The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 10/20/1981 S .~ c:::J c:::J _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __~_ _ ___.._""-- ____ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _.. ,f Naples, Florida, october 20, 1981 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, thQt the Board of County Commissioners 1n and for thÐ County of Colli or, and also ðcting QS the governing board\8) of such special districts as have beon created according to law and having conducted businoss horein, met on this data at 7105 P.M. in Special Session in Building -F- of the Courthouse Complex with the . following members presents CH^IRM.a.Ns VICE-CH1\IRM^NI John ^. Piator Clifford Wenzel C.R. -Russ- Wimer Mary-Frðncos Kruse David C. Brown - absent ALSO PRESENT: Elinor M. Skinner, Deputy Clork, Donald pickworth, County AttorneYI Terry virta, Community Dovelopment Administratorl Danny Crew, P1anning Director; Jeffory Perry, Zoning Director, Lee Layne, Terry Clnrk and Dave McKim, Plannersl and Gondra Yates Crow, Community Block Grant Coordinator. ^G ENDA I. APPROVAL OF AGEND^ II. ADVERTISED PUßLIC HEARINGS A. potition N7.-ßO-20, Community Devolopment Division Requcsting Acceptance of the Tontative Report of tho Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for tho Unincorporated Area of Collier County. D. Proposod Rozoning Maps For tho Unincorporated Area of Collier County in Conjunction with tho Tentative Report o~ the Comprehensivo Zoning Regulations. III. ADJOURN PETITION N7.-80-20, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMr.NT DIVISIONs REOUESTING ^CCEP- Tl\NCE OF THE TENTATIVE REPORT OF THE COMPREJlENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR TilE UNINCORPORATED ARE'" OF COLLIER COUNTY - PUBLIC nEARING CON- TINUED TO NOVEMDER 3, 1901 ^T 7100 P.M. LC9ðl notice hðving boon published 1n the Nðples Caily Nows on paCJe 1 &OOK 065 rACE 302 -...., - -- -------- --.....- -- ----- --------...------........, . .. . . .... . . . .,...., -....... ------ - --- - - -. - - -- -- - - - - -.- - - - -- --- -. ., ~oo~ 065 PAcr '303 October 20, 1981 October I and 9, 1981, the Golden G~tr r.~gle on october 16, 19A1, the Marco Island Eðgl0 on October 15, l~R), nnd the Immokalee Bul10tin on October 15, 1981, ~8 evidenced by ^ffidAVits of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was openod to connlder Pot it ion NZ-80-20 filed by the Community Dovelopment Dlviolon requesting acceptance of J the Tentative Report of tho Comprchcnalvn Zoning Rcgulations for th~ Unincorporated Area of Collier County. Chairman Plstor called thu mcuting to ordor and said he was glÐd to see the people in attendancc ~t tho public henring and stated that the only way the BOl1rd ia nblc to writc zoning laws to satisfy the majority of the people is by hearing from the public. Hð requested that those porsons, who h~d registered to speak, to limit their speeches to appro)(imðtoly five minutos. lie noted that the ZonIng Ordinðncc had been in the proccGs of being rewritten for approximatoly two years and tho Doðrd was trying to corroct tho ·practically blank checks· which, in some instanccs, weru in the present ordinnnco. Ho said that staff would begin by reporting on the presltnt ordinance and then the public would bo allowed to opcak. Community Dovtllopmont Administrator Vi'rtð ðoked thoso parsons; who wished to spaak to complete a sign-up shoot and indicate whethor they wish to speak on the ordinance or tho rezoning mapa. Mr. Vieta stated that in tho fall of )979, after the adoption of . the ComprahonoivQ Plan, the Board applied for and received 701 Fundi through the State to hire ~ley and ^slociate. to oxamine the existing two %onin9 ordinances in Collier County and to make certain recommend- Ations which wore made in J...nuary 1980. 11o laid that, at that point, 'a9- 2 . · l.__J CJ ,...........', - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ... Octobor 20, 1981 tho Board dire6ted the consulting firm of .a.dley and ~88ociates and staff to preparo an ordin~nce which would unify tho zoning rogulÐtions for Collier County. Adley and 19sociðtvS conducted thoir work through July, 1980 the staff went through a process of review and amendment of tho work Adley and Associates had prepar~d and turnod that over to the Colli or County Planning Agency in November, 1980, he Baid. From Novembor, 19BO through May, 1981, tho CCPA reviewed tho ordinance line by line as did several interested members of the community, and from May, 1ge1 through July, 19a1, he explained, the staff formulated the ordinance with all the changcs which had been m~de through workshops, meeting weekly during thðt period. He said that from July, 19B1 until now, public hOðrlngß have been advertised, and that two public hearings have been held with t~e COðßtal Area Planning Commission and two with the Immokalec Arca Planning Commission which resulted in recommenda- tions that he said Ms. Layne would rclato. Mr. Virta said for the rocord that ðn articlc in the N~ples Daily News on October 19, 1ge1, rcgarding the proposed ordinance, had several errors in torms of what tho ordinanco purports to do. One significant orror waG that the ordinance would do away with the two Planning Commissions, hc said, and create one Planning Commission for Collier County, and that neither staff nor the Planning Commissions are recom- ~ending such ð move but, rather, a unified zoning ordinance is being - ::_~~~ ,...... eOOK 065 PACE 304 Page 3 -- - - - - --- - - -- - - -. - - - - '- - - - -- - --¡ - - -- -;::-- -- --...... -.-.--" . . ~ - ^_....~._-,_.~--- ....--..-- ------"~-- '.._-.. . . . -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- ----- ---- - -....... --- - --- - ---.-..-.. ~OOK 065 PACE'305 Octpbðr 20, 1981 recommended so that the same rules apply throughout tho County. Planner Leo Layne stated for the record that she had the ^ffida- vits of Publication for the public hearing this evening. She said that the Immokalce Area Planning Commission held its public hearings on September 16 and 30, 1981 and the Coastal Area Planning Commission held its public hearings on September l7 and October l, 1901. Ms. Layne proceeded to review in detail the amendments as they were listed in the Executive Summary dated Octobor 9, 1981. She said that the IAPC and CAPC each recommended approval f~r those amendments with the exception of the one on p~ge 20, which regarded the staff recommendation to increase the minimum ðcro~go of -A-I- District to 40 acros ðnd maximw" density to 1 unit per 40 acres. She oxplainod that at the present time thero is basically an Agriculture District which has been a holding zone for the County. She said that staff has tried to crea te two new d i str icts, 1.0. an -^-1" Di str ict,' and an "A-2- District, which would be truly an ^griculture District for preservation to encourage thoso lands which are agriculture to stQY that way. She noted that Collier County is presently one of the leading counties in the State as ð primo agriculturo interost in tho country and closoly approaching number one in the State of Florida and she said that staff feels those lands should be preserved. She said that an -A-2" District would allow basically the larger r~~l-typo eotate uses with the five acres, which is basically what tho Agriculture District is now in the coastal aroa. She r..ponded to a que.tion from Chairman Pi.tor by Itating that now -A-2" would be the areal which are not ready for devolopment but that are in the urbanizing pattern. Mr. Virta laid Page . .....:.o4I...·IØI......'·.._.""'._...'.....·.....____....... t . .. ,,.... \. '. ~. ,0 · ,.---, . ... '.~ CJ' ---, , I --------------------------------~~~-----_. ........~...,...."'.~.,.~-'.,..,"--~ October ~O, 19A1 this would have nothing to do with tho tax base bocause if an ~rea obtainod an ðgr1culturo exemption, tho zoning would not mc3ttor. Ms. Layno said that tho advertised ordinance showed a minimum acreago of 10 acros and .that stðff recommonded rdsing tnat amount to 40 acres with the maximum density of one unit per 40 acros. She said that tho IAPC did not agree with that recommendation and they recom- mended reducing the 10 acres to 5 acres and the CAPC rocommonded forwarding the ordinance as IO acre but they did not ngree that either 'S, lO, 20 or 40 is the correct size for a true agricultural zono. She sðid sho thought both Commissions woro willing to have the Board decide on ð final recommendation regarding this item. In responso to Commiusioner Wimer's question of whore the -^-2" Dißtrict begins and ends, Ms. Layne responded by saying that the -.a.-2- District would be in both the Coastal and Immo~~lee area around the existing subdivisions which do not have zoning yet but which may have a Comprohensive Plan U~e, and most of tho area goes to Range Line 49, 27 and 50, 27 or basically to Golden Gates Estates. She indicated tho areas on a map on an overhead board as well as the preserve area which would be designated "^-l" District, and the main farming areas in the Immokaloü ,Hea which would lIlso be "A-l" District. She explained that, in the Immokaloe lIrea, staff proposes most of the area surrounding around what is known as tho town of Immokalee to be the -A-2- District. Ms. Layne said that becnuse of tho questions which occurred with the acreage, staff is now trying to do an intonso study on agricultural lands by getting information from several states and counties and the ^gr1culturo ~partment to try and find out what sizes aro needed for Pa9. 5 MO~ 065 PAtE 306 ~-~--------------------------------------~ ,'~ ~ ..;~1 .' . " ".: . . . - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ~- - --..... -- -- -- - - -- - -.- -- - - - - .-. O~5 307 October 20, 1981 ßOOK U PACE" difforent agricultural uses. Commissioner Kruse asked ,what would hl\ppen to areas which are currently zoned Agriculture but which might be 2 and 1/2 or 5 acres, and Ms. Layne said that, from informðtion provided by persons at the hearing£, the tax rolls and information which people have provided which shows areas that have been "broken up", either by contracts or deeds, if an area was zoned ·A-2" and it was less than 5 acres, it would be "grand fathered in". She said that staCf tried to place the ""'-1" designation on tho so ~reas which were 40 acres or above. Planning Director Crow explained that, in tho beginning, when staff wont through tho Sabol Palm nrea, most of thðt area had been placed in the "A-I" category because most of it was unrecorded deeds and the tax rolls showod one sIngle property owner. Since that time, he said, from information provided by various property owners, tho majority of that area is now d~signatod "A-2". Mr. Virta said that, because of the disparities between the two Planning Commissions, staff recommendation, at this point, would be that the acreage be left at 10 acres Ðnd a firm recommendation will be made after tho next public hearings. In rosponse to a question by Chairman Pistor, Ms. Layno said that Btaff agrees, at this time, to recommend the Planning Commission's recommendation of 10 acros as was advertised, and that when the agri- - ._.".''':; - 0"'''''' cultural study is completed, the correct minimum acreage for a true .gricultural distrIct will be decided and recommended in tho final report. Commissioner Kruse aaked if a person had only had 5 acr.. and i. far~in9 that land and qualifies for the agriculture exemption, would p~UJ. S . ~...""..:-;:...~~·!...Jo«·,~~.'''''~:~~J1r' f II . ,,~.. ~""'.;".-J. .....~.... ill J II .. Ill. .<JJ ,4 A. -......",_ .._·NtJo·,........Þ-__ ...._ _'-.~._. ,'" .-c::J . ¡ ------ ------.-----~----------~.--. -----.. _~ LL.__.J ;--¡ > ~.._. \..;.._........~ October 20, 1981 that person still be able to obtain that oxemption undor eithor of the above-mentioned designations, nnd Mr. virta rcspondod affirmatively. Dr. Crow stðtcd that thoro are othor provisions within the agricultural districts which tho curr~nt study will exploro including the pormitted and provisional uses, and that when staff makos recommenðQtions for the agriculture districtø, they will includo not only the acroaqe but any other changos that arc felt necessary to kcep thoso -A- Districts toward the purpose for which they are being designed. Mr. Frank Croparo stated he owns 15 acres in an area where the zoning is proposed to be changed from Agriculture to Estates. Ho s~id that approxim~tely 7-1/2 acres is nursery stock and the rest is in cattle and goats and he asked if he would be held to the amoun t that he now has in cattle and goats because later he plllnned to expand tho nursory into that area. He said that he called the zoning Dopartment ðnd ho was told that he could not havo any moro than the amount of cows ho now has. Ma. Lðyn6 Raid that Mr. Crapnro's question refers to tho maps which would be covered during the second public hearing for the evening. She said that the reason for the zoning change was hecause 50\ of the people wanted the change to Estates and they came into the Pl~nnin9 Dcpartm~nt and requested the chðngc. Mr. VirtD aGked that the staff be allowed to completo the report on· the ordinance and that after the Commissioners asked their questions, the hearin~ could be oponed to the public. Mr. Virta said that staff would like to receive somo direction from the Board as to tho disparity in tho recommendations between the CAPC and IAPC over parking of major recreational c9mmercial vehicles. Page 7 ~oo~ 065 PACE 308 ,.: - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -- -- - - ----. .. . . . -- - -- - - -.- - - --- -- -- --- - - - - --... - - -- - - -- - - - - --. ' . bOG~ 065 PACE 309 Oc~ober 20, 1981 He explained that one Commission recommonded deleting the restriction and offering it ðÐ an option to those ~reas that want it, and tho other Commission suggested leaving it in and offering those areas that do not want tho restrictions the option of opting out of the restrictions. In response to Commissioner Wimer, Mr. Virta said that in the County's current zoning, the p~rking restriction is mandatory. Zoning Director Perry said that thcre are additional, more restrictive requirements which can bc optcd for in a referendum form. He said that both of those provisions aro In the ordinðnce unðer study and those provisions are whðt the IAPC say should be optional. Ms. Layne said that staff is recommending that, sinco there is a special district which is optional, there should not be two difforont types of regulations requiring a restriction. In response to Commis- sioner Kruse's question, Mr. Pcrry Gðid that the parking restrictions do not apply to WE" Estûtes zoning, unless the option Is voted in in a particular subdivision. In response to Commiosioner Wimer's question, Ms. Layne said that the IAPC has no rcatrictions at all on parking in tho Immokaloe area, and if the ordinance is adopted as it is written, with the restrictions that a boat or camper, etc. can only be parked in a back yard or garage, those restrictions would be imposod upon the Immokaloe area res idents. She Rð Id that the lAPe ..f}tcommends not hay ing the restric- tions imposod on anyone and it an area wants it, such as Marco did, let the~ opt for that type of restriction. Dr. Crew said that the CAPC'. Page 8 __ .- .. - . - - __.. - - - .~ 0_'" ..~_._ _ ._ ___ __ _ "_.. _ .. _ .. -. .--.- - - .---." --,--- _... - -.. --- - - -- -- --- ------_.. . October 20, 1981 . ¡~ ~..' ~~, - . · c=J ~ L...~...........J L._~ ....J - - - - - - - - - __ - - - - - __ - - __ - - - ____ - __ - - - - ___ --_-......-.1> recommendation is that the area be given the option to opt out of the restrictions through reforendum. Commissioner Wenzel moved that tho Board follow staff recommenda- tions for parking restrictions in the Coastal area, and that In the Immokalee aroa, that Board tollow statf rccommendation that the area can havo a reforendum to remove tho restrictions if they wish, follow- ing the CAPC recommondation. The motion died for lack of second. Commissioner Wimer asked it it was necessary to rule on this item 5 '" ~ tonight, and Mo. Ulyne sl'Ild that discussion could be held now ðnd a' ~l ) final recommondation would havo to be given at the hearing in two ~ ~ weeks. t' r " Chairman Pistor asked the public to spoðk regarding the proposed J Zoning Ordlnðncc. Mr. George Keller, Chð1rmðn, Zoning Committee, " Collier County Civic Federation, explained that ho had given a two page letter to the Commissioners, on October 19, 1ge1, regarding the minimum square footage of 750 square feet on n single family dwelling. He statod that the Civic Feder~tion feels th8t amount is much too small ~nd should be rðised to 1,000 febt. He noted that 750 feet Is not eVÐn satisfactory for mobile homes, and that when this item was presented to the Golden Gate Civic Association, a committee waS formed by ~hat Association to study the 750 square-foot minimum, b~cause thore are deed restrictions which will be mandatory within a year for 1,000 square feet for a ono story building and 1,200 feet in tho Estatos for a two-story building. Ms. Lðyno said that when Adley and Associates wore reviowing this item with staff, it wns noted that thore have been several court cases PIUJe 9 eOOK 065 fACE 310 ~-------------------~-----------------~- , _........,......_....._. It --..-...-..-.---.---..............."".-.- .-....--- - . . . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _..... _ _ _,_ __ _ _ -4 _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _.., ~OOK 065 PAcE31f October 20, 1901 which are "throwing out" minimum requirements for house sizes, but staff felt that there still needed to be some requirement in the area and it was left at 750 square feet bec~use that has been tho smallest sizo which has been allowed in Collier County. Sho said that if tho requirement is raised, over 50\ of the houses in Collier County would be non-conforming ~nd would not be allowed to ex pand. Mr. Keller sa id most IHellS require 1,000 square feet by deed restrictions, but when those deed restrictions run out, the People have to spend a lot of money to have them put back in because the County would allow 750 squarc foot. Mr. Keller said that the next item he wanted to discuss was guest housos, and th~t he felt that there is no way of policing them. He notod thQt ð guest house was being built near him that is in the front yard, and he said he felt that it waG very poor planning to permit a guest house to be built in front of a main dwelling. He recommended that the guost house section be changed to require that if a guest house is going to be frce standing, it must be to the rear of the main d we 11i ng . Mr. Keller stated he fclt that allowing twenty-five children for a child care center in a residenco is unsatisfactory. He said that originally the requirement was that, for more than threo children, a person had to file a petition and ask for ð pormit to have a child care center, which is a commercial operation. He said that he has boen told that for twonty-fivo children, there needs to be one attendant for every six children, and he said he felt if onœ person Is allowed to have twenty-five children in a homo that i8 ð dangerous propo8itlon and Pa9. 10 .. . .#_-....."- 1 . f""""._~ '-~-~J ¡ I ---------------------------------------- October 20, 1981 . does not create a homo-like atmosphere, and that he felt that is not suitable for ð rOBidcnti.:ll lIreð. 110 suqgcsted that some kind of separato classification bo made for child care centors and that thoy be put in special use, if they are in a residential area, so that people have to provo they are needed and so that surrounding neighbors will be ablo to voice their concern. Ms. Lðyne said that child caro centors are only allowed in rosi~ dential areas as special exceptions and it has to bo an owner-occupied residence and that twenty-five children would only be allowed in ð center if thero arc 2-1/4 acres. Otherwise, she said, it is limited to six children on ð 7,000 squarc foot lot and an additional 1,000 square feet for each child after that number. Mr. David Grûham, representing himself, s~id he wanted to congratulDte the staff on what he felt is an excellent attempt at streamlining a very difficult piece of reading material. He said he agreed with Mr. Keller regarding the 750 square-foot,minimum requirement for a single family dwelling, stating he felt that it is just too small and that the requirement should be upgrlldcd to 1,000 square feet or more. lie stated that a 750 square foot unit costs more to build pcr square foot than does a unit of 1,000 or 1,200 square feet. Mr. M. Dan Nickel said he felt that one of the biggcst problems with society today is that a lot of working peoplo, who are not of ~'-':-.* - .... 9reat means, tako on obligations beyond their incomo and that a major- ity of them aro bankrupt or saddled with mortages which thoy cannot handle. He said ho felt that telling an Amorican citizen that he had Page 11 ~oo~ 065 PACE 312 __~--__---_-____~__--------~----~-~--~~--'4~.-. I ... , ------------------- ------- ------ -----....... --..~....;. . . . oc t'o be r 20, 1 ~ e 1 ~ooi 065 PACE 313 to build ð homo of a certain sizo is unconstitutional and that it Is not morally right. Commissionor Wimer asked what the minimum squaro toot~go requlro- ment is todllY, and Ms. Layne explðined that, in -AM-l-, -RM-lA", and -FVR-, the minimum requirement is 750 squaro feet. Dr. Crew said tho ~inimum requirement is 1,500 square feet in -RS-l- and -RS-2-, 1,000 . square feet in -RS-3", 800 squllre foet in -RS-4-, and 750 square foet for the multi-family districts currently. Ms. Lnyno oxplained that Mr. Bass from Adley and Associates was present. lie said thl.lt the minimum housing size shouid be established by either a Build~ng or Health Code ~nd not by tho Zoning Ordinanco. He expll.lincd that court decisions havc ruled that variable square foot 'sizes and vl.IriQus zoning districts ðre considered to bo exclusionary and unenforceable, and that is why his firm recommends that any square foot size b~ established by either a Health or a Building Code. He said that the Zoning Ordinance ëanimplement that by incorporating the squJre footage but that the square footl.lge should be established by a . soparate ordinance. Commissioner Wenzel asked if the value of the land would not govern tho size of the house which would be placed on that land, and Mr. Bass sðid that theoretically it would but that, as far aa the variablo sizes which arc under thé~.~lšting ordinance, that i8 not a problom until it is challenged. 110 said that in writing the new ordinance, it was felt that a variable square-foot size per zonln9 district was inappropriate at this timo unloa8 established by separate criteria. 'age 12 ~ I. · CJ ~ --..I ==_,_1 -----------~---~--------~--~------------_.. October 20, 1981 Commissioner Wimer asked what was wrong with using thevariablo Bizos in the Duilding Code and County Attorney PickworLh said that if it i8 the consensus of the Board that the breakdown which the County now has was acceptablo, he sùggested that he be allowed to oxamine the situation and he would advise the Board. He said ho was not sure it Is an understood fact that thero is a limit beyond which the County can go on the square footagc because of economic discrimination and that he was not sure tho County has come anywhere near that Uno in the struc- turo which the County now has. Commissioner Wimcr stated he would prefer to leavo the structure the way it now is with the breakdown in the various categories becauso it seemed to have worked quite well with the cosmopolitan mix through- out Collior County. Commissioner Kruse agreed. Commissioner Kruse nsked, if deed restrictions do run out, what' would automatically take over, and Mr. Pickw~rth explained that if the zoning is there, the deed restrictions would prevail' over zoning if they arc more restrictive, and if the deed lestrictions do run out, he said that, in m~ny subdivisions, it is not a complex procedure to keep them in effect. lie said he would invcstigðte the situation. Mr. M. A. Darker, rcproGenting himself and the Golden Gate Civic Associntion, said he would be serving on tho GGCA committee to which Mr. Keller referred, and he said that Association is unalterably opposed to a 750 square-foot minimWL home in a single-family area. He .' ,...~ said that duplexes are now being built in which thore is 1,000 square foot in each living unit. He said that Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gato Community have deed restrictions and that the Golden C~te Commun- PA9. 13 ~n~ 065 PACE 314 --.------------------------~-----~~----~.. . -~---------~---~--------~--~----------- MO~ 065 pÂ~E315 Octo'ber 20, 1981 ity restrictions will run out in 1903 and tho Golden Gato Estates will run out in 1985 or 1986. Ho said thnt GGCA doubts that Avatar will refilc but ho assurcd the Board that tho Association is prepared to file a deed of restriction of their own to protect tho interests of the property owners. Mr. Barker said that at the last CAPC hearing, a formula of 1.5l in multiple housing was discussed, and he said he checked in the Zoning Office and discovered that the formula is to be rounded off in multiple housing whorein there is a question as to whether there is sufficient spaco to build a certain number of housing units. He said that Golden Gate has hundrods of lots classified as "RM-lA" on which Collier County placed ð needed restriction of 6,500+ square feet for each living unit, a numbor of years ago. He said that thore are a number of 10,000 square foot lots plattod by Gulf Amorican Land Corporation;which have' not been usable sincc that 6,500 square feet restriction was made. Ho said that under the new formula, if 6500 square feet is divided into f 10,000 square feet, approximately 1.54 is achieved and he laid that Mr. í Parry assured him that if a person appli~d for ð duplex on a 10,000 ¡ square foot lot, by the use of that formula, the duplox could be built. Mr. Barker said tho Association feels there are enough duplexes in Golden Gate and the CeCA would bo opposed to that formula on -RM-IA- or whatever the new dosignation Is. He said that in order not to keep the people from using their property, t~~ssociation suggosts thðt the County find all the blocks which are currently -RM-lAw and which have no duplexos and rezone them to single family. This would cut the population growth by one-half, he said. Page 14 . -~-------~-----------------~---~---~----_."~, , . . '_'" .~",.<:....... ",00 ,-""h. 'oJ ,~I . '. ,.. .... __"'.. ." " .. , "., ,'" · r:;;;:;J L~^,..J ~._j ------------------------------------~---~~ Octobor 20, 1991 ~. ., .' Mr. Barkor suggcsted that, regarding tho setbacks in tho Estates araa, the aoðrd should connidor that with the now requiromont of a 25 foot easement, only approximately 25 feet would be left on which a .. parson could build, on a corner lot. Mr. Barker said that, rog.Hding the agriculture 'zoning. being made to prcserve agriculture land, it is public knowledgo that there is a lot of oil exploration being done in Collier County and that accessory use for oil exploration, oil and gas extraction and processing is being allowed, and that if oil is found in tho County, the way the ordinance is written, oil and gasoline refineries would be allover Collier County. Mr. Virta said that a number of issues have just beon raised and ho asked Mr. Perry to comment on them. Mr. Petry said that, over the past several years, his office has repoatedly brought variance requosts for duplexes on single lots which were non-conforming and that, at a recent hoaring, the Board directed staff to look at the possibility of solving this problem. He said that staff took the non-conforming lots, which did not meet the minimum requirements for duplexes, and put them into a spocial category and that, if they met tho 1-1/2 unit requiro- ments, thoy were given the credit for the cxtrll 1/2 unit. He said that Golden Gate community will have a great number of those lots some of which may not have duploxes in tho area now which'may be all vacant or singlo family. Ho said he explained to Mr. Barkor just before the meeting that, in those areas, perhaps it would be wise for the County to c6nsider changing the zoning to single family, if it was not an appropriate place for duplexos, and that the provision applies only to Pac¡ e 15 to~ 065 PACE 316 . . - - -. - - - - - - - - -- - ---- - - - - - - -- - -;--- - -:- - -.- ---- -- - -- ..., ..'I...·. I "'- . - - -- -- - -..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - -- - -- ----- ..-- - ~OOK 065 p~cE317 .' Oc~ober 20, 1ge1 tho non-conforming lots in thðt one zoning category. Chairman Pistor asked why tho provision could not be made for 1.60 units and Mr. Pcrry said that wao possible, and that staff started with 1.51 and would take it to the hoarings at that level. He said staff had preparcd the information not at Board direction but because the Board did question why the variances are continually brought before the Board and staff has the provisions to stop those variances. Chairman Pistor asked that if the zoning is changed to allow only single family on the lots which people bought thinking they would be ablo to build ð duplcx on thcm, would that cause lcgal problems, and Mr. Pickworth said ·no· but that he assumed singlo family homes would still be allowed to b~ built. Mr. Pcrry said that since 1974, the only way to get multifamily on a lot in that Drea without a variance would be to combine two lots and build ð triplex. Chairmðn Pistor said he folt this would be ð good thing to considor. Mr. Virta said that, in terms of the oil exploration question, the provisions are basically what are in effect now, which are to considor provisional use to become a special exception for oil and gas explora- tion and extraction and related processing and production. Commis- sioner Kruse asked if that was on agriculturally zoned land only and Mr. Virta replied affirmatively. Commissioner Wimcr said he did not like the term "special exception· sinc~ it sounded like some special '- '"",-;~ favor was being granted. Mr. Virta 8aid that Is the accepted torminology for what is being granted because, if special conditions exist, that use is allowod. Chairman Pistor said ho agreed with Commissioner Wimer. Commi8sioner Wimer said he did not see anything , . Pa9. 16 -- -..- - - - -- - - -.-- - - - - - - - - - --""" - - - - - -- ~- - - _.... - -- - - --... -- - - ....,~.I:'t','J.~~tte....""J*I,~~ ll. lIT ~.AI. L 1~lI1n L&/YL.~""""""""""""""~_";~f"""~"I"""'''''''.'''o!o<t""",,,, .._,......""-....,".~ _:.....: _ __ .:... ~.J.....J_ _ _ _ _ _' _ __ _ _.r::l_ _ _ _.:... _ _ _ _ - _::::L - - -- - j OCtober 20, 1981 ,-: wrong with the phraso provisional use. Mr. Paul Kruse, Presid~nt of the Colden Ga~Qa Residents and Supportivo Association, spoke regarding the minimum requirement of 750 squaro fe~t per sin9le-family dwelling stating that thoro are new concept~ in building, i.e. A-frame and domo homos, which could have 850 square feet. He noted that there are more singlo pa~ent families and young couplos who do not need a largo building. He said he felt that the zoning laws should be reviewed to allow them to reflect the quality of constuction, not the square footage. Mr. John Steinwand, ropresenting himself, asked about the Compro- hensivo Plan which has a line which encourages cluster housos' and patio homes, group housing, etc. He said that the new Section 10.5 empowers the Zoning Director to approvo or disapprove approximately a l~-point submission prior to tho granting of such type ~f housing and he wanted to know about the sensibility or the necessity of that requirement, because ho said ho thought it would discourage a developer, since it is a requirement which he said was in addition to what is presently required to be submitted. Mr. Perry said that on page 30, of the proposod ordinance, under the listing of multifamily districts, there is the following statementl -Listing of group housing, cluster housing or patio housing is a principal use provided there is ð submission of a . development plan being approved subject to Section 10.5 which is covored on page 157 of the ordinance.- Mr. Perry said this is essentially a staff level procedure involving every departmental agency in the Courthouse that his department feels is necessary and, with tho current procedure, the ~o~ 0.65 PAtE 318 P0ge 17 ~-.- - --;-- - - ---- -- - - -- - -- --- -- - - - --:----- -- - --- ..'~ '1 . . . ", . " .~ . . . ,. . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- - -- - - "- - -- -- - -- - -- --'- - - -........, . MD~ 065 PACE319 October 20, 1981 -.. proc08S can rango from one to three weeks in order to -iron out- one of :::~:'I these plans and that it docs not roquire public hearings. He explainod that with the special kinds of developments, in the caso of group and patio housings, it is extremely wise to have a Mastor Plan approved ahead of timo before tho construction drawings are done in order to make sure the Fire Department is aware of all the idiosyncrasies of a givon developer and that tho Health Department is given an opportunity to review the plDnncd utilities. He sc!lid that, through the procedure, his depc!lrtment has written into the preliminary submiasion of drawings, a vosting of thoso drawings to the devoloper's projoct that will give the developer some assurðnce that tho rules and rogulations will not be changed for period of one ycar from the time ho received his MQster " Plan approval. Mr. Perry said thnt a prc-builðing permit application would be required to be issued under close scrutiny by the diflerent agoncies c!lnd his staff, but it would allow the devoloper some semblance of socurity, when he has the c!lpproved Mc!lster Plan, that he could then prepare his drawings. He snid thc!lt the procedure has been discussed at great length in tho workshop sessions and his staff is prepared to continue discussing it, if nocessary. Ms. Layne said that, also under existing law in tho Multi-family ~istricts, c!I Provisional Use has to be obtained for tho aforementioned procedure and staff felt that the c~~~rbr housing is basically multi- family and they questioned why that housing should have to go through the special public hearing process, and that staff recommends having this housing put through the staff level for the review by the con- cerned agencies rather than 90 through public hearings. She _aid that "':,' pag_ 18 ;-y 't:' ;':'i,~ ',-",'f; ,~ ': .:) . · h::J CJ ~. __ .J _________~_________________________________f Octobor 20, 1981 in tho single family areas, the cluster housing would stIll have to go . through public he~rings. Mr. Steinwand asked that if ho wero to bring a cluster housing request, whIch mcets the zoning stipulation of 16 units, and he demon- strates that to the Zoning Director, why would that not be sufficient for that time, which it is today, sinco he is not askIng for a zoning chango? He said that, with the procedurc that Mr. porry described, a financial burden is being added to him to basically layout his pro- ject. He said he did not think ho would be so energetic about pro- ceeding to the Zoning Director with all his drawings when he had no ðssurance from Zoning that he actually could build ,what he was propos- .r ~n9 . Mr. Perry sa!j that what had h3ppened in the past, and what he hopod to accomplish with tho abovementioned procedure, would be to avoid those prcbloms which lIrc inevitable when a developer is dealing with two or three.different agencies which havo different sets of rogulations because too oftr.n a commercial building has passed through his off~ce',?een ~otally approved w~th no red ma~ks, ~nd,has gon~ to tho Engineerin Depllrtment or perhaps all the way to the Firo Department and, in turn, has to be totally revised because there is something which has to be changed. Ho said that what his department i. asking is that, befure a doveloper spends all of the construction drawing money, some preliminary site plan work is done, not necessarily all of tho design criteria tõr üt!ïft~plans, because those cannot be done until the building locations have been approved. Mr. Steinwand said, as he interpreted the propo~~d ordinance, that i8 what the-Zoning &~~ 065 PAtE 320 pag. 1 9 ¡ ~ -~-------------------~-------------------~ -~---,_..... .:"!,!,'JIÞIII'''-''''' ~ 1 Jr· A I..~rr "111 ~~.""'wt,~··;,.,.~~;~~'I".....;'_..,~". ,." .~ . . . . ,I . ------ ------- ------------ ------- --------,. tMt 065 PA~E 321 Octobor 20, 1981 ~ l,h '\,P ;~ Department is asking a developer to do, and he suggQsted that another review of the ordinance be done to make sure that that is not what has ;~; .' to bo done. Ho said he felt that tremendous risk dollars are roquired" -up front- without a developer even knowing if what he is attempting to do could be done. Mr. Perry said that with almost every project which has come 1nt9 his office, the developors have been asked to Rubmlt prollminary drawings for review and Mr. Gteinwand said he agreed with the word preliminary but that he reads the proposcd ordinanco as being more than preliminary, and he suggestcd that the word -preliminary or concoptual- be put in the proposed ordinance. Mr. nod Blades, from the Bonita Shores and Little Hickory Shores Improvemcnt Association, said that there wore approximately 30 pp.oplo prosent from his area. Ho said that the proposed ordinance is reclas- sifying two sections in his area, i.e. 10 acrcs which lie between 4th ~nd 7th Street and Forcst and Ea~t Valley, ~nd the othcr area ðdjacent to tho Shores Club, JUßt off West Avenue. He said that he understood that tho zoning designation is to be changed from -RM-IB- to -RMF-l2- and he askod for explanations ðß to what tho differonce would boo He said ho understood that -RM-IB- allows l2 units per acre, not over throo stories high, and he asked what the new dosignation would allow. Ms. Layne explained that the -RMF-l2- zoning would allow 12 units per acre and that the difforence botween -RM-lB- and -RMF-12- i. that -RM-1B- would allow throe stories, with the provision~l USe up to six, ',f' ~" pa<. 20 . '. .,w,,:~~..,,·.t 'J':f'..W:~1irf~~.J _J.'.ItWiIt.. -,.~...JI(,..." 1Wß'Ø" ..~tÞ -~fIW"""""':",b"" I'''','J~,,,,'''.~ . !,': ~ ~'.;'-"';.r:\~"",," ~,&~ w·: '~'. ','~ " - . · r;;;;¡ r:::J ;......"'1 . . -----------------------~--~-----~-------~ Octobor 20, 1981 and that in "RMF-12-, staff is proposing a maximum of six'stodes without any provisional use. Mr. Blades thanked staff tor tho new sidewalks and bikepaths in his Area. He asked why tho previously doscribod zoning to the Bonita Shores, Little Hickory ^roa WlJS made and Ms. Layne said that when the, conversion WAS done from "RM-lD" to -RMF-12", those areas Mr. Blades questions were "RM-IB" and consequently wcnt to "RMF-l2-. Ms. Layne said that stdf is now proposing three multi(l\mlly rtistricts, ,I.e. "RMF-fi", "RMF-12", and "RMF-l6", with the -RMF-l6" having ð maximum of ten stories or 100 feet, and that staff felt that there should be an in-between dcsignl1tionl therefore, the "RMF··l2" was created with tho six story maximum. Chairman pistor asked if this meant th.Jt the designation for tho area in question could be placed at "RMF-6- and Commissioner Wimer said that would mean the desi9nation would be three stories with six units per acre. Mr. Blades asked why a designation comparablo to "RM-lB" could not be crcated since placing "RMF-12- zoning on the arca would put tho area in tho condominium area, to which people would object. Ms. Layne said that she believed Mr. Pickworth had said before that, even if the zoning is left at provisional UBO, if the potitioner ~eets all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and, if the Planning Commission has recommended approval of it, and stated that theyworo the Finding of Fact Commission, that it would be almost impossible to deny the provisional use. Commissionor Wimer said he thought the two areas in quostions had already been down-zonod, and he ðid not think they could be zoned down Pac¡o 21 ~O~K 065 PAce '322 .:: I 'r ..........""".'. ......." _......~ ----_....._~.- ..............-..-.....-...... . . . ,~ - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - -'- - -- -~.. : ~OOK 065 PACE323 October 20, 1981 ony further. He said he saW no problem with ch~nging the zoning catogory similar to tho existing where tho grQnted usos would bo up to three stories and, if a developer wanted to go past that, he would have to request provisionðl use. Mr. Blodes said that ð petition had been prosented with almost four hundred signatures requeGting that tho area be rezoned from -RM~2- to -RM-l- and then the -B" dcsignation waS put on which gave the 12 units per acre designation. Ch~irman pistor said that the Board would have staff look at the designation of the ar~a and see what could be done, i.e. putting a provisional use on to allow more density. Ms. Layne said that if the ðrea is left as it currently is with "RM-IB-, the' maximum height would be three stories with a provisional use of up to six stories. In response to Mr. Bladost question of what procedure would be roquired for provisional use, Ms. Layne said a developer would have to go through the public hearing process, through the Planning Commission and the County Commission. Mr. Boss said that it was his understanding, in the practice of planning, that ,the law has so indicated, in decisions handed down in court cases, that the Zoning Ordinance addresses special exception provisional uses and identifies a number of areas which have to be met. He added that, once an applicant demonstrates that he can meet those areas, basically, the Board of County Commissioners has no authority to deny that provisional use. ,Commissioner Wimer said that the criteria which an applicant has to moet in order to qet provisional us. In broad terms is compatabil1ty of the ne19h~orhood, traffic impact on streets, etc. Pa98 22 __ _. ...__ _·...M _oM .... _ " ___._... __ - __._.___.~_......._.__._.__..._.......___..._________ M ~b ·....,4·.t-.\Mt""(...~~14~·~JU.JItI"I'IIIWt__~~.-W..· ~r-urUe:_~~~,.· ft/:.~.\'- ¡~.. ,r,c- ';' '.:, ,.-,,~1odIío .~ r.::::J ¡.~,., ~ . . ----------------------------------------- October 20, 1981 Chairman pistor noted that undcr Section 7.lS, -RT", Residontal Tourist, on pago 33 of the proposed ordinance, there is no mention of allowing interval ownership. Ms. Layne said that on page 34, of the corrected page, Item C, Time Share Facilitios are under pormittod use.. Chairman pistor said he did not have thoBO pages. Commissioners Wimer and pistor requested Ms. Lðyne to update their copies of the proposed ordinance. Chairman pistor noted that under Commercial Intermediate, page 6l, hotels, motels, and time share facilities are allowod, and Ms. Layne said that, bðßed on tho directions which were given staff regarding amendments to the "RT" and Commercial Districts, the Board recommended that those design.Jtior.s stay permitted uses in the "RT" District, and they were left that way, and, in the "C-4" and "C-S-, which are basically "GRC" Districts, they would be provisional uses and also in the "FVR", which is the way they were placed in the proposed ordinance. Chairmðn pistor ðsked if they could not be left out of "FVR- ontirely and out of ail but "RT" and Ms. Layne said that the -FVR" is the mixture which allows all types of commercial provisional uses. She soid that Mr. pickworth had previously stated that hotels could not be regulated and then not regulate the time share facilitios. Commissioner Wimer said that if interval ownership is going to be called transient lodging that it should be in the categories with other . ......-- .: ~.". transient lodgin~ and Ms. Lðyne agreed stðting that all those provisional usos had been mado for special excoptions. Chairman Pistor said that he thought hospitals should be consid- ored a provisional use. Ms. Lðyne asked if he proposod that hospitals Pðq. 23 &D~ 065 PACE 324 . ~. - - - --. . . . --- - - - - - - - - --- --- -- ------ - -------- - -- - -_..-. toO~ 065 pÀcE325 October 20, 1981 be mado assential M~rylcas liko the trcatment plont8 and Chairman Pistor answered affirmatively. Chairman pistor Baid that he would like to have time share facil- itie. taken out of so many of the -C- area since they are in -C-S- now. Ms. Layne said that those ðre only allowed in -C-4", -C-S- and the -FVR·. Chairman pistor said he would like interval ownerships put in -RT- only. Ms. Layno said that staff could look at whore sanitariums are put. Mr. Virta said that customarily hotols, motels and transient lodging facilities Are found in the heavily commercial zones and that time share facilities arc transient facilities, with a different form of ownership, treated as hotels and motels, and, therofore, they are in the ·C-4·, ·C-S· cvmm~rciðl districts as provisional uses to make sure that thuy ðre compatible. Commissioner Wenzel moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Brown absont, that th~ public hearing be continuod, pertaining to acceptance of the Tentative Report, to November 3, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Wimer asked if staff could look at restricting guost houses in tho Estðtes aroa where the lot sizes ~re below the standard 8izo. Mr. Virta said that there is a draft ordinance regarding that subject which had not boen included and it could bo included in the proposed ordinance. ',;; "..... ·····RECESSz 8155 P.M. RECONVENEDz 9s00 P.M...... P-98 24 .' , - - - - --. -- - ..- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - --....- - - -.......... . I · r::;:] L...__.J """'~"'ff'-h -4 ------------------------------------------ October 20, 1981 PROPOSED REZONING MAPS FOR THE UNINCORPOR^TED ^REAS OF COLLIER COUNTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TENTATIVE REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGUL^TIONS - PUBLIC IIE^RING SET FOR NOVE~'BER 3, 1981 Legal notice having been published in tho Noplos Daily News on Octobor 9, 1981 ðS evidencod by the ^ffidavit of Publication proviusly filed with tho Clerk with regard to Petition NZ-80-20, public hearing was opened to consider Proposed Rezoning Maps For the Unincorporate~ ^rea of Collier County in Conjunction with the Tentative Report of the Comprchensive Zoning Regulations. Chairman Pistor sugg~sted that all the changes not be read since the Commissioners had copies of same, and Ms. Layne stated that tho I^PC and C^PC held thoir he,uingß on Scptr.mber 16, 17, 30 ðnd October I, 1981 at which both Commissions recommended approval of the changes listed in the Executive Summary datcd 10/20/81. She explained that since the hearings she had rcceived letters which had to be read into the record as follow~1 1. Airport Road Investmcnts, map 49-25. She sðid that now the en~irc orea is zoned "I", Industrial and that a request signed hy Messrs. Moon, ^rnold and Matson, ^irport Road Investments, requesl8 that ð 10 acre corridor ~long ^irport Road should go to "C-S" to allow other UÐe~ beside industrial in that area. Rhe said that they are saying staff hðs changed the "I" zoning in that the ·1- zoning proposed is practically the same as the existing ·I" zoning. It was the contention of the Commisaionors that the "I· zoning classification should be left as proposed. 2. Map 49-26-6, Section 4, Mr. Jenkins, referring to an area around Alligator Alley, sftid thnt he owns land in Section 34 which consists of 37 acres at the interchange of Alligator Alley and that staff is recommending con- verting the zoning from ·GRC" to ·C-4-. Ms. Lðyne read from Mr. Jonkins' latter in which ho stated that he desiros to put a motel, restaurðnt, fuel facilitie., Page 25 ~< 0.65 PACl326 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- - --- - - - -- --- --- --- · .. .. - - - __ - - - - - - __ __ ___ - - - - _. - __-"-- - - - - - - ____ __ of OCtober 20, 1981 MO~ 065 p~CE 327 resourcc, otc. and thnt "C-4- would allow, with provls- ionnl use, (or hotel, motel. 3. Map MI-G. Ms. Layne s~id that this request was pre- sented at the Planning Commission hoaring and she indicated the location of the parcel, on a map on an ~verhead board, as baing on the SE corner of s.n. 92 and Barfield. She said the land had be on -C-l- and that both Planning Commissions agreed to tho "C-J- change, but thnt Mr. Frankol, the potitioner, from Viva International Reality, is still requesting that it be "C-4" because he would like fast food restaurants which is prohibited undor "C-]". She said the Planning Commission did discuss that during tho next round of hoarings it might be possible to mako fast food facili- ties as a special exception of provision~l use. 4. Map 50-27. ~Is. Layn.t indicated the location of the parcel on th~ map on an overhead board as Alligator Alley and the western portion of tho Estates areß, ~nd she stated that a large portion of the arca was changed, after the hearings, from "A-I" to "A-2". She said that the portion being spocifically spoken to is the rest of Section 35. She said that Mr. McTltgue came into her office on October 19, 1981, and that he brought a map showing that the ðrea had been "broken ùown" into loss than the 10 and 40 acre tract a and th~t he requested that all of Section 35 be taken to "^-2" as well as the east half of Section 34. She added that she thought a gentleman had just requested that the west half of Soction 34 be taken to "A-2" sinco the land had been "broken down". She said staff recommended that the NE corner of the properti be zoned "A-2". 5. Ms. Layne said she had several letters from property owners which cnme after the Planning Commission hearing and that owners in Sections 20 and 17 objocted to "A-l- and nlaff recommcnded that the zoning be changed. Commissioncr Wimer asked if an area J8 found to havc beon "broken down- was that area ~utomaticðlly zoned "A-2" and Ms. Ulyn& answered affirmatively. She said that staff recommended that property of Mr. Schi~ber, map 20-51, be changed to "A-2" and Mr. Lenhart objected to -A-I", and thnt the only question would be arcas brought up at this hearing, i.e. the rost of Section 35 and all of Section 34. 6. Map 51-27, Section 2, recommmondod to be "A-2-, Ms. Layno indicated the location of the land on a mQP on an overhead bo~rd as being on U.s. 41 on the road going to Marco, the Rig9_ Road, TrinIty Place area, and the pag_ 26 - ..- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -.- --., --..- - - ---.... .....,~...,.;. ~~ ',-... '.~ ~" . · r;;:) ......---l .._.~.".J =.~ -- - - -- - - --- - -- - --- - - - - - - ---- - - --- - - - ------ ~ October 20, 19A1 southern portion of the beginning of the Estates area. Shß said that in Section 3, mnps were producr.d showing that the area had been "broken down" into acroago. Commiooionor wimor said that he would rather have staff take a fðirly definitive lino as tho breaking point and makc that land solid "A-2" up to that point, it that Is the urbanizing area, and that on the other side of the Estatos, that land bc made pure.^griculture -A-1". He said that rather than taking areas which aro "broken up" and calling that the -holding area", he saw nothing wrong with allowing some lands to also be "broken up", if it is fcasiblo to break tho land into the 5, or 10 acres, rather than doing as staff is recommending. Dr. Crew said th~t this would be part of what staff is looking at now and that, according to tho Agriculture Department, some of the land in that area is among the very best in the County. Commissioner Wimer said if otaff is tryin~ to maint~in large viable f~rm- lands farther out because the purpose is to stop urban- ization, he did not think it would be accomplishcd the way staff recommends. Dr. Crew said that that area of the Estates is the arca that will probably never bo doveloped. Mr. Virta said that the l8nd has been broken into smnll pieces nnd, at this point. he agrced with Commissionor Wimer. . Mr. Garry Boyrent, representing Gladcs, Inc. for Hubschman Associates, spoke regarding one 14-acre parcel which in tho previous two hearings hðd boen changed from -C-l" to "C-4" anG the other parcol which he located on the map on an overhead board. Ms. Loyno said that both Planning Commissions rccommended changing all of the area from the Courthouse east to Palm Drive to "C-4". In response to Chairman Pistor's question of why the rocommenda- tion was made for "C-4-, Ms. Layne said that part, of tho roason was because of hotel, motel uses and the hoight~ Chairman pistor said ho felt "C-3· is more appropriate and Ms. Layno said that staff had stated during the hearings they would havo no objoction to "C-)- designation and that the Planning Commission rGcommendud ·C-4-. When Mr. Beyront Pð9. 27 e~~ 065 PACE 328 ,..... --~-------------~----------,----~---~~--~ , .",", . . . . . - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - ---- --.. ~oo~ 065 PACE 329 October 20, 1981 Asked what tho position of the Board was, the Commissioners responded <, -C-3-. Mr. John W. Vaughn, representing himself, regarding agriculture zoning, asked if there would be a difference in the tax assessment on -~_lR and -A-2· property and Mr. Virta said that, if an agricultural use exemption for the land is obtained, a property owner would have that exemption whether or not tho zoning was RA-l- or -A-2-. Mr. Vaughn askod that if the property is not feasible for agrIculturo use and is zoned RA_lR, would there be any reason that the land should remain "A-IR, and Dr. Crew said that this would be one of the subjects addressed in tho current study and that it would depend heAvily on soils and other considerations. He said that he anticipates that the ordinance would provide for this type of issue to be addressed. He said that a detailed soil survey has not been done at this point but thot staff is working on that now. He said he felt that tho point Mr. Vaughn raised would be a legitimate criteria to ask for a change. Mr. Vaughn said that he had a foreign client who owns property next to ð farm but thero Is no possibility to· farm the land. Mr. Virta Buggcsted that Mr. Vaughn contact Dr. Crew and discuss the situation on a one-to-one bðsis. Mr. George O. Gratz declined to speak. Dr. Terry Krumm, representing Ruud Zwaano, stated that Mr. Zwaans has Block B, Unit 7, Marco Island, on Collier and Wintorborry that is now zoned ·GRC·, consisting of 5.19 acres, and that Dr. ~rumm i8 now doing a feasibility study with the intent to construct a hotel facility. He said that the prospectIve zonin9 is -C-l- and that PAge 28 "'')'~,~:~'Mt~h~ ....~........,..".........Ifl__~r~...~'~..~.'t,¡,. . · r;;;J CJ ---/~ .... :j't --- - - ---------- - - ---- - ---- --- - --- - - - - ---_... October 20, 1981 prohibits hotels, -'nd Mr. Zwaðns would like the zoning changed to - C-4 - . MA. Layno located the property on oJ mllp on an ovcrholld board as near Eagles Nest and Club Rogency. Dr. Krumm said that his client Is willing to give a special covenant that would declaro the land would not be interval ownership bu~ that Mr. 2waans would like to retain tho rights which he previously had with -GRC-. MS. Layne said that a hotel with 96 units could bo built on the property. In response to a quostion by Commissioner Wimer, Mr. Virta said that staff had no objections to this request and Commissioners Wimer lInd Kruse said that they had no objections either. Commissioner Wenzel said the petitioner would have to wait until tho Board votos on the request after the public h/"!.Hlngs. Col. Hadley E. Jenkins, representing Avatar, referred to map SI-28, a portion of Golden Gates acres and said that Sections 29 through 34 were included in his listing. He said that Soctions 33 and 34 are not a part of Golden Gates acres and he recommended that those two sections be withdrawn ðnd the corroct sections, as he listed them for tho record, be included in Golden Gates acros with the plats which he had to present to tho Commissioners. He said that a portion of Section 25 in map 51-27 was not entored in'thø original l1stin.g, and Ms. Layne sa id that ,was bccauso Sections 25 and 36 had been recommended for ·"'-2" from the boginning. Col. Jenkins Baid 1457 parcels wero sold in both 2-1/2 acre and 5 ðcre parcels and he hoped that the ·grandfather· clause would apply, and Ms. Layno said that if there was a contract for deed or a deed rccorded prior to 1974 that thoso parcels would bo ·grandfathered·. Col. Jenkins thanked the staff for the job b()~( 065 PAC£ 330 pag 0 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- -- - - -- - -- -- -- ------ - ---- . ~ . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - -- -- --. &OO~ 065 PAGE 33f October 20, 1981 thoy had done and said they had been helpful to him. He said that Avatar is desperately trying to get the deeds of restriction for both Golden Gate and Golden Gates Estates amended or altered to be extonded. Mr. John H. Gobeil, representing himself, said he owned 10.28 acres in map 50-26, Section 3. Mr. Perry located the area on an overhead map as near Radio Ro~d as it leðves ^lligator ^lley. Mr. Gobeil said that at the last public hearing he was offered -RT" zoning, and he did not know what that covered. He said with "RT- zoning he is limited and he requested "C-4" zoning which would "leave the door open- for whatevcr he decidcd to do with his property, and he said that sinco, tho property is close to 1-75, it Wvuld be a good place for a motel. Ms. Layne said that staff had no objection to the pieces going to "C-3", when the property was present~d before, and that the roason there was ð problem with "C-~" was the area around the Intorchange is the area that staff is looking at as the Interchange commercial area for motoring, public use and that staff was trying not to carr~ that farther west into the residential area. Ms. Layne said that on some of tho areas where the petitioner is not sure how it would be developed, tho area hðs been zoned "A-2" and that when the petitioner is ready for tho typo of use, he could request the zoning that,is needed. Chairman pistor said that he felt that -C-4" zoning would give a petitioner "a blank check" and he thought that the ideas which the Commissioners conveyed to statf, which the staff has done a good jo~ toward meeting, was to "close the gaps- and ·cut out the loop holes-, and when a portion is zoned, then it is known what would happen in that area. He said he would like to say that the Board starts out with a Pa9. 30 . r....;J C. .....J ..,).,.....,..r'ÍI.~ -~---------~---~--------~--~------------_. October 20, 1981 80me control on an area, and that if it doesn't work out, an appli- cation for a zoning change could be made. 110 caid he felt the Board 18 usually pretty reasonable about zoning chango. Commissioner Wimer suggested that Mr. Gobeil take the -C-3- zoning and como back for re70ne at a later time, if necessary. Mr. Bill Blackwell, representing G^C Realty Trust, oxplained that GAC Realty Trust is a trust which was created in Bankruptcy Court in tho United States District Court in rl!ðmi by Judge Britton, for tho· purpose of liquidating the assets of tho b~nkrupt corporation. "0 said that thore are a little over four million trust certificates out stand- ing 1~ respect to the trust and that tho tract he was questioning is only one of three l~rge acreage tracts owned by GAC Realty Trust, with Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24 involved. He explnined thðt the ðrea waS platted in the mid-'60's and that thousands of dollars were spent surveying, getting engineering drawings and peating a bond in order to comFly with tho plat dedicðtion statutes of the StðtC. He said that, although no development has been'done in the four sections mentioned, he believed that, b~sed on tho investment in engineering and platting expenses, GAC Rcalty Trust is entitled to some consideration and had asked him to toll th,e Board that they are the succecsor to ð bankrupt . corporation, a liquidating trust, not real estate developers but rather a soltuion to tho GAC problem and not the aQuae of it. Mr. Blackwell said that it would take a lot of money from GAC if the zoning is changed to agriculturo. He said that he felt there was morc or a motive for "down-zoning" than to savo agriculture because the four sections of land to which he referred has very little value for ~~ 065 PAtl332 Page 31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -....... - - - - -...... - - - - - - ..-. . . . _____ __________________________________ ..... I '~oo~ 065 P~CE 333 Octobor 20, 1981 . . agriculture. In response to Chairman Pistor's question, 'he said there were approximately 2,400 acres of land involved in the four sections. Mr. Blackwell pointed out that G^C Realty Trust is a distinct entity from Avatc!lf. He suggosted that when lInyono has invested the money th~t tho predecessors in title invested in platting the lðnd and dedicating it to the public and that, since the County Commission, in tho ~ld-160'8, accepted it with ð public resolution, that some rights hðve been vested. He said that all tho str~ets in the area, even though they arc not paved, are available for public use and that is another reason he felt there are vested rights in the arell. He said th~t to take the zoning aWflY, he felt, wouJd be confiscatory to his client. Commissioner Wimer asked if thoro was ðn agreement for tho area to be unplatted and Col. Jonkins slIid that there was no agreement on this area but an Dgrecment was on Golden Gate East. Mr. Blackwell said he did not kno~ anything about any movement to unplat tho area. Chairman piotor said that the County had not accepted the roads and that they are private roads. Dr. Crew stated he had discussed the issue with County Attorney Pickworth and had been advised that the Board may do ·what they fecI liko onft this issuo. He said that a large farmer in the County has made a bona fide two-million dollar offer to the Trust on the property which was rejocted. Dr. Crew Baid the farmer wantod to uso the land for farming and foel. that the land i8 very good for farming. Mr. Blackwoll Baid that GAC Roalty Trust's position is that all the offers which were made on tho property have been withdrawn In the light of tho down-zoning. Pa98 32 . r~J CJ ~.-..) . . . --- - - ----- - -------- ---------- ------------_. ' Octobor 20, 1981 In r03ponse to ChÐirman rictor's question of what the property is now zoned, Dr. Crow said it is zoned wIMF-4-, -ISF-3-, wIMF-l-, wIC-2w, WXC-l", Industrial, and that all of the area 1s complicated by the fact that tho land is now in the Coastal District and tho lðnd use plan effectively down-zoned it in 1979. Chairman pistor said the the Board may approve a plat but does not accept roads for publ ic use. Dr. Crew suggested that, if the Board· has a quostion regarding this property during the two week period before the next public hearing, the Board may direct County ^ttorney Pickworth to give the Board a legðl opinion regarding what the County can and cannot do in this matter. Mr. E. Glenn Tucker, representing Thomas S. Tucker, said that the CAPC recommondcd ch~nging the parcel which Mr. Perry indicated on a map on an ovorhead board to "C-4" and Mr. Tuckor said that he thought'staff supported that recommendation and he was present to answer any quostion the Board might have regarding the area, which is in 48-35-9 in the Executive Summary. Mr. Tucker said that one of the provisional uses, a marina, in ·C-~" is essential to the piece of property that he dis- cussed with the CAPC. He said the piece of property, which he dis- cussed with the Commission approximately one and one-half years ago, had ·C-X" zoning on the waterfront and ·GRC- zoning back from part of the waterfront and, at that time, the proporty owner of the parcel deeded to the County over 11 acres of undorwater property, in a showing of good faith, and asked to havo the portion of the waterfront which faced out across Vanderbilt Bay, down-zoned from -C-I- to RGRC-. He aaid that he suggested to the CAPC that part of the realon was to b_ e~~( 065 PAte 334 P.9- 33 -- -.-- -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- --~ -- - - -- -..,..... - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - _.... · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- - - _..- ..- . MO~ 065 PACE 335 October 20, 1901 able to build ð marino thoro and to allow the proporty to hAvo whðt other voried useds to which it lendo itsolf. Ms. Layne said that building permits for hotels and motols have come in since the advortising was done and the maps set up on the corner whoro there I. an interval ownership and that -C-4- is tho district which allows those uses. Commissioner wimer said that awhile back there was a big -for sale" ad in the newspaper which did not say a m~rina site, but which said 144 uses among which was an interval ownership condominium and he had received calls on that for six weeks. He said he felt the area should stay "C-)". Mr. Tuckcr said that most of the propcrty was "GRC- before his client came into tho ðrÐO and that all they asked the County Commission to do was upgrade a very narrow strip of that property which was on the north side from ·CI", which could have had a heavy use and could havo been offensive to the area, to "GRC", which very minimally expanded the, "GRC" area his client had. Ho said tho ad, to which Commissioner Wimer referred, could have been placed in the paper without the rezoning because his client had both "GRC" and -C-I-, and that ad could have had not only the uses pc!mitted in "GRC" but a marine and a heavy equipment, open air type usage. Commissioner Wimer said that could not have been done unloss dredgo and fill permits wore obtained and Mr. Tucker said that his cliont still would have to got those to build docks associated with the marina. Commissioner Wimer said he was not going to vote to allow more tall buildings to be built in that area and that he would like to stop issuing building permits while the rezoning is taking effect bocause of the detrimental effect page 34 · L~~.J - .----, ~ ---J ~ '-..~.."~'~ ",j -------------------------------------------" . . . October 20, 1981 that building has had on Vandorbilt Beach. Mr. Tucker said that he felt it WQS intrinsically and inherently unfair to tðke away the rights, especially when substantial rights were given to the County in exchange for the rights. He said that if his client had asked for permits, he did not think that the Board could have denied tho right to build stilt houses on the 11 acres which the property ownor gave to the County. Mr. Tucker said that -C-3" 1s far too rostrictive for the property in question. Chairman pistor said he agreed with Commissioner Wimer and that whatever is built should be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Frank Craparo, representing himself, said ho had 15 acres in Section 18, 49, 26 lInd that now l1pproximatcly Lalf of his land is in a nurscry and troe-farm, the other half in livestock, and that he has an agriculture exemption on tho whole parcol and the land has been used commercially. He said he does not want to be locked in so that he cannot expand his tree farm. Commissioner Kruse asked what the density was in that agriculture area, and Ms. Layne said one unit per five acres. Commissioner Kruse said that if the zoning is moved to -t- Estates that, essentially, additional development would be allowed becauÐe it would be cut to one unit pcr two and one-half acres. Commissioner Wimer said ho felt the area should be left agriculture. Commissioner Kruse agrcod and she asked if. in an instance such as this where density is increased, would it be appropriate to handle the proporty on overall zoning or if lt should bo handled separate)y, and Mr. Virta said that the entire County 1. being rezoned. Page 35 to.~. .065PA~ 336 .,.- -.- - - -- ...- -- -.- -- - - - - - _.- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -..... - - - - - .~.. . . " . . - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - ----- ----------- ---" ,.. October 20, 19B1 MO~ 065 FÀGE 337 *****Commissioner Wenzel left the room a~ 9155 P.M. and roturned at 10100 P.M..···· Commissioner Wimer said that he did not object to the ~rea being zoned WE" Estates but that he felt some way should be found to allow Agriculture uses to continue and Commissioner Kruse. Commissioner Wimer asked if this piece of property could bo -carved out- of the Estates and left alone, and Mr. Virta said that tho 15 acres could pe zoned "A-2". Ms. Layne said that the people in the area had been into her department and h~d offcred no objections to the area being changed to WEW Estates. She asked Mr. Craparo to give hor department his legal description. Chairman Pistor told Mr. Craparo that the Board would give consideration to the situation. Mr. Dennis Lynch, representing himself, said he was present to discuss a picce of property on Airport Road and Coachhouse Lane which is zoned "GRC" that a group of people and himself have bought with the concept of planning, paying it off over a period of years, and then developing i't. He said the property lies between the Golden Gato Parkway and Pine Ridge Road and that the p~operty in front of it is currcntly being four-Ianed. He said the property has been zoned -GRC- for years and its antecedent zoning prior ~o 1974-75 was "GRC". He said that the people who have purchased property in the unplatted subdivision of Coachhouse Lane and in poinciana Village have known that the zoning was "GRCw and he said he would like that zoning to remDin. Ho said tho proporty, within six lineal miles, Is the only ·GRC- zoned property with the excoption of tho 7-Eleven and the Kiddy Care Center. lie said thðt in 1975 he requosted rezoning for a PUD for Plnewoods and Page 36 · c:::J ~_...,J ~__J . . " ~----------------------~------------------- Octobor 20, 1981 that he was entitled to somo commerciðl acreage undor that zoning, but he did not ask for it because ho know this property was just down tho road. Ho said he was acting in the spirit of what he thought was good " -', ~¡ for the County and for the dovelopers. ***..Commissioner Wenzel left the room at lOs02 P.M.······· In rQsponse to Commissioner Wimer, Mr. Lynch said the subject property is proposed to be zonod to -C-l- and he would like ·C-4-, becauso wC_lw would not allow the construction in which he is, intorosted. He said that ·C-4- has approximately 98 uses and that WC_)W has 66 uses. Commissioner Wimer asked Mr. Lynch to look at the uses allowed in WC_)W and see if they would be compatible for what he has projected for tho commercial development of the property in quostion. Commissioner Kruse asked if ~r. Lynch had any idea how tho property would be developed and he said that the poople who own the property are local people and they would hðve no desire to build ð hotel but that they might want to build something which is allowed in .C-4W which is not allowed in "C-3w. Mr. Lynch said that he felt a lot of peoplo were unaware that their proporty is proposed to be changed and Commissioner Wimer asked if notices Are being sent out. Ms. Layne said thnt notices will be sent on the tax bills with tho hearing dates. Mr. Roger Budy, representing himself, said that he wanted to discuss map 51-27, and Ms. Layne said that property was just change4 to -^_2W. Mr. Jay Bishop, representing himself and spoaking for Mr. Tony pag. 37 ~)( 065 p,,~ 338 :4' , ~¡; _... .___ _.. _., _____4________________________·___~-....-------,·..,;,·\ ... . . . ~ú~~ ~uøca who owns property on North 41, on the west side of u.s. 41, just north of Cocohatchce River. He said that he felt there was a problem with inconsistency because the aroa from Cocohatchee 'River up to the Lincoln-Mercury business is being zoned ""'-2- from Commercial because the Board rezoned a strip directly across the street from Agriculture to Commercial. Chairman Pistor said that the land to which Mr. Bishop referred is not going to be a strip center because the property is wider and ~ shopping area can be built so that people will not back out onto the highw~y. Commissioner Wimer asked staff what their logic was regarding the ""'-2" zoning from Commercial, and Ms. Layno said that the Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Commercial and it has been zoned that way for years and nr·ver been used and she e(plained that rðther than staff trying to figure out which of different commercial uses in the aroa should be placed on tho property, that a developer cðn request the corrcct commercIal category when he has a proposal f.or that area. Commiss'ioncr Kruse ðsked if the peoplc have been paying taxes for -GRC" and that the zoning is now to be switched to "'griculture, and Mr. Bishop said "definitely·. Commissioner Wimer asked if the area goes to the mangrove area of the river and Ms. Layne responded affirmatively. . Commissioner Wimer said he agreed that the mangrovo area should go back to Agriculture zonin9 and Mr. Budy said that area could not be used. Commissioner Krus. sðid that this is a reversal of the situation when people aro paying Agricultural taxes on prime commercial piece of land, and she did not think it was fair. In response to Commissioner Wimer's question as to how d.ep the Pa98 38 ,-..-. f"""'~ ,:~~ . '~~~~ · r:;:;:¡ ;~~ [=:J . . ' - - - - - - - - -.- - - ---- - - --- -- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -. . Octobor 20, 1981 property is, Ms. Lßyne responded that the proporty 1s 350 feet deep. Commissioner Wimer observed that the land is not really suitable for any typo of. residential uso at that shallow depth. He Baid that perhaps the staff should look at tho aroa again. Mr. Bishop said that the complaints might not have come to him if the Board had not just rezoned proporty across the street to Com- merc1al. Mr. Edward J. Kant, representing Collier Enterprises of which Collier Developmcnt Corporation is a company, said th~t Section 21 has a strip of the same dcpth as the property just disoussed, that has been shown to 90 from Commorcial back to ~n "'griculture Zone and he asked that if the area '0 the North is to be studied, that the property in Section 21 should be looked at agnin on the same rationale. Ho said that now there is ð commercilll st rip on that proper ty, and ho stated for the rucord that the ownership of the entirc Section 21, short of tho school out pa r c e I , the cemetery, tho driving range, and the trailer parks around, Walkerbilt Road, is in his client's single ownership. He sðid ho WèlS rcluctðnt to IIllow small bundlc of rights to be "lot down the path". Chairman Piator asked if staff ought not to be looking at the commercial strip zoning of U.S. 41 from below Seagate bocause cars back out onto u.s. 41 and he felt it was not an asset to Collier County to ..~ .-' have that type of zoning on that atee. Mr. Kant said ho did not know what the rðtionalo WðS that allowod that, but he said that he a9reed that a dopth which is more consistent with modern planning and developmont, as well a8 what the economics of a viable shopping area 8D~K 065 rACE 340 Page 39 -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - --- - - - - - - - -:- - - --- ----- --"-";'~ ¡',,>. ..~ -.-._- ...._>~ " .. ._.....·h....""'.____... ,."".~___..........-.-. . . . I . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ ·...,1 ~ao~ 065 ~^&E 341: October 20, 1981 dict~te, would be moro realistic and he 8ðid that a depth of from 600 to I,OOO feet is much more realistic than a depth of 300 feot. Com- ~isBioner Wimer said he had no objections to staff looking at that area also, since he did not like the strip commercial. In response to n question by Commissioner Wimer, Mr. Kant explldncd the ownership of the property in question and he Mid tha't nor.th of the river there is propcrty owned by the Conservancy. Mr. G. Glcnn Tucker ðsked that, while tho Bo~rd is deliberating regilrding the pi1rcel t,e discussed previously, ho said he wanted to comment nbout the ad in the paper which Commissioner Wimer montione~. Ho sa id that ho had represented the VlInderbllt Beach Property Owners Association sevcral times before the Commission and he has never heard a complaint regarding tho rczonJng or the ad. He asked the Board to consider that in view of the fact that Commissioner Wimer might have received some complaints to the contrary. Ms. Layne sdid that Mr. Vega had spoken to staff regarding the parcel of li1nd, The Commons Professional P~rk, whore the Copporfield restaurant and the Post Offico are, and he requested that this area be considered for "C-3" rather than Professional Commercial. She said that she and Mr. Virta had discussed tho subject and that, since thore is a complcto professional office complex in the area, thoy would see no problem with the ·C-3- designation. Commissioner Wimer Baid that from tho Hi9h Point area north and south, thore uood to bo a strip zoning area which went back half a block, with Commercial in front and low density, multifamily behind. He said that tho Commis8ion solved that problem by extending the Pa98 40 , 'r' .4 .~.~~"'b"w... .h-Jl4""'~"~I,i-__·'fO~III~r¥"'~·''''''''''''''''''I''·~··-'·'···,''',-'···~fl,·'.·\1" .... ,,''4,1Ii.1tWltL~ ..."~~i1'.t'..""'\4',,,,t~'"''''·'''r!~'''\\4Io),~_~~~~''' IJI. -.I..t!~__""""~ 11 I I , I )' ' t ~ .' '~" - - - .-- - - - --0:-- - -- _.....:. -----~--- ,-- -- -------------~. ~.__.J · r=:J c..__J . . October 20, 1981 Commercial zoning all tho way to 10th Stroot and all tha people who live on the other side of lOth Streot are not appreciative of that action. He said that they would like the Commercial to be limited to one-half block in depth and that the back half of the block, which fronts on lOth Stroot, to be placed back in the low density, 'multifðmlly. Ms. I..ayno said that was done on the Comprehcnsive Pllln and by splitting some of the lots some of the lots would be half Commercial and half Multifamily. Therofore, she said, staff proposed that all the ðrea be "RMF-6" or the MRSP-4", as the rest of the area Is zoned, doing away with the Commercial zoning. Ms. Layne loc~ted tho area undor discussion on a map on an overhead b~ard as the area from ðpproxim~tcly Creech Road to Solana Road. Commissioner Wimer said he would like to review staff's map regarding the situation. Commissioner wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and carried 3/0, with Commissioners Brown and Wenzel absent, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Kruse and carried, 3/0, with Commissioners Wenzel and Brown absent, that the second public hearing be held November 3, 1981 at 7100 P.M. Mr. Bass said that in the proposed ordinanco Section 10.5, the Development Plan Approval Process, several comments made during the hearing prompted him to say that a require~ent, which could easily be' added 'to the proposed ord inance, would be that for rezone to a zoning district that requires development plan approval within its uses, the development plan be submitted as part of the rezoning process, so that when ð petitioner come. forward and .ays he wants to build a marina and ~Ij~ 065 rAct: 342 '19- 41 ,'~ . . . . I . "'1 -----------------------~---~-----~------~\ .r.1f/f, -';';:I-,<~~ '.<.X~ ::~;. :'ìJ ;'it,;'~ " It " ,~( ,,;:~ \~..' );~~ '~~!~ ':~~~: ~';) ; '; .~ M~K 065 fAGE 343 October 20, 1981 it 18 in the development plan, thon the dovølopment plan is put on the property which ia good for one year. Ho said this could be extondod six months if there is an overriding problem and then it would lapse. He said that, if the developmont plnn lapsos, the zoning district would revert to the previous zoning district. Chairman P1stor said he felt ""':',-' that was a good idea. . . . * * * * * . * * * Therc being no further businens for tho good of the County, the meeting wns adjourned by order of tho Chair - Times 10:25 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS ¿ER Il ~~ stor, C ð rmðn // '-",..., -' . " I ( c ~'. .,. .~ .. , , .... -' " 4 " ~ c ~ ~ "-';; ',-, ,I;: Page 42 ,} " t' ,;...:~ :~j ::>f. .,~. ¡'" " t .,~~ j ~!:f.) '''~~