Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/16/1991 SCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING September 16, 1991 6~00 p.m. Third Floor Boardroom Collier County Courthouse Naples, Florida 33962 Reported by: Mari B. Temple Deputy Official Court Reporter Notary Public State of Florida at Large TELE~ 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 APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS P. Anne Goodnight - Chairman Michael J. Volpe - Commissioner Max A. Hasse, Jr. - Commissioner Richard S. Shanahan - Commissioner Burt L. Saunders - Commissioner STAFF~ David Weeks - Senior Planner Kenneth Cuyler - County Attorney Neil Dotrill - County Manager Tom Olliff - Assistant County Manager Byron C. Tomlinson SPEAKERS~ Don Pickworth Thomas Franchino Bruce Anderson Lanny Newell GlenGriffin Greg,'Boll 'JuliannStokes 'Earl Hodges Nicola Templeton Robert Gebhardt Alan Reynolds OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 order. PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll call the meeting to All rise. Mr. Dorrill, will you lead the prayer? (Invocation.) (Pledge of Allegiance.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Good evening. This is the second of -- this is the final Public Hearing on the zoning teevaluation, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Dave Weeks of your Growth Planning Staff. This is the second and final hearing of the subject properties, to consider rezoning them to zoning district or districts that are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The subject properties are inconsistently zoned with the plan at present and are unimproved. As you can see on the agenda, tonight we have five items listed, where, at the previous hearing, we just had one. The reason for that is items B, C, and D are the three PUDs that have been discussed under this process. They are listed separately, because in addition to being advertised as part of the batch rezoning, they've also OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 been advertised separately, so we've listed them in that way here. With your permission, Madam Chairman, however, we can consider them for discussion purposes all as part of the batch of rezonings. You would, however, need to make individual motions on those items. And then, finally, item E is a separate item being heard for the first time tonight, and it only requires one hearing and that will be -- unless you make a change, will be taken up following the fezone action on the altogether batch properties. As I stated, this is the second hearing. The first item, again, taking them as a group though, but the first item on the agenda is Petition R-91-6. The objective is to fezone these properties, including the three PUDs I mentioned earlier, to consistent zoning districts, or to take action to determine that they should not be rezoned based upon a compatibility test. Madam Chairman, as you'll recall, and Commissioners, from the previous hearing, you gave some direction as to what you would like to see at tonight's hearing. We've done what we understood your direction to be; one of which is to number the map sets in the lower OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 right-hand corner for ease of use, and I know we find it easier, and I think you made a good suggestion there. Other items we provided is the recommendation of Staff, the Planning Commission, and then your straw vote from your September the 5th night hearing. We've also indicated the ownership of the subject properties, as well, right on the map sets. As I identified in the Executive Summary, there's a few properties, only a handful really, of the total number of properties that were specifically discussed at the last hearing or Staff needed to provide additional information to you about, and I would suggest, as we did last time, that we take these items first. We do have members of the public for, I believe, all of these that are here to speak; just as a courtesy to the public and, again, as last time, we go back to the regular order in the map set. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And, again, the recommendations that come to you as formal recommendations is that listed on the map set by the Collier County Planning Commission, and the recommendations, unless noted otherwise, were OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 unanimous. The first parcel is parcel number 12. It's on map number three and the specific map number on the bottom of the paper is 8509S. This is the one and only commercial property considered under these rezones, batch fezones, and as you'll recall at the first hearing, the agent for the property owner asked for the commercial zoning to remain. There was some concern that this was a new proposal that the Planning Commission had considered this for residential rezoning, and your direction at the first hearing was to send this back to the Planning Commission, and unless there's any further discussion, we'll take that as your direction. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is there any discussion? Well, I don't think the request was to be referred back to the Collier County Planning Commission for it to remain commercial. It was for it to be considered by the CCPC. MR. WEEKS: Yes, that's correct; to be sent back to the Planning Commission with the property owner's request for a commercial and the discussion and the Planning OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 7 Commission's recommendation, yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Any other discussion? Then that -- we'll need a motion on that? MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, I don't believe we do. We were taking your action from the first hearing. Madam Chair, I don't believe we do need a separate motion on these properties where you took action at the first hearing to delay them or to refer them elsewhere. What we propose to do -- what we propose to do tonight is go through and take individual instruction on the properties, and then just simply take one motion which would include the deferral in this case. The next property is on map page -- that's wrong. It's map number 8509S, which is map page five. That's incorrect on the zoning. COMMISSIONER HASSE: 8517S? MR. WEEKS: That's correct; number five at the bottom corner. Two parcels here. The first of which is parcel number 1. This is the property owned by the County proposed for a park site. The provisional use of this property has been to the Planning Commission and will be OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 coming to you, I believe, within the next two weeks, and the recommendations of Staff and Planning Commission is to rezone to the RO zoning district. The next property is the RT portion, that's the island portion. This is the property that the applicant has an exemption of proof, or based upon an approved site development plan, the property owners have asked that it be considered for rezoning. They're requesting that it maintain its zoning at RT and be allowed to develop that at a density of approximately nine units per acre. The staff recommendation was RMF-6. The Planning Commission recommendation was to support the applicant's request. Also, your straw vote was the same. Additionally, there was the -- couple of conditions. One, that there has to be a development agreement approved that would prohibit the hotel, motel, and time-share uses for the property, and there's an issue of the development agreement, because the development agreement ordinance as currently adopted, would not allow for such an agreement to be entered into and, additionally, there had been a question raised by one of the Commissioners of concern about the heights of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 the approved site development plan on this property. I believe what you're going to need to do, Commissioners, is if you should support the notion of allowing the nine units per acre development and require the development agreement to restrict the certain uses, is to continue this item to a future date, so that the rezoning and the development agreement could be handled simultaneously. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Mr. Pickworth? MR. PICKWORTH: Commissioners, I'm Don Pickworth, representing Conchlin Pointe Development Corporation, the owner of the project. We support Mr. Weeks' suggestion. We've talked with the Staff about this this week. I would only add that I would like us to continue it to a date certain. If for some reason we're unable to present the development agreement at that time, we can deal with the possibility of a further continuance, but I would suggest October 15th which, I believe, is a Tuesday. MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Can you be ready by then? MR. WEEKS~ Commissioners, that's unknown. We OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 don't have any objection to continuing that today, and as Mr. Pickworth said, if we're not ready, we'll have to handle it then, continue it again, or readvertise it. The first step is going to be to amend the Development Agreement Ordinance itself to allow for such a type of development we're discussing, and then, of course, the second step is to actually advertise and consider the specific agreement for the subject property. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Mr. Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, two things. If that's the case, it seems unlikely then -- if we have to first amend the ordinance to permit a development agreement, then it seems unlikely that we would be able to hear and consider this by October 15th. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: in the process right now. MR. CUYLER: It is. I think we've reached this conclusion as a result of the fact that you're not in a position tonight to do as the Petitioner asks. We know that that's a given. We may be in four weeks in a position. If we're not, then we're not. It may have to be readvertised at that point, but there is no provision That ordinance, I think, is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 11 in front of you tonight for this type of thing with the Development Agreement Ordinance, so we -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do you have an opinion Mr. Cuyler? I understood there was a possibility that we may be able to consider an agreement under the existing ordinances; that it wouldn't be necessary to amend the ordinance to address these types of development agreements. MR. CUYLER: We may well be able to. We haven't reached that conclusion, and I think that's another part of why Mr. Pickworth is inclined to have the matter continued for four weeks, to see if we can't nail that down as well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: that? Do you need a motion on MR. CUYLER: I would ask for a motion, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I make a motion that the petition be continued until October 15th. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to continue until October the 15th. by saying "Aye." I'll second. I have a motion and a second All in favor signify OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 12 (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item. MR. CUYLER: Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. I just want the record to reflect that the Petitioner is in full agreement with that as well at his request. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman, I see I've gotten out of order. That was not an error on the Executive Summary. If you would, please, flip back to page three. It's map number 8509S. There were two parcels, and I inadvertently jumped ahead. One we just discussed, the commercial Parcel 12. The other is a portion of Parcel 1.1 that is zoned RSF-3. This is the property that we inadvertently rezoned to RSF-3 during the previous batch of rezonings that ended on January 7th of this year. We want to rezone it back to its previous zoning of A-2. COMMISSIONER HASSE: A-27 MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The Planning Commission, Staff, and your straw vote supported that request. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 13 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do you need a motion then Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Again, unless there's any particular discussion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussions? Okay, then, the next item. MR. WEEKS: Next is page number nine. This is map number 9523S. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Which agenda slip was that? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Nine. MR. WEEKS: This is the parcel on Coach House Lane. I know there are some registered speakers here, Madam Chairman. Parcel 37, being highlighted in yellow. Again, briefly to go around the surrounding zoning uses. Directly to the north across Coach House Lane is zoned RMF-6. The property was granted an exemption and is currently under development or significantly developed single-family homes and a condominium-type ownership. To the northeast is the Coach House Condominiums. It's a multi-family development already exiting. Adjacent to the east is a parcel zoned C-3. It has a site development plan approved and exemption based upon that, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 14 and there's been some construction already on site. To the south is the Poinciana Elementary School, and then to the west and to the northwest are properties zoned estates and developed as single-family homes. The recommendation of Staff was to fezone the property to RSF-3. Planning Commission was to fezone it to RSF-4, and your previous meeting on September 5th it was a split vote; two supported staff at RSF-3, and two supported the Planning Commission at RSF-4, and one commissioner said he could go along with either of those recommendations, so we will need some more discussion. Again, I know there are some registered speakers. MR. OLLIFF: I have eight registered speakers. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: I'm assuming you want to hear from the Petitioner first in this case. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is the Petitioner here? MR. FRANCHINO: I'm not representing the Petitioner, but I'm representing the owners of the property. My name is Thomas Franchino with the law firm of Siesky and Lehman. I represent the owners of Parcel 37. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 15 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT~ Is there anything new that you can add from the last hearing? MR. FRANCHINO~ Nothing new. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any questions that the Commissione'rs have then? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Could you identify for the record who the owner of the property is, please? MR. FRANCHINO~ There are three owners Mr. and Mrs. Kapen and a Dr. Levine. summa ry. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS I think it appears on the Mr. Franchino, if you would spend just a moment -- if you would outline your client's request. MR. FRANCHINO~ Last time I was here, I argued to you that the property was -- as it's zoned right now, RMF-6, is consistent and compatible with the neighbors. You didn't agree with me, and I won't beat that horse, but I'm certainly asking you, at this point, to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and to downzone this property just to a RSF-4 density, and I would like to just take a second to put up this drawing again. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 16 I would like to just remind you once again that this property, along with the property immediately to the north, northeast, and east were part of development or a planned development that was known as Colonial Acres, and the parcels you see there in yellow and brown, were parcels that on the restrictions, the declaration of restrictions, were not restricted to a single-family residence. The properties which are in green are restricted single-family residence. The zoning through the years followed these apparent deed restrictions. All of the neighbors, except the parcel, the owners of which I represent, have been developed in a multi family or a density of six units an acre. One is even being developed now as a commercial C-3. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What are all the properties, if anything, to the west of that? MR. FRANCHINO: What are to the west? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yeah, what is the zoning? MR. FRANCHINO: The zoning to the west is apparently estates. MR. HASSE~ Single family? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 17 MR. FRANCHINO: I believe they're all single-family homes. There might be some lots that are unimproved back there. To the South is the school, elementary school, and the Gray Oaks planned unit development, which has a mix use. Again, this is not a case where the owners of this property bought it with a low density and are coming before you asking to increase the density. It's a situation where that property has been owned since 1972. It's been zoned many years at a density of RMF-6. The neighbors are ones who should have been aware of the zoning situation. They certainly can't complain. This is not a situation where the owner is coming in trying to increase zoning. We're trying to hold on to what we have had for many years, and I think the Planning Commission found that a level of RSF-4 was a compromise which served the needs of both the neighbors and the needs of the owners of this property. Once again, it's surrounded by dense development, commercial development, and it's a compromise position that I'm asking you to accept at this time, to downzone it only to the level of RSF-4. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 18 MS. GOODNIGHT~ Okay. Any other questions? All right. MR. OLLIFF~ Next speaker is Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of Lanny Newell, the adjacent property owner. Mr. Franchino just made the remark that when the property owners moved in there, they were aware of what could be developed there of a certain density, and I would just remind you that there is a pending civil litigation going on over the question of how dense the development can be there, because of deed restrictions regardless of the zoning, so it is not correct to say that they moved in there or built knowing that a high density project could be constructed next door. That simply is not true. That's what the civil litigation is about. We've got two five-acre parcels side by side, and their only access is on Coach House Lane. One parcel permits and has two dwelling units on five acres, and the other parcel, under the Staff recommendation, would permit fifteen dwelling units on the same size five-acre OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 19 parcel. The disparity in density of fifteen dwelling units to two dwelling units on the same size parcel is great enough and even then there are some compatibility and intensity concerns that we have. I would note that it is in a traffic congestion area, and that if you went with the Planning Commission recommendation of RSF-4, the disparity in density would be exactly ten times what you have on the adjacent parcel; a comparison of twenty units on five acres to two units on five acres, and ten times the density of the next door neighbor is too dense, and we would ask you to uphold the Staff recommendation on that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Anderson, at our first meeting there was some discussion about the parcel located directly to the north of the subject parcel, and there was some discussion about, in terms of the issue of compatibility, trying to address the compatibility by reference to that parcel. Refresh my recollection; maybe you said it, and I missed it. MR. ANDERSON: The parcel right across the street? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Directly across the street. MR. ANDERSON: From my client's property? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2O COMMISSIONER VOLPE~ client's property. MR. ANDERSON: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Correct, yes -- well, not your The subject parcel here. Okay. The one directly across. MR. ANDERSON: Carriage Circle? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I can't -- there's -- Carriage (sic.) House Condos are on Airport Road and Coach House, but the five-acre parcel to the west on the north side of Coach House. MR. ANDERSON~ Okay. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Am I -- what is the density there? MR. ANDERSON: I believe that that is at RMF-6. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's what my recollection was, that that was six across the street. MR. ANDERSON: However, the neighbor that is next door, across the street from my client, it's subdivided to permit four dwelling units, as opposed to my client's property, which only has two. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And those parcels are improved; is that correct? Your client's property is improved? 33962 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLESt FL 21 MR. ANDERSON~ Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So there isn't that possibility in the future that your client may himself decide that he would like to subdivide that parcel. I mean if not this particular property owner maybe some successor. MR. ANDERSON: No. In fact, he couldn't do that under the zoning ordinance. The estates district limits it to one unit per two and a quarter acres. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Of course, then that raises the question, How did the fellow across the street do it then? Is that what the lawsuit is about? MR. ANDERSON: No, no, no, no. It's a mystery to me. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You didn't research that? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next speaker. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Lanny Newell, followed by Glen Griffin. MR. NEWELL: Mrs. Chairperson, Commissioners. The answer to the question, Mr. Volpe, that you just asked, on the four units to the five acres there, that construction and subdivision was done prior to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLESs FL 33962 22 E-Estates being done. This property used to be zoned agricultural, and at the time that the land was split into four pieces, one of our attorneys here in town, who happens to live on this street, found out about it and had everything zoned on the street E-Estates, so that kind of slipped in from the transition between agricultural to E-Estates. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. MR. NEWELL: I don't have too much more to add to what I said from the first time I was here on September 5th. I would Just like to add one thing I did not mention that I should have. Obviously, the concentration of traffic on Coach House Lane is increasing with the density we already have there. I just ask you to take that into consideration. I think our attorney has already mentioned about the fact that we did not move to Coach House Lane knowing that we were going have this kind of density at the end of the street. I certainly didn't, as I mentioned earlier on September 5th. Frankly, while I respect the Staff's position, I would respect -- ask the Commission if they would OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 23 actually go for one unit to two and a quarter acres, which is what the rest of us have on a piece of property, but at any rate, thanks for your time, and I appreciate very much if you would at least accept the recommendation of three units per acre as a maximum. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Glen Griffin, followed by Greg Boll. MR. GRIFFIN~ Yes; my name is Glen Griffin. I recently acquired property out on Coach House Lane, and so I may not fit into the same modem as some of the people who have lived out there for awhile, and I was aware that a higher than two and a quarter acre use would be potentially permitted on that property. I would, however, agree with Lanny's statement, and that is, traffic is a problem out there. It's difficult to get off of Couch House Lane onto Airport Road as it stands. I would only ask that the Commissioner's -- or appeal to the Commissioner's to follow Staff's recommendation, which is the lesser of the two, the three units per acre as opposed to the four, given the fact that the balance of the property to the west is estate OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 24 and is no less than two and a quarter acres. It just seems logical to me to minimize the disparity, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next speaker. MR. OLLIFF: Greg Boll, followed by Julian Stokes. MR. BOLL: Hi; Greg Boll. I guess the only thing I'd have to add would be that the -- Airport Road and all the roads in Collier County seem to be getting a little too crowded, during the winter especially, and that anything 'we can do to keep the densities to three per acre or even less would probably help a lot. I know -- I came from New Jersey, and right next door in Long Island, they have the same sort of road situation, I think, that we do have here, and they started with a lot of condos and things out there, and it's a mess. You can't go anywhere on a Saturday, so I think any lot anywhere -- I think that's probably the reason for the downzoning that you can do to keep densities lower is probably a good idea. Julian Stokes, followed by Earl and Good evening. I'm Julian Stokes; not MR. OLLIFF: Thelma Hodges. MR. STOKES: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 25 a whole bunch to add. I would say that given the fact that traffic is a concern, that I have a child who walks or rides his bike to school, Poinciana Village, several children from Poinciana Village also ride, so that's a concern and, you know, hindsight's 50/50. I think if we all had our druthers, we wouldn't have, you know, done some of the things that we have done in the past so, essentially, I would like to just state that I do support three. There is a difference between three versus four units per acre. It's a fairly dramatic difference when you look at actual site development plans and, I think, the three units per acre would be much more conducive to the environment that's already been established within the estates, the Gray Oaks PUD. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Earl Hodges, followed by -- your last speaker is Nicola Templeton. MR. HODGES~ My name is Earl Hodges. Mr. Dotrill, Commissioners. I've lived on the street probably as long or longer than any of them, and we do have a considerable amount of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 26 traffic problems, and my wife just recently had a little accident trying to get out on Airport Road, so we may be back, eventually, asking for a stop light out there, but we do have enough traffic, and just the difference in what Staff recommended and the C-4 zoning would mean probably at least another ten automobiles trying to get out on Airport Road, and I think with the school next door, I think we have enough traffic problem there. Thank you very much. C~AIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Ms. Templeton. MS. TEMPLETON: My name is Nicola Templeton, and I live at 2263 Coach House Lane. We've lived there for seven years, and we live on one of the acres that are five acres per one dwelling. Obviously, I would like to see this continued at the lowest possible density and traffic is a horrendous problem. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: That's all. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: What's the Board's -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: I would like to ask a question OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 27 of Mr. Weeks. How do we arrive of three units an acre? MR. WEEKS: Staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER HASSE: This is estates? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Our recommendation was based on the fact that three units per acre is the base density that is consistent with the Plan, Growth Management Plan, and that's been generally our recommendation across the board. As I'm sure you're aware, most of these properties -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: This is estates. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HA$SE: What is the zoning for estates? MR. WEEKS~ It allows one unit per two and a quarter acres. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That doesn't do that; three units an acre doesn't give you that, does it? MR. WEEKS~ No, sir. I think to further answer your question. Number one, we looked at RSF-3 as the consistent zoning district closest to the base of the base of the four units per acze, and secondly, viewed it as a reasonable density, a compatible density, as a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 28 transition from the much higher density commercial to the west, excuse me, to the east abutting Airport Road and then to the estates to the west. For example, if we fezone this property to E-Estates, that's going to put a tract of land that would permit two dwelling units abutting the C-3 district. COMMISSIONER HASSE: It's zoned estates now, so you're not rezoning the property? MR. WEEKS: If this property, the subject property, were rezoned to estates, then it -- you would -- you'd have an estates parcel abutting a C-3 commercial intermediate parcel to the east, so our recommendation to RSF-3, will allow for a transition from the intensity of the commercial to the much lower intensity of the estates to the west. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just refresh my recollection. What is the current zoning on this particular parcel that is causing the downzone? MR. WEEKS: The subject property is zoned RMF-6. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So it's currently at RMF-6, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 29 not E-Estates. three. Your recommendation will bring it down to know, maybe you can answer. on the Staff. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: A little aside, and I don't I'm sure you can or someone We recently passed an ordinance that allows some uses of residential properties that adjoin commercial property, i.e. Spanky's is an example, so there is that possibility, no matter what we put here, whether it's RMF-3 or four, that with the development of that commercial property -- I assume it has to come back to the Board, but there is that potential that this could somehow be integrated into that commercial site. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Potentially, the subject property, regardless of the RMF-6 or if it's RMF-3 or four residential zoning, that petition could come before you for approval to allow for parking on this property to serve the adjacent commercial use; that's possible. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just wanted these people to know that no matter what we do here, there is always that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3O possibility. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Weeks, the parking ordinance, does that -- I'm not sure exactly what status that is. Does that require that the adjoining property to be used for packing be also designated as commercial or can it be designated as residential and still be used for -- MR. WEEKS= Residential; the example that Commissioner Volpe used was the Spanky's restaurant, which is zoned commercial and developed, obviously, for a commercial use. The adjacent property is zoned residential and the amendment to the zoning ordinance would allow, subject to Board approval, the development of that residential property with a parking lot to serve the commercial use but, therefore, be a parallel to what we're looking at here. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any other guestions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, on this particular petition, I'll move to close the public hearing on this. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Second. I have a motion and a second OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 to close the public hearing. saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) All in favor signify by Opposed. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to accept the Staff recommendation of RSF-3. I think that's a reasonable downzone of the property. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Then I'll call for the question. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I just want to make it clear, as Commissioner Saunders said, that's closing the public hearing only for this one item. The remainder of it remains open. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 MS. GOODNIGHT: Next item. MR. WEEKS: The next item is on page 13. map number 0514S. 32 This is most. subdivision. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's this petition here; which one are we looking at? MR. WEEKS: Parcel 108 on page 13. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I know that, but on your agenda page. MR. WEEKS: Summary. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Okay; I got it. MR. WEEKS: This is all the batch. Staff's recommendation was to leave the property zoned mobile home subdivision~ but cap its density at three units per acre to be consistent with the Plan, based upon the compatibility to allow uses that are compatible with the surrounding propertie.~, but at a density consistent with the Plan. Planning Commissions recommendation and your straw There are two parcels. The first is the northerly It's parcel 108, currently zoned mobile home We're still on the very first Executive OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 33 vote was to leave the property zoned mobile home subdivision with no cap on the density; that is, allow it to develop in accordance to its current zoning, based upon its compatibility provision. that? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. GEBHARDT: Is there any discussion about Madam Chairman, my name is Robert Gebhardt. I represent Merchantlie Bank of Naples. They own the property, Lot 109, which is the subject of the Staff's recommendation and of Planning Commission's recommendation. I stated last time, and I'll just restate to refresh your recollection, that the property has a significant amount of water on it. It is completely surrounded by normal mobile home subdivision zoning and development. There's -- I think the natural way the properry's going to be developed, there are going to be constraints on the property and development, because of the amount of water on there, so that it is unnecessary at this time to downzone to three as the Staff recommends. I think the Board agreed with that last time as did the Planning Commission. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 34 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is anyone registered to speak on this? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing only on this petition. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: this petition. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I've got a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. Second the motion only on Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the Staff recommendation. I believe that this not be limited in the number of units. No, that's not Staff's This is BCC. This is CCPC and BCC. I make a motion to approve COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: recommendation. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: the Planning Commission recommendation, which is not to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 limit the density. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN= CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any discussion? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: 35 I would second that motion. I have a motion and a second. On this motion, this gentlemen said that is was Parcel 109. MR. WEEKS~ He said 109. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. WEEKS: It's 108. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm just -- Just so I'm sure -- we're talking about this parcel that's on Kelly Court? MR. WEEKS~ That's correct; 109 is also owned by the Merchantlie Bank. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other questions? Then I'll call for the question. saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHTs Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. MR. WEEKS= The next parcel is on the same page at the bottom of the page. It's parcel number 103, All in favor signify by OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 36 currently zoned RMF-6. Staff's recommendation was to fezone it to the RSF-3 district. Planning Commission and your own recommendation from September 5th was to leave it under its current zoning and allow it to develop as zoned, based upon the compatibility with the surrounding property owners. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any questions? Is there any speakers? MR. OLLIFF: I have no more registered. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion we close the public hearing on this issue. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. 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 carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I make a motion that we approve the CCPC recommendation. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 37 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT~ to approve the recommendation. saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next item. MR. WEEKSt I have a motion and a second All in favor signify by Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Page number 17. That's map 0616S. The item for additional discussion, I want to bring up Commissioners, was just to go over again briefly what Staff's proposal or request of you is that's outside of the zoning reevaluation process~ and that is for all of those properties north of the southerly Parkers Hammock Road. Again, this is the map that has two Parkers Hammock roads on them, unfortunately. North of the southerly Parkers Hammock Road is zoned RMF-6, shows white parcels are currently developed each with a single-family home, and the recommendation for the yellow properties that are subject to ZRO is to rezone them to RSF-3, so what we are proposing outside of the zoning reevaluation process is to rezone those OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 38 already developed single-family lots to the RSF-3 district so that we will result in a -- pretty much a uniform RSF-3 district there. That would preclude multi-family development from moving in or redeveloping on these properties in that area. Again, this is outside of zoning reevaluation, because we don't have the authority through that program to fezone these properties. This would require the normal notice procedure, which means we would notify the subject property owners that we're proposing to fezone their property and, also, within 300 feet, so we go through the full notice procedure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ So you're saying whatever decision we make tonight is not a final decision in this property? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Your oDly direction would be either, Yes, Staff do or do not pursue and independent rezoning. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: public hearing on this particular item. So this is not even a You just need a MR. WEEKS: That's correct. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 39 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: speak on it? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is anyone registered to If I may, Mr. Saunders. What's the size of these parcels? I mean they look like they're larger than a single residential. It looks like there could be some acreage there, and the thought being if we're talking about RMF-3, is three units an acre, so you could end up with multi family, right? MR. WEEKS~ RSF-3 does not permit multi-family development. It would be limited to single family. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to direct Staff to advertise for the proposed changes in zoning to those lots as outlined by Mr. Weeks. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: second that motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion? And CCPC and Staff. I'd I have a motion and a second. Then I'll call for the question. (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) All in favor signify by saying "Aye." Opposed. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 40 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next item. MR. WEEKS: 1612S. It's parcel number 13. right-hand side of the page. Motion carries unanimously. Page number 26. That's map number It's on the middle The additional information, I just want to bring up to you, I failed to mention at the first meeting, we did receive one letter of correspondence from the property owner requesting that we not rezone the property. Our initial notice that was sent to the property owner advised of the RSF-3 district and that specifically is what the property owner was objecting to. That's all. Your previous vote, as well as the Planning Commission's and Staff's was to leave it zoned mobile home subdivision, but cap the density at three units per Is there any speakers? acre. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion we close the public hearing. Second. I have a motion and a second All in favor signify by COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to close the public hearing. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 41 .saying 'Aye.~ COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Madam Chairman, on the question, I assume that's only in reference to this petition. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN= unit. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: "Aye." Fine, for this particular All in favor signify by saying (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. What's the pleasure of the Board? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the CCPC and Staff recommendation and our previous straw vote recommendation. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. (No response.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 42 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman, I would ask that we go ahead and conclude with this petition R-91-6, and then take the PUDs separately - I know we have one or two members of the audience that are still waiting - unless you want to go through and look at the other items. All of the other items, the recommendation of Staff and the Planning Commission, was the same, and at your previous hearing, you indicated you didn't Yesire to discuss those further. Is that your pleasure? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any speakers on any of those other items? MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I'd like to have a motion now to close the public hearing on these items. COMMISSIONER HASSE: So moved. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 43 (NO response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. Now, may I have a motion to approve the items that have not previously been approved? COMMISSIONER HASSE: So moved. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second. 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 carries unanimously. Next item. MR. WEEKS: Next item is the Victoria Falls PUD. This is on page number 20. It's map number 0633S. This property is located in the urban residential area. It's in the urban coastal fringe. It's in a traffic congestion are. Staff and Planning Commission recommendation is to reduce the density on this 25.4-acre parcel from 6.2 units per acre down to 3 units per acre. Your straw vote also had supported that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 44 Additionally, as previously mentioned, we were eliminating the defunct terminology, such as reference to the Zoning Department, since it no longer exists by that name modifying the statement of compliance. We have received one letter representing the property owners requesting that you not fezone their property. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any speakers? MR. OLLIFF: No. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What did you say the zoning was right now? MR. WEEKS: Currently it's PUD, Victoria Falls PUD. We're going to propose to leave the uses the same, just reduce density. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any questions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, if no one has registered to speak on that, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing on this particular item. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 45 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the Staff recommendation to reduce the density to three units per acre on map 0633S. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAM GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item. MR. WEEKSt All in favor signify by saying "Aye." Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. The next item is the Lake Avalon PUD. This is on page 12. It's map number 0513S. This PUD is 126 acres. at 3.7 units per acre. It allows multi-family uses Recommendation of Staff and Planning Commission is to reduce the density to three units per acre to be consistent with the Plan. It's in the urban coastal fringe in a traffic OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 46 congestion area, and as with the other PUDs, we recommend that the interconnection provision not be required, because the surroundin§ development of sin91e family primarily we,,!d be appropriate to interconnect in our opinion. The Planning Commission's recommendation on this petition was four to one. It's not unanimous like the others. Again, we're trying the replace the devoid or defunct terminology, modifying the Statement of Compliance. Previously, the applicant had requested that the County Parks and Affordable Housing uses be added to this PUD. Staff, Planning Commission, and your straw vote did not support that request and, also, there was a request to modify setbacks and change the reference point. One particular case was top a lake bank to control elevation. There was some discussion, some concern, expressed by the Board that whether or not it was appropriate to do that through this process, and secondly, there was concern expressed by the Commission as to the existing provision of the PUD that allows OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 47 for -- of the required two spaces to be prcvided. One half to be paved now, and one half to be h91d in landscape reserve. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there a speaker? MR. OLLIFF: None registered. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Do we have the Petitioner or the representative from the land owner? MR. REYNOLDS: Good evening. I'm Alan Reynolds with Wilson, Barton and Peek. I'm representing the land owner. We would ask you tonight to support the Staff and the Planning Commission recommendation that has been presented. We understand from the prior discussion that the Board was not disposed towards the affordable housing, so we would -- we would not request that any further. We understand we would have to come back before the Board if we exercise that option. The only other comment I would make is as Dave pointed out, there were a couple of modifications and additions made to the setbacks, which the Staff and the Planning Commission supported. We -- there was also a comment, I think, at the last hearing, a concern about OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 48 the parking provision that is in the ordinance that has the what used to be standard language about paving one and a half spaces her unit. We would not be adverse to eliminating the language in the document that deals with the one and a half spaces, and we'll just leave it at two spaces per unit, which is current code requirement. I mean if the Board chose to do that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: You've made my day Mr. Reynolds. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second the motion. 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 carries unanimously. What's the pleasure of the Board? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the Staff recommendation and, also, to eliminate the language concerning the one and a half OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 49 parking spaces and leave that at two parking spaces, as currently required, with all of the other changes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Second. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Well, that includes the setback changes and incidental changes? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: But not the County park or affordable houses? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: "Aye." (Chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. Next item. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairman, the next item is the VincentJan Residence PUD. That's located on page 19. That's map 0632N. It's a 30.7-acre parcel. It currently permits 80 residential units, permits a church and rectory, and permits an institutional use, such as child care center, That's correct. All in favor signify by saying OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 50 rehab-type facility. The density is what is inconsistent with the Plan. We're proposing to reduce that from eight units per acre down to three units per acre. Once again, we find that the interconnection provision is not appropriate. The PUD allows for multi-family uses. I don't think it's appropriate to interconnect that with the surrounding single-family developments. One additional change that has not been mentioned before was Staff's proposal to delete reference, as part of those incidental changes, to the Subdivision Review Committee stipulation, because there is no such animal anymore. We no longer have a Subdivision Review Committee. The stipulations of that committee are contained elsewhere within the PUD, so we're not losing any conditions. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any speakers? MR. OLLIFF: Not unless they're from our Staff. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion to close the public hearing in this issue. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All in favor signify by saying OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 51 "Aye." (Chorus of "ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT .. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: approve the CCPC, Staff -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to approve the recommendations. saying -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: question of. Staff. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT .' COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Opposed. Most carries unanimously. I make a motion that we Second. I have a motion and a second All in favor signify by Madam Chairman, just one Yes. On these PUDs that we are rezoning now, there is no Sunset Provision. That's something that we may or may not be talking about later on, so this is -- we're approving a change in this PUD -- nothing has been built on this particular piece of property; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And this could go on for the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 52 next ten years? MR. WEEKS= COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That's correct. Okay. Then I'll call for the question. (Chorus of "Ayes.') CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT= (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item. MR. WEEKS: map set, Commissioners. All in favor signify by saying "Aye.' Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. The next item -- we're through with the The next item has its own map. This is the first time you've seen this. It only requires one hearing before you. This goes back to the rezoning that occurred on January -- concluded on January the 7th of this year; rezoning of commercial properties to consistent zoning districts, but specifically in the East Naples planning community. There were a series of lots on the East Trail rezoned, some of which went from the C-3 district to C-6, and some of which went from C-6 to RSF-3. Two of the lots did not contain a complete legal description and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 53 those are the striped parcels you see on your map; lots 8 and 80 of Pineland on the Trail Subdivision. The legal description only described 42 of the 50 feet, so this is to correct that legal description to describe the entire lot. We have contacted the attorney representing the property owner, and they verbally expressed no objection. I know they're not here tonight. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So we're changing the one to all of C-6 and one to RSF-3, is that what -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: make -- those are -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Bottom one, okay, so they So that's simply compatible with the properties over there, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: description. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Just the legal description. And it's part of the Just to change the legal Just to change the legal -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 54 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yeah. MR. WEEKS~ That's correct. I mean it does actually accomplish the rezoning, but it's a clarification. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: this? MR. CUYLER: minute, please. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is there any other discussion? All we need is a motion on Madam Chairman, hold off on this a Mr. Cuyler has reminded me -- I don't see the property owner here, but this may be the one where my law firm represented him, so I'll abstain from voting. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that we then adopt the corrective ordinance rezoning all of lot 8 to C-6 zoning district -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: the public hearing on that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER HASSE: hearing. I think we need to close Is this a public hearing?. Yes, it is. I'll second the public OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 55 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: close the public hearing. 'Aye." (Chorus of 'Ayes.') CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No response.) I have a motion and second to All in favor signify by saying Opposed. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously, with Commissioner Volpe abstaining. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: May I make a motion now? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Correcting the corrective ordinance rezoning all of lot 8 to C-6 and all of lot 80 to RSF-3. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion? Second. I have a motion and a second. Then I'll call for the question. All in favor signify by saying 'Aye." (Chorus of 'Ayes.") CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously, with Commissioner Volpe abstaining. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 56 MR. WEEKS~ CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT~ Meeting's adjourned. (Meeting was adjourned.) Madam Chairman, that's all we have. Is there any other discussion? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 57 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Mari B. Temple, 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 56, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 3rd day of October, 1991. Marl B. Temple .~-:- Notary Public State of Florida at...Large.. My Commission Expires:" OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 September 16, 199! There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 6:55 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL PATRICIA~HAIRMAN ,minute~approved by the Board on as' preie~t ~ or as corrected