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah, that's the understanding from my client. We've tried to separate the affordable housing question because we knew we had a disagreement with Staff on that but we were in agre.ement on the other OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 issues. 83 COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ On the other issues, okay. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other questions? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN~ I don't have any. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHTs Then, what's the pleasure? Commissioner Shanaban. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I go along with CCP and Staff reco~mendation. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT= Commissioner Hasse. COMMISSIONER HASSE~ Me too. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT= Me also. Commissioner Volpe. COMMISSIONER VOLPE= I do as well except with respect to the recommendations that included the setbacks and the like. I think if we're going to make them come back on the affordable housing issues and the others I think we ought to be consistent in terms of the applications. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I certainly conclude the same thing with the parking spaces. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no problem with the COURT REPORTERSv COLLIER COUNTYv NAPLES, FL 33962 84 CCPC recommendation at this point. MR. REYNOLDS~ Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. The next item. MR. WEEKS.. Madam Chairman, I took one out of order. I'd like to back up about three or four pages to 9523-S. Three pages back from where we were just at, going back towards the beginning, 9523--S. Subject property is parcel number 37 highlighted there, the border of it in yellow. Across Coach House -- this is on Coach House Lane just west of Airport Road immediately north of Poinciana Elementary School. So, that's A-2 zoning and the school to the south. To the north across Coach House Lane, directly to the north, is a single-family development, a condominium development, that's the parcel highlighted in blue to the north. As you can see to both the west and northwest is a state zoning developed with single-family homes. To the northeast are the Coach House condos, a multi-family project at six units per acre. Adjacent to the east of this property is a partially developed commercial parcel, zoned C-3 that has a site development plan and exemption approved. It's partially development, again. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 85 COMMISSIONER VOLPE= What's on t:hat piece. Of property, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS= Right now, just the infrastructure, parking and water management area. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ That's a commercial development? MR. WEEKS~ That's the beginning of it. This is one of those with a time-line exemption. We're monitoring the development of it now. We've been corresponding both written and verbally with the property owner as to the status of that. At present it still has valid exemption. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How much longer will it have that valid exemption? MR. WEEKS: Don't know. Like I said, we're corresponding, we're -- we've advised them that we disagree with their particular interpretation on the ordinance. The property owner thinks he's finished. He thinks he's done all he needs to do and we're telling him we disagree. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that a legal opinion that we're looking for from our county attorney's office? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 MR. WEEKS = attorney on this issue. by the director. Subject parcel again is 37. 86 was to fezone the property to the RSF-3 District; number one, because it's a district consistent with the plan, number two, we believe it allows uses compatible with the surrounding properties and in part a thira reason is it does act as a transition from the commercial development to the east and then into the low density estates development to the west. Planning Commission, after much discussion, recommended the RSF-4 District and there is a speaker here, Madam Chairman. MR. FRANCHINO= Good evening. My name is Thomas Franchino. I'm an attorney with Siesky and Lehman in Naples. I represent the owners of this parcel. The purpose of the rezoning is to bring the zoning of unimproved parcels into consistency with the plan. The subject parcel as zoned is consistent with the plan and is compatible with its neighbors. To go along with Staff's recommendation OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 We've not yet consulted with the county That was a Staff interpretation 87 the recommendation of the Staff would fix the zoning at the minimum under the plan and also make it incompatible with its neighbors. The subject parcel is the one in the yellow with the stripes going through it and it's a five acre tract, located Just off Airport Road and it is part of what was originally plated as Colonial Acres. It's interesting that Colonial Acres, when it was plated, there were deed restrictions placed on the property restricting what is shown here in green to single-family residential use, not restricting what you see in yellow and brown and in fact this property has been, except for subject developed along those lines, immediately to the north is the Poinciana development. This parcel is the Coach House condominiums which is I believe a 50 acre multi-family development. Carriage Circle, which is 29 units going in there. Again, this is C-3 and this is the subject parcel. It makes sense to keep these tracts as a block. The basis for that, again, is the immediacy to Airport Road and the fact that when the deed restrictions were placed on this land these were treated differently than the residential · OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 88 area to the west. They've been zoned all these years in the same manner. The purchasers of this property bought it with that expectation and the purchasers of this property bought it with that understanding. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What is it that you're requesting it be left zoned as? MR. FRANCHINO~ RMF-6. At this point in time, this was the dividing line where these properties were zoned RMF-6, except for the C-3. These are developed and not being rezoned at this time. This is an only parcel which is subject to rezoning at this time. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ And, the property across from Coach House is being developed out at six units? MR. FRANCHINO~ Carriage Circle, yes. There's 29 units all together going into that five acre tract. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That other five acre tract that you have in yellow there, immediately behind the Coach House condos, what's going in there and what's it zoned as? MR. FRANCHINO~ This Carriage Circle? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 89 COMMISSIONER HASSEz Yes. MR. FRANCHINO{ It's, along with these properties, it's zoned RMF-6. It's a development where there are 29 single-family residences being placed on the five acre tract. COMMISSIONER VOLPE{ Mr. Weeks, this Carriage Hou{3e Circle, if that's the name of it. MR. FRANCHINO: Carriage Circle. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ Carriage Circle. It's been outlined in blue. That means there's something happening with it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, there was an exemption approved for the property based upon site development plan approval and the properry's developing in accordance with that site development plan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: At RMF-6? MR. WEEKS~ That's correct. Through that exemption and its current construction it's retaining its RMF-6 zoning. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ And this C-3 will retain -- will continue to be commercialized? MR. WEEKS= As of right now it still is, yes. It OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 90 has an exemption approved. As I was stating earlier, we're monitoring the status of that project. It's one of those that requires continuous construction but as of now it's still at C-3. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ It seems that the Petitioner's property would be -- actually at RMF-6 would be a reasonable transition to the commercial. I don't know if you have any -- obviously you've recommended RSF-3. MR. WEEKS~ I think RMF-6 or single-family, either one, could function as a transition because they've got a higher intensity commercial, lower intensity states on the other side. However, Staff's recommendation was RSF-3 because it's consistent and it's compatible. RMF-6 is not consistent with the plan. I believe the attorney made a reference to a density band but there is not density band at this location. It does not extend west of Airport Road. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: the west developed with a single-family residence? MR. FRANCHINO~ This property? Yes. Is the property immediately to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 91 COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ Yes, sir. MR. FRANCHINO~ Actually, I think it's been divided this way into two tracts. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Two single-family residences. MR. FRANCHINO: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That raises some concerns in my view if that was undeveloped in terms of a consistency argument or issue that you've raised and just in terms of the buffering that would take place. I mean, with six units an acre, this is five, this is a five acre parcel so you're talking about 30 units you'd be able to build on a five acre site backed up to my single-family residence. I'm wondering about how compatible it is. You're saying it's inconsistent but it might be compatible and I'm wondering with, you know, giving recognition more to the single-family residential property owners rather than the commercial people. They're there. I don't know what the debate was with the CCPC but obviously my compromise is at four. MR. FRANCHINO: They're there but they bought, I would say knowing, that this area was restricted and it was single-family residential this area was not and was in ]%.':: '.: ' .. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 92 the process of being developed and all has been developed except for this one tract. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that. MR. FRANCHINO: This is a little larger area, a larger portrayal of the area. This shows the activity center at Airport, Golden Gate Parkway. The Grey Oaks -- immediately south of Colonial Acres is the Grey Oaks PUD which is a mixed use. It has office, commercial, extending all the way up out of the activity center to Poinciana Elementary School, which I have in the purple color here, that's Poinciana Elementary School and its entrance road. Again the C-3, the RMF-6 and I think -- when you look at this, I think it's clear it is compatible with its neighboring uses. To the south we have a public use, the elementary school with its heavy activity and traffic. The C-3, the RMF-6 immediately to the north and if there's any benefit to any neighbors there might be some benefit to one tract of equal size but obviously not to the remaining area up here. Also, again, this is -- Coach House Lane is a dead end. So, all traffic coming off of the subject parcel OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 93 would be entering and exiting through to Airport Road through these higher densities which are already there and not impacting the residential area. Not only do I believe this shows it to be compatible I think the current zoning is consistent, in that, under the plan, three units an acre, this is base density but there's upgrades allowed and one upgrade is residential in-fill and this parcel would qualify for residential in-fill. It's under ten acres, central public and water -- central public water and sewer available. It's compatible with the surrounding uses. There's no common site plan or ownership with the surrounding properties. To cut it out at this point and to zone it at three would lock it into the minimum zoning allowed under the plan. To leave it at six would leave it at a consistent zoning and one which I believe is compatible with its neighbors. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yeah, but it would be beneficial, would it not, for the neighbors to have little less density in that property; seeing the single-family homes immediately. to the west. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 94 MR. FRANCHINO: It would be beneficial to one tract but I don't know if it's a weighing of the benefits, is it a fair move to take more than half the density from one tract to benefit a residential, one residential tract of equal size which is next to it and is also bordering an area which is developed as a heavier use and those owners, when they bought in there, should have known of that but those are things that have been going on. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Seems to me, I'm persuaded that the RMF-6 is not inappropriate for that site based on what's around there. But, I would ask the Petitioner, whether the Petitioner would agree and obviously we don't want to get into site planning at this hearing but it seems to me that if you have some significant buffering between your site and the single-family homes, and you should have some available space for that buffering, seems to me we can accommodate the single-family homes next door as well as provide for the, what would appear to be a more reasonable use to that property since it's surrounded by RMF-6, C-4 or C-3 and then the Poinciana OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 95 Elementary School. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHTs The buffer that's north of that, what is the buffer in that because it's -- COMMISSIONER HASSE~ CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: and those residential -- Coach House Lane. RMF-6. The buffering between that MR. FRANCHINO= Along this parcel here? I really can't speak -- I would be guessing but there may be a wall that was constructed, a six foot or seven foot wall. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Well, at some point, you're going to be coming back, with I guess, with some sort of a site plan or something for approval by the Board and I think, I personally, will be looking for some buffering that may be more than what is the minimum required. Do you have any problem with that? MR. FRANCHINO~ No problem at all. We just don't want to preclude any possibilities at this point in time and any reasonable restrictions placed on the ultimate development of that plan are understood and accepted. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I think that it should be OPFICI~ CO~T RE~RTERS, COLLIER COUNT, ~PLES, PL 33962 96 consistent with the project to the north. The project to the north is RMF-6 and it's under development and whatever the setbacks or the wall or whatever should be with that should be consistent with the project to the south. MR. CUYLER.. Just for your information, the site plan won't come back to the Board. It's going to be administrative. COMMISSIONER VOLPE'. This is too small of a parcel, obviously, or maybe not obviously, for some type of a development agreement. That's what you're doing with the parcel that we're talking about for Westinghouse. If we' re going to do it, then we' re going to do it. So, I mean, that's a five acre parcel, Isn't It? I've sort of lost track of it. That's a five acre parcel. How are we going to use these development agreements? MR. CUYLER.' That's just it. We don't -- one of the reasons Staff was not inclined to just amend the development agreement ordinance outright and to look for some other options is that we don't want to get into a development agreement situation where every single property owner is saying, you know, I want a buffer 20 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 97 feet. Are you happy with that? That's beyond what your ordinance is. Let's have a development agreement. We' re going to be snowed with these things for Just little tiny development standard type violations. I don't think the Board wants get into that. Everyone's going to have to be negotiated. It's going to take a lot of Staff time for relatively small items. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.' But, if you limited it to a development agreement in connection with a fezone, you wouldn't have people coming in just trying to jump to a development agreement. MR. CUYLER= Generally, what you do is you don't have them with the fezone. You have a development agreement and then you have a fezone pursuant to the development agreement. You first look at what the county is getting out of the development agreement and if you negotiate and in fact enter into that agreement, then the developer's requiz'ed to do certain things and in turn -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Cuyler, the discussion seems to be that the R-6 may, in fact, be acceptable to the majority of the Board. If, in fact, we can get some L! level of an assurance that the actual development of the .. OFFI'c'rI~., COU~ RB~:~)RTE~ COLr,'r~R CO~ ~~ ~ 33~'~' ~'~ 98 parcel here will be consistent with the development immediately to the north. MR. CUYLER~ The only way that I can see is that you can make, as part of the record, you're going to have to get the message to your Staff to basically include those items which we don't normally do and I would want to see the Petitioner agree to it on the record, and in the event Staff has any concerns about that site plan meeting what your intent is, that you have a requirement that the site plan be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners which, again, is not a normal process and we normally don't do that but if the Petitioner agrees to those things I think it's within your discretion to handle it that way. Madam Chairman, I just want to I believe there is a registered MR. WEEKS: interrupt briefly. speaker on this parcel. CRAIRMANGOODNIGRT: speaker on this one? COMMISSIONER ~ASSE: Do we have a registered Before the speaker goes on, Mr. Weeks, the Staff has recommended 15 units on this 5 acre tract, is that correct? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 99 MR. WEEKS{ COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: multi-family? Approximately, 15 based upon -- yes. Single-family? And, we're considering MR. WEEKS: Multi-family development -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Six. MR. WEEKS{ -- six, about 30 units. There's also some difference in the height limitations. Single-family height is about 25 feet and multi is about 30. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You said earlier, before Mr. Henderson begins, that it was not compatible, it would inconsistent with the plan if we 'went RMF-6? MR. WEEKS{ RMF-6, right, in our opinion is inconsistent with the plan. Again, our focus here, Staff's has been, try to fezone it to a consistent zoning district then determine is that compatible. If it's not compatible, then we abandon the consistent district and try to rezone it to something else that's going to be compatible. In this case, we believe that a consistent zoning district, RSF-3, is compatible with the surrounding area. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 100 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. For' the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent the adjacent homeowner, Mr. Lanny Newell. We support the Staff recommendation to fezone this property to RSF-3. Under the Staff recommendation, as Mr. Commissioner Hasse noted, he could still have 15 dwelling units on that five acre parcel as compared with the rest of the block, the next door property, which is 2 units on the five acres. We feel that 15 units is a more appropriate transition between the commercial and the estates zoning. It's more appropriate than 30 condominium units being constructed on that property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Anderson, is the concern primarily the questions that have been discussed by the Board having to do with proper bufferin!] and height or is it -- does it have to do with density o]: a combination of both. MR. ANDERSON: It really has to do with the density, yes, sir. You compare it and it is such a gross disparity OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~PLES, FL 33962 lol between the 2 units on 5 acres and right next door 30 units on five acres. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Except across the street it's the same thing, though, right? MR. ANDERSON~ No, it is not. Right here, it's divided into four, so you have four there. So, it's a little bit different. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.' But they are single-family residences? MR. ANDERSON~ Oh, yes, yes, they are. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But then, in the yellow, next door to that, it's how many units per acre? MR. ANDERSON: It's six. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: RMF, good. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Which is under development MR. ANDERSON: Right. Here you have two homes, across the street you have four. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. ANDERSON: Five. COMMISSIONER HASSE: On how many acres? And, here yOLk' re granting them 15 if you go for three units an acre. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 102 MR. ANDERSON~ That's correct. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'll be satisfied with that. MR. ANDERSON: The property owner is here and also wishes to say something to you. Thank you. MR. NEWELL: Madam Chairman, commissioners, my name is Lanny Newell. I reside on Coach House Lane. I would just like to make a couple corrections that Mr. Franchino made. I believe he stated that this was 50 acres, it's not, it's 10. He stated this was 9, it's 5. This happens to be 5 acres also. He made the statement that the residents here purchased this property knowing that this was zoned commercial or a higher density. I think Mr. Franchino, would like to at least tell the commission -- I believe that that is not true. This piece of property right now is in a suit. I represent the majority of the homeowners here. We're suing the property owner. We believe tlhe covenant restrictions on Coach House Lane apply to the piece of property. The suit is pending. About two months ago it was to come before the judge for determination. For some reason the Plaintiff, which he represents, decided not to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 103 go before the judge. I don't know why. Maybe he feels that the restrictions do apply to this i~iece of properties. But, we did not buy here, ~(nowing that these pieces of property were not going to be residential. I guarantee that I didn't pay this, and I owned this whole five acres at one point, I never bought this thinking I was going to next to a multi-family piece of property or commercial. I would not have bought it had I known that when I came here in 1973. COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ Mr. Newell, no matter what this Board does with that particular piece of property, though, if you are successful in your lawsuit, won't that determine the use of that property? MR. NEWELL: That is correct. It will be zoned for E-Estates and it will be limited to hav:[ng one unit on each two and a quarter acre. But, the point he made here was representing that we in the street bought that property knowing that that was a multi-family property, that is absolutely not true. I think I would also like to make a mention that -- I think he mentioned, about the CarriagE: Circle. You're talking about a density there of six units to the acre. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~PLES, FL 33962 104 That is this piece of property here. I guarantee you that had residents of Coach House Lane known that they weren't going to be able to do the density that they have there now, we would have objected and that's the exact reason why we're objecting now. In addition, I think counsel has pointed out on the other piece of property next to the Carriage Circle are four units to the acre and there are four units on the five acres and there's two on other fiw.· acres personal piece of property on the five acres south of it. Frankly, I'd like to see one unit to two and a quarter of acres there, the exact way the rest of the street is. I disagree, frankly, with Staff that you could even have three units to the acre.. But, obviously I'm the adjoining property owner and I have vested rights to make sure that we keep as low a density as possible. I'm not here just representing myself. I'm representing everybody in Coach House Lane or a substantial number of them here, both in the suit as well as to be here tonight and speak in theic behalf that we don't want the density in the street. Thank you very much for your time. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, N~%PLES, FL 33962 105 MR. FRANCHINOz Can I have few seconds to clarify the lawsuit angle. Actually, that's in no way related to this. It's a quiet title action brought by my client, the property owner. The same quiet title action as been brought on the other three parcels which are now being developed and all that is is to make clear that the deed restrictions which apply to the area in green do not apply to those other tracts. The last of which is my client's and we're not being sued by the property owners. It's unrelated to the zoning. It's a quiet title action. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Is there any questions? MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman, I think I need to mention another thing or two, briefly. As I stated in the executive summary but I don't think I verbalized, Staff's position has been to look at these properties, pretty much at their base density of that three or four units per acre and with the exception of the density bands, which we had discussed with you, the Board, in November of 1990, we were not utilizing any of the other provisions of the Density Rating System for these residential properties. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 106 What attorney has brought up is the residential in-fill provision of the Density Rating System which will allow for an addition of up to three units per acre which would make this property eligible for s~Lx units per acre if it complies with that provision. One of the reasons Staff has not looked at these other provisions in the Density Rating :~ystem is because many of them, including this one provis:Lon, require knowledge, in some cases site design, knowledge of water and sewer availability, knowledge of ownership of the properties, knowledge of any approved s:Lte plans as to whether they're common site plans or individual for each parcel, or whether or not property was split to take advantage of this provision. For these reasons, all of this necessary checking up to do, we have not utilized this or the other provisions of the Density Rating System.. Certainly, the Board has the right to do so. One of the last provision -- the ].ast criteria of the Residential Landfill Provision is compatibility and amongst those other findings you would need to make the finding that this property is compatible at the six units OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~PLES, FL 33962 107 per acre in order for you to leave it at six units per acre. We're back to that compatibility issue either under consistency or under leaving it so as to allow for a compatible use with surrounding property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Procedurally, Mr. Weeks, if this property owner wanted to use the in-fill provisions in our Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance couldn't he have made applications within that periods of time? Didn't he get notice of the fact that his property was going to be down zoned? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Could he have taken some action at that time that would have allowed you to look at that specific piece of property and evaluate it under the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance and addressed those issues? MR. WEEKS: Yes. As far as the ZR-- Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance goes, yes, applications could have been filed and were not. MR. VOLPE: I was just trying to ~iet at if he had filed the application, would that have been the appropriate time for the Staff to evalua~te this under the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~%PLES, FL 33962 Density Bonus Ordinance? etting at. Staff's position has been, and still is, Rating System. The Board of County Co ,issioners do. Typically, it's through a rezonincl action that the Board is considering. The difference here is instead of / I the property ~ner coming before you and saying, I want intensity or density but it's still your the same Board of County C~missioners that would determine which of these provisions are qualified for to achieve s certain density or intensity of use. ~o, what I'm saying is Staff has not utilized any of these other provisions other than the density band. YOU ~0 have [hat abil,ty to if you Oeem it appropriate. =~,~ ~o~,,~.=: Questions. COMMISSIONER HASSE, Well, I don't have any sooner had it two and a half acres also because the 109 majority of the property to the west iE: two and a half acres. I can accept Staff's recommendation for RSF-3 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Shanahah. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CCPC recommendation, RSP-4. Myself, I will go with StaffIs CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: recommendation of three. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I could go with neither,. recommendation, either three or four. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's a good answer. I guess for the purpose of this first hearing, I think, based upon the discussion though that I'm not persuaded by the Petitioner's argument of RMF-6. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS= I tend to agree with the CCPC recommendation, at least at this point, but may drop down to the Staff recommendation before it's all over with in two weeks. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Weeks? MR. WEEKS~ Yes, sir. Next item. Could I make suggestion, Mr. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 110 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: property. honestly. I don't know who owns this He may be my brother-in-law, I don't know, So, maybe it would be helpful if someone could identify who the property owners are. We are rezoning some property and we could be criticized for the actions if we don't know who it is that we're favoring or disfavoring. COMMISSIONER RASSE: I think his name is Joe Volpe. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't know who they are and that's my point. My point is, suppose it's your sister-in-law. I would appreciate it if you would identify who the property owners are. MR. CUYLER: Let me talk to Staff about that. If you know who you're subjecting to criticism, you don't know who you're subjecting to criticism. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: At least I can make disclosure if I know who it is. MR. CUYLER: I'll talk to Staff about that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next item. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman, the last property that I'm aware of that we have a speaker here for is about OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 111 five pages over, map number 0514-S. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: 0514-S. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Franchino, I assume you're going to bring those back for the next hearing. We'll need to make those a part of the record at some point, but you can maintain them and just bring them back. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT.' Okay. MR. WEEKS: There's a couple different parcels here. We're discussing parcel 108, the parcel closest to the top of your map. Currently zoned ~{SD, Mobile Home Subdivision. The property to the north is also zoned Mobile Home Subdivision outlined in blue. It has an exemption granted to it, zoning is preserved, it can be developed as zoned. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Let's take a short break. (At this time, the fire alarm sounded in the boardroom and a short break was h~d. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll call the meeting back to order. I guess we're waiting on David. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: David probably is outside waiting for the fire truck. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, N~%PLES, FL 33962 112 (Mr. Weeks entered the boardroom.) MR. WEEKS~ Commissioners, subject property, again, on map 0514-S it's parcel number 108 colored in yellow near the top of the map. The property to the north colored in blue is also zoned Mobile Home Subdivision and has it's application approved such that it can be developed as zoned. It is currently vacant. To the east is the Lake Avalon PUD which we discussed earlier which permits multi-family development. Currently at 3.8 units per acre and again proposed to be just under 3. To the south of this property is a subdivision zoned VR, Village Residential and it's developed completely with mobile' homes. Then, to the west of this property is a parcel partially zoned C-,I, partially zoned Mobile Home Subdivision and it has a compatibility exception application pending. Staff's recommendation is to leave the zoning Mobile Home Subdivision but reduce the density to three units per acre so as to provide a density that is consistent with the plan but allow a use, mobile homes, that is compatible with the majority of the surrounding OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, N~PLES, FL 33962 113 development. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ What's the density permitted right now? MR. WEEKS: Approximately seven units per acre. The zoning district does not state a maximum density. It's a matter of how many lots you can get on the property, meet all of your setbacks, meet all your water management requirements, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Is CCPC suggesting the maximum units? MR. WEEKS: Yes. The Planning Co~mission's recommendation is leave the property zoned, as is, let it be developed at how many units they can get under that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Without any cap? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. There is a speaker here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS{ The property to the north, it's a MHSD, is how many units per acre on that? MR. WEEKS: It's vacant now. It can be developed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Seven? MR. WEEKS: That's correct, approximately, seven. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes, sir. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 114 MR. GEBHARDT~ My name is Robert Gebhardt, I'm with the firm of Gebhardt and White and I represent Mercantile Bank, of Naples which is the owner of not only lot 108 but the lot 109 which is to the north of that. Lot 108 is basically an island. ]:t is surrounded by existing mobile home subdivision development. I think the highest and best use of the property will be the development as mobile home so we do not disagree with Staff's recommendation on the mobile home. Our concern is this, that is, tha~: right now if you ignore the lot line between 108 and 109., and 109 by the way, we have full capability of develop:[ng the maximum there. I'm not sure that seven is a good number there. The reason is because if you take 7 and divide it into 42,000 square feet, you come up with 6,000 square feet which is the max -- the minimum lot size for a mobile home. But, in the location of this prop,.~rty, you're going to need roads in there, you're going to need a number of things in there so that I'm not even sure that six would be a good number in the lot to the nortln. There's -- our disagreement with Staff is this it's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, 5~PLES, FL 33962 115 that if you put the limitation on the yellow area, lot 108 and you have no limitation on lot 109, it constricts the way that this property can be developed and there are some natural constraints on this property that are going to result in less than seven or six units as it is. The natural constraints are that there's a very, very sizable lake which is part of county drainage district for that area. In order to build on that you're going to have to fill and you're going 'to have to -- I've talked with the county water people and they say that you're not going to be able to fill in all those lakes entirely, it's just not going to be in the cards. So, therefore, you may get a distorted development because by limiting the amount of development down in lot 108, what the developer obviously will do is pack as much as he can into lot 109 and do the filling in 109 instead of 108 because the lake encompasses both properties. It's our position that a natural development here that is constrained naturally, by the water on there which can not be entirely limited, will be a better constraint and the developer taking both parcels together will be able to develop a more attracti~'e subdivision OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 116 than if he is forced to place all of the: units on the 109 because that's where he's entitled to build the maximum. I think there are constraints herE: that would -- it just wouldn't provide for a good site p].an if all of a sudden the bottom half is three, the top half is six or five or seven or whatever it is and you start pushing around the lake in order to accommodate, basically, an artificial zoning, with all due respect to Dave, he does very, very good job for the county. But:, he's basing his opinion, as he said before, based on the fact that he's going down to the minimum density. But,. in this particular case, because of the geography of it, I'm not sure that it makes sense. COMMISSIONER VOLPEt pending on the parcel to -- that to the Bayshore Drive? You've got an application I've lost my direction. Is that to the south? MR. GEBHARDT: No, it's to the north. COMMISSIONER VOLPEt To the north.. Is ,~.!!' MR. GEBHARDT: It's not pending, J~t's approved. We !'~'??":'" have the maximum zoning? I~ .~'~i~,~,>~i~ ~ COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It s been approved? 117 COMMISSIONER VOLPE= And so, has the property to the east? MR. WEEKS= To the west. That's ]?ending. MR. GEBHARDT: That is not the bank's property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What is that currently zoned? MR. WEEKS~ The portion abutting t:he subject property to the west is mobile home subdivision and the remainder of the parcel is zoned C-4, two zonings on that one parcel. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.' So, you're saying in all likelihood, like this gentleman has said, it looks like this will be the only parcel in the immediate area that would be zoned RMF-3? MR. WEEKS= No. Staff's recommendation is Mobile Home Subdivision zoning remain but cap the density at three units per acre. So, the density ~;ould be lower than the surrounding properties, but the use is the same. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Madam Chairman, I feel that the CCPC recommendation makes sense there, to leave it at MHSD and not cap the density. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I think you'~e right, there. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 118 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE .- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT.. Commission Hasse. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Commission Volpe. That's fine. It's fine wi~:h me also. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT.. Next item. MR. WEEKS.. Madam, Chairman, the ].ast property for which we have an interested party here, go back to the beginning and then count to the 9th map.. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: What about 103 there. MR. WEEKS: What I was proposing to do is cover all those properties. There's no speaker here so we'll take those in regular order. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT now. Are we going to have a straw? MR. WEEKS~ Yes, ma'am, please. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, then let's do it right COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.. On which one? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The 103 on tke same page that we were on. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Staff is rec¢.mmending RSF-3 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~%PLES, FL 33962 119 and RPT is -- CCPC is recommending RMF-6. MR. WEEKS~ That's correct. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Same zoning, I would prefer. MR. WEEKS: CCPC thought that we needed to leave the property as zoned to be compatible with the surrounding development. Most particularly, they commented on the PUD to the north which is built out at 16 units per acre. Then, also, Dell's is located is located on that C-5 parkway. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll go along with the CCPC. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHTs I agree. I agree, also. Commissioner COMMISSIONER HASSE= I too. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Shanahan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CCPC. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. That one's handled. Now, which one do we go back to? MR. WEEKS: If we go back to the beginning and we count to the 9th map, that should be 9522-N; N, as in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 north. Excuse me, 7th map. 7th map from the beginning. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: What's the number? MR. WEEKS.' 9522-N. After this we can take them in regular order. There are two parcels here shown in yellow and Staff's recommendation, as well as the Planning Commission's is not to take action on either of them because the adjacent properties have applications pending. The property attorney that's here just wants to make sure that that's what you -- that you endorse the recommendations with us. COMMISSIONER VOLPE.. Why don't you. just help us out here. What are they currently zoned? MR. WEEKS.. Both are zoned RMF-6 at present. Again, our recommendation and Planning Commission is let's don't fezone them now, let's don't: take any action on them. Let's wait and see what happy:ns to the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: with that? MR. WEEKS: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: reasonable. And, the Petitioner agrees That's correct. Madam Chairman, that sounds OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 121 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Fine with me. COMMISSIONER SHANABAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Fine, fine, fine. said, yes, fine. MR. WEEKS: beginning now, we can take these in the order in which they appear on the map. The first parcel, very first map 8508-N property zoned RMF-16ST, surrounded by undeveloped property. Staff and Planning Commission recommend RSF-3. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: and CCP's recommendation. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Everybody All right, next item. Madam Chairman, we're back to the Is there a problem with Staff COMMISSIONER SBANAHAN: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: next map. MR. WEEKS: Nope. Move that we accept. Then you have. that. All right, 8508-S, continuation ¢.f the subject property on the left side. Staff's recommendation and Planning Commission, rezoned to RSF-3. Is there a problem with that? Does the treatment overlay That's correct. In all cases overlay's CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: remain? MR. WEEKS: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 122 remain CHAIRMAN GOODNIGhT: Is there a problem? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN.' I have no problem. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right, next item. MR. WEEKS: May we skip the next map, next two maps, we' re down to -- next three maps. We' re down to 8520-S. Likewise, the Staff and Planning Commission recommending not taking any action on those properties in yellow because of applications 'pending on nearby properties. COMMISSIONER S~ANAHAN: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE.. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT ~ MR. WEEKS~ Skip the next page. Move for approval. Any problems? Nope. Okay. We're at 9523-N. Staff and Planning Commission recommending RSF-3 zoning. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there problem with it? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN~ I have none. that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The rest of the commission. Where are we? I understand Where -- Bailey Lane off of Airport Road. MR. WEEKS: Yes, that's correct. This is adjacent OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 123 to the north of Poinciana subdivision, :Dingle-family subdivision. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. All right, next item. MR. WEEKS~ Skip the next map. We're on 0501-S, the parcel's in yellow. Staff and Planning Commission recommending RSF-3. Property owner supports that in writing. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Approved. Problem? Nope. These properties, is that like in a traffic congested area? MR. WEEKS= No, this is east of the -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT= COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: It's next door to Foxfire. Over that way. Davis Boulevard. It's the yellow isn't it? MR. WEEKS~ COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. WEEKS= 0513-N. That's correct. You're right:. Next item.. Staff and Planning Commission OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 124 recommend taking no action. It's that small yellow parcel way over to the left zoned Mobile Home Subdivision. Take no action on the property so as to leave it a use that will be compatible with surrounding properties. Regardless of what we zone it, it's only going to get one unit. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there problem? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I have none. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT.. Next item. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman. On every one of these, unless there's a difference between the Staff and the CCPC, we're going to -- obviously, we're going to approve that. Are there any that are different in their recommendations? MR. WEEKS: Yes. We'll have to identify them but we can easily do that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could we just do that? I don't think anybody's going to disagree if the two recommendations are the same. COMMISSIONER HASSE: No, not if the recommendations are the same. Do you have any different ones, Mr. weeks? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. If you bear with me, I'll 125 just flip until I find one. About 5 pages from where we left off, 0616-S. There's no disagreement but there is a ]~rticular item that we need to discuss briefly. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. WEEKS~ Yes, ma'am. Hammock Roads identified here. Go ahead. 0616-S? There's 'two Parkers There's one, one street up from Rattlesnake Hammock Road and then the next street up is also. From the southernly Parkers Hammock Road, the Parkers Hammock Road closest to Rattlesnake Hammock, all of those yellow properties north of there Staff and Planning Commission recommend it be rezoned at RSF-3 District. And, then the two properties between the southernly Parkers Hammock Road and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, both Staff and Planning Commission recommend take no action there's a Compatibility Exception Application pending. No disagreement there. The point I wanted to raise though, this entire 'l~!i??~' unrecorded Parkers Hammock Subdivision being zoned RMF-6 ~i.::~!.i::i::" which allows multi-family or single-family development, '%~. ! · OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 126 all of the lots that are developed currently north of the Parkers Hammock Road here, north of the southernly Parkers Hammock Road, they're all developed with single-family uses. Now, through the Zoning Re-Evaluation Program, we can not fezone those developed properties. This program is only for undeveloped and consistently zoned properties. But, Staff, in going through the properties here, recognize that with all of the single-f~uuily development existing within this subdivision, we thought it might be appropriate to rezone those developed lots to single-family also to ensure that they don't in the future develop with a multi-family use so that we don't end up with a hodge-podge of single-family, multi-family such as we have in Naples Park. We can not take action on this tonight, other than you giving us direction, if you so desi:~e, to pursue that as a separate matter to initiate a rezoning of the property. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So far, everything there is single-family homes? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 127 it. it. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Then we want to maintain COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. WEEKS: I have no problem with it. I wouldn't have a problem with recommendation four to one. until I find a discrepancy. The Planning Commission endorsed that I'll flip further again Madam Chairman, we're down to the last two pages. Again no disagreement merely to raise a couple of issues. Most -- the next to last map, 1720-N, parcel number six at the top of the page that is zoned A-2. This is the property I mentioned in the beginning that we inadvertently rezoned from Mobile Home Subdivision to A-2. The property in fact is developed. We need to reverse our action and rezone it back to Mobile Home Subdivision. COMMISSIONER SHANAHANs It's got a store on it? MR. WEEKS: I don't know exactly what the structure is but it's owned by AT&T. I'm assuming it's some type of communication equipment but it is considered a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 128 developed lot. I just wanted to bring that to your attention because it's unique. No disagreement between the Planning Commission and Staff. Then, on the very last parcel, to the last page, 1720-S, parcel number 136 the lowest tier of lots may not be colored on your maps. I wasn't sure but that should be included. It is part of this rezone process and I just wanted to make sure that you' re aware of that. Recommendation was the same between Planning Commission and Staff. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any problem with that? MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman. That concludes the proposed work. As far as the second hearing goes, we'll certainly entertain any direction that you might deem necessary, Mr. Volpe has already suggested identification of the property owners. The second thing we will do is identify your straw vote that you've given tonight on the map se,:. Unless you all have an objection ::o this, we will only provide you with an executive summary and a map set. We will not give you this thick package of information. We'll ask you to hold on to what you've got, if that's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 129 accept abl e. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: One thing before we adjourn, on the 25th we're supposed to have a amendment to our Growth Management Plan and it's supposed to start at 9:00 o'clock. At 11~00 o'clock is supposed to be the grand opening of all of the pocket of poverty packages that we've done. I'd like to ask the Board, instead of us meeting at 9~00, if we could begin at 1500 or 1:30. They say it's going to take about four hours to do it. That's what the Planning Commission had today. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That's September 25th? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes, sir. Then that way we'll be able to attend the opening of and the celebration of the pocket of poverty in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I'm out. I'm already committed through September 25th. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: For the morn~ng also? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: co~mitment. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: It's an afternoon Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Sorry. COMMISSIONER HASSE: BCC is at 1:00 o'clock? 33962 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 130 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: o'clock, so -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: 11:00 o'clock finish at 11:007 It was scheduled for 9:00 Start at :3:00 and finish Are there two hearings on that It's just one hearing on the Growth CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, the on.e in Immokalee starts at 11:00 and so that's the reason I was saying that we'd only have a hour before we'd have to be over there. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: amendment process? Management Plan? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yeah and it's going to take four votes. MR. CUYLER: It's just one hearing. It's a transmittal hearing. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And, it's going to take four votes. Maybe if Staff can look at a time to where we could hold it, maybe the next day or something or another? COMMISSIONER V0LPE: How about in the evening? We would be done by 6:00 o'clock. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I saw that look on her face. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, ~%PLES, FL 33962 131 COMMISSIONER SRANAHAN: Mike, it's a whole -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: to accommodate-- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: not then I just won't go. You've got to look at it Okay, fine. I'm just trying Why don't we look at it and if MR. CUYLER= Madam Chairman, for 'the purpose of this hearing you need to close your public hearing and announce the daytime place of the next ]public hearing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing the next meeting will be on MR. WEEKS September the 16th. September the 16th, at 5:05 -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. WEEKS{ 6:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: 6:00 p.m. MR. WEEKS: In this room. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: In this room. MR. WEEKS: That's a Monday night.. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying, "Aye". (Chorus of "Ayes".) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. (No response. ) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT.. Motion carried unanimously. Thank you. 132 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 133 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Jacquelyn'D. McMiller, Deputy Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, consisting of pages numbered 2 through 133, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 4th day of October, 1991. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ~ I ~ II I IIII IllIll III -'-- I I I IIII II II September 5, 1991 t There being no further business for the Good of the County, the ~.leeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:30 P.M. :' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL PATRICIA ANNE GOODNI~T, CHAIRMAN '':'" '~ ~:[~.e,..~.in~te~?~.p..r. oved by the Board .~-,.', ~.........,.......y :/.. ~:~[~~,~ -:., or as corrected ., '~;j: ? · on