Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/12/1991 SORIGINAL PUBLIC HEARING August 12, 1991 6:00 p.m. Southwest Florida Research and Education Center P.O. Box 50127 Highway 29 North Immokalee, Florida 33934 Reported by: Jeffrey W. Marquardt 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 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S BOARD MEMBERS: Anne GoodniGht, Chairman Max Hasse, Commissioner Michael J. Volpe, Commissioner Burr Saunders, Commissioner Dick Shannahan, Commissioner STAFF: Robert Blanchard - Growth Planning Director Frank Brutt - Community Development Administrator Kenneth Cuyler - County Attorney Marjorie Student - Acting County Attorney Michelle Edwards - Growth Planning Department SPEAKERS: · ~ Robert Davenport ~' Charles Gallops Robert Pitts Freddie Thomas OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll call the meeting to order. All rise, please. (Pledge of allegiance recited by all) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The first item is the Zoning Amendment R-91-7. Michelle. MS. EDWARDS: Good evening. For the record, I'm Michelle Edwards with the Growth Planning Department. On January 10th of 1989, we adopted our Growth Management Plan. Within the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element, we have Policy 6.4, which required us to complete a Master Plan for the Immokalee area. On February 5th, 1991, the Immokalee Area Master Plan was adopted. Within that Master Plan, there is Policy 2.1.10, which required us to rezone all those properties that are inconsistent with the newly adopted Future Land Use Map for the Immokalee area. Today, we're here to present to you all of those properties and proposed zoning designations for those properties to become consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and Map. During the Master Plan adoption Drocess, the Board directed staff to include one property of Lake Trafford OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 Ill Ii Farm subdivision, which is identified in this area (indicating). Within your packet, there are maps identifying the various properties that are going to be rezoned tonight. This one's located -- and I apologize for the numbering or lack of numbering of these pages. On the fourth map in your packet -- the sixth map in your packet, they're being copied. They're not yet copied right now. It is Map 6-836, it's in the Lake Trafford Farm subdivision; and that subdivision is currently zoned A-2, and we are proposing to have it rezoned to RSF-3 because it's currently developed out and it's inconsistent. The development pattern is inconsistent with its zoning district, so the Board directed us to include it within the Immokalee rezoning. It's the only one that is being upzoned, rather than downzoned. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: For those of you that don't have a map and cannot see the map, let me explain to you where it's at. It's out on Lake Trafford Road, on the north side of Lake Trafford Road where Trafford Farms are and some of the habitat homes have been built out there and this is some of the adjoining property that habitat has owned. But at this time, because of the zoning, you cannot build on~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 it. And so, all this is is just shaping this piece of property out so that the rest of that property can be built in habitat homes or single-family homes. There's no multi-family units that's planned there. It's only single- family. MS. EDWARDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What is the proposed designation? MS. EDWARDS: Residential, Single-Family 3. COMMISSIONER HASSE: How big a piece of land is that, again, Michelle? MS. EDWARDS: I am not really sure what the acreage It is probably about five acres, if not a little bit is. more. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I think that's what it was. MS. EDWARDS: I think it is five acres. COMMISSIONER HASSE: on that? MS. EDWARDS: No. That means you can put 15 units It's three to the acre but I think that's the maximum that you're permitted but you have to meet your setback requirements and your lot sizes of that zoning district. I think they're going to have -- they'll OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 have 12 on that five-acre property. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are you through with this? MS. EDWARDS: With that property. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then, can I ask if there's anyone in the audience that needs to talk on this area on this particular rezone? MR. DAVENPORT: I would like to know the density of the area. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: identify yourself. MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. I'm Robert Davenport and I own property right near there and I'd like to know the density that's proposing there on that map, the area. MS. EDWARDS: For the surrounding area? MR. DAVENPORT: Yes. MS. EDWARDS: The density permitted under the Future Land Use Map would be up to 4 units per acre but the current zoning of the property surrounding that area is still Agricultural 2, which allows 1 unit per five acres. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: With a mobile home overlay? MS. EDWARDS: With a mobile home overlay, so you can put a mobile home in there as well. Robert, for the record, would you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COT/NTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But it can go through the zoning process, and at that time you could get up to 4 units per acre; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Why is it being call RSF-3, then? MS. EDWARDS: For that particular subdivision, we're including it in this rezoning process and recommending that it be changed from its current zoning of A-2-MH-2 Residential, Single-Family 3. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any questions, then? Okay. Then we'll go to the next item. MS. EDWARDS: Well, on the same item, there are 163 Commercial properties that are included in this rezoning process. Twenty Residential properties and one Planned Unit Development. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I didn't mean -- I just meant that map. So, you would take us to the next map. MS. EDWARDS: Do you want to start with the first map in your packet, which is Map 6932-S? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The area that we are addressing is Immokalee Drive, North 15th Street, and Lake Trafford Road down to 29th Street but it is not going over to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 Roberts. MS. EDWARDS: That is Map 7904, and which is in the corner of your -- okay. That's the one that Commissioner GoodniGht just explained. COMMISSIONER HASSE: RTMC-4, what you are talking about? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Did you say that was the first map in the package? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. The first map in our package is 6932-S, which is Lake Trafford Road and the subdivision that it fronts. The C-3 Commercial fronts the Bordon subdivision, Bordon and RinGo Streets. We're proposing to change those hatched areas from its current C-3 zoning to Mobile Home Subdivision. COMMISSIONER HASSE: The next map -- What's the -- MS. EDWARDS: Mobile Home Subdivision would allow for a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, I believe. COMMISSIONER HASSE: You believe or is it, in fact, 60 by 1007 MS. EDWARDS: I don't have my zoning district, but it would be consistent with the zoning that's adjacent to the south of that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, is the intent there to allow -- is it RinGo Street and Boron to develop out -- MS. EDWARDS: To Lake Trafford. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: As a mobile home subdivision? MS. EDWARDS: Subdivision. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: That's consistent with all those lots right in front of it, is that what you're saying? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: You're Going to leave the lots on the end, still, as Commercial? MS. EDWARDS: Right, because they're currently developed as Commercial. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any questions on this? Are there any questions as to where Do you understand? this is located? MS. EDWARDS: No. We don't have the map. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Where the Lake Trafford drive- through and the Handy Store is on Lake Trafford Road, it's the vacant piece of property between Bordon and Ringo Lane that we're talking about rezoning to a mobile home subdivision instead of the C-3 property that it is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 currently zoned as. MR. THOMAS: I just want to make (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: There are no questions, then, on this map? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just so that I acquaint myself a little bit better with the area, did you say that there are developed Commercial parcels fronting on Lake Trafford Road to both the east and west? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And is the one to the east', is it, the one that adjoins the Garden Lake Apartments, is that fully developed as a Commercial piece? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The front part is developed; the back part is not developed, but -- MS. EDWARDS: It is all one parcel. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's all one parcel. So, the Commercial frontage of those two parcels, then, that there'll be a setback from Lake Trafford, and then you're Going to have a -- one side you're going to have Commercial that will run -- I don't have any distances here, so it's hard for me to say, but to Lot 38, that will all be developed as Commercial? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ll MS. EDWARDS: Potentially, yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But on the other side, you're proposing that the back portion of that parcel would be rezoned from C-3 to Mobile Home Subdivision. Is there -- MS. EDWARDS: Subdivision. Because what we looked at is unimproved properties within this rezoning process. The parcel to the west of the shaded area is all one property, one parcel; and it's currently got Commercial on the front portion of it. The entire parcel is considered improved, so we can't consider the back half of that property. On the west side, that's two separate properties. So, the unimproved properties are the ones that we are recommending for rezoning. And the next map, 6928-S, identifies a Commercial tract within the Heritage P.U.D. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Point that out on the map. It is south of here, right north of Bob Coleman's office. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: The rest of that tract is all Commercial, with the exception of that little piece in red? MS. EDWARDS: The piece in red is the Commercial tract. The rest of it is Community use, or Residential to the east of it. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 12 COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's on it now? MS. EDWARDS: It's all vacant. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That parcel is subject to a rezoninG petition. That's another item on our agenda. MS. EDWARDS: RiGht. I was Going to mention that. This particular parcel is the next item on our agenda, so if we can skip over that. The next map is 7903 North. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Wait just a second. So, what we are doing is, I just -- I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said. This is the proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas to change the designation of our Future Land Use Map? MS. EDWARDS: RiGht. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And then the next petition is to rezone? MS. EDWARDS: In order to make changes to a Planned Unit Development, we have to look at that Planned Unit Development document and revise that document to reflect. So, it is not just simply designation on the Zoning Atlas. It's Going back to the P.U.D. document and making revisions in the document to reflect any new changes. I just wanted to skip it because I'd like to point out OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 13 all the different changes that were made within the document. The next one would be Mobile Homes Rental Park designation being proposed. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What number? MS. EDWARDS: Map No. 7903 North. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: For those of you in the audience, this is the area that's across the street from Strick's Shell Oil that's presently the mobile home rental park that's next door to where the old Circle W. used to be. MS. EDWARDS: On your map it indicates the proposed zoning to be RSF-3. That's in error, and it should read C-5, Commercial 5, which is consistent with what's surrounding it. That particular area is designated Industrial on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map; and that designation specifiically says no Residential would be permitted in that designation, so we're taking out the Residential development and zoning it to C-5, consistent with its land use designation. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any questions or discussions from the audience? Okay. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 14 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: May I ask a question? On the zoning classification, now, we are in the process of considering new Unified Land Development regulations and talking about consolidating some of the districts. Is this C-5, is this old C-5 or is this new C-57 Is that important? MS. EDWARDS: It's the old C-5, but whatever the surrounding C-5 districts get changed to with the Unified Code, it would be consistent with that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's MHRP? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, Mobile Home Rental Park. COMMISSIONER HASSE: And that isn't in existence now, is what you are telling me? MS. EDWARDS: It is. That particular one is in existence but because our designation specifically says no Residential, and it's completely surrounded by industrial development. We're recommending to change that particular one to its like zoning in the area. COMMISSIONER HASSE: So, what's that mean? You are going to tear it down? MS. EDWARDS: It would make it nonconforming, and they would be permitted to place, you know, some of their OFFICIA5 COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 15 trailers. But if it's vacated for 90 days, then they wouldn't be permitted to bring it back on if the entire -- you know, if they move off the trailer and they don't replace it within 90 days, they wouldn't be permitted to replace that trailer. And when all the trailers are removed, or if the property owner decides to remove all the trailers and develop it as Commercial-5, then they would be able to do so. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I thought they needed living quarters down in this section. MS. EDWARDS: Within this area? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Its completely surrounded by Commercial-5 and Industrial, and it's not a very Good area for Residential. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Probably not, but it's better than sleeping on the street. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Didn't you say, though, that there's prohibition against having Residential units in this -- MS. EDWARDS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: COMMISSIONER MASSE: Within the industrial area. -- within this industrial area? I understand that, but somebody OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 16 is living there now. MS. EDWARDS: Well, we wouldn't go in tomorrow and tell them to remove their trailers. It just says any nonconforming district, if they vacate it for 90 days, then they wouldn't be permitted to replace it. Are there any other questions for this particular one? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: this one? Next area. MS. EDWARDS: The next map is 7904 North. Are there any other questions on There are two parcels on this map, both of them located south of Immokalee Drive. One of them is currently zoned C-4, and it is behind -- I believe there's a tire place or something or a garage in that area, out in Dickie's back yard. MR. GALLOPS: Out in Dickie's back yard. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That's what I was going to say, Charlie. This is the one you were questioning? MR. GALLOPS: Yes. For the record, my name is Charles Gallops. I am here on behalf of Richard Johnson. He asked me to register his firm opposition to any change of his back yard whatsoever. COMMISSIONER HASSE: This piece of property is in his back yard? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 17 MR. GALLOPS: Well, it's behind Earl Hall's. I mean it's part of his house. It sits within this property; but from my understanding from looking at this, the part they are trying to change, we Go all the way up to Earl Hall's and it's bordered by other Commercial properties with Earl Hall and currently the Ford place, LanGford Ford used cars. It's bordering this piece of property, is my understandinG, if this map is correct. MS. EDWARDS: The portion that's developed is Commercial is the portion that's in front of the "hatched" area. To the north of it, it's Got a sinGle-family house on that one tract; and then across that there is vacant. But the Commercial designation on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map Goes from the road, 400 feet back; and then everything beyond that is designated as Low Residential. We're recommending that it be changed from its C-4 to RSF-3. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I Guess, Charlie, my question to you would be that -- that Dick is opposed to chanGinG the zoning to Residential instead of Commercial. It's presently zoned as Commercial. MR. GALLOPS: That's correct. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 18 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And they're recommending it to be changed to Residential or RSF-3. MR. GALLOPS: That's my understanding, and he has instructed me just to register his opposition. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: He wants it to remain Commercial. Is that what you're saying? MR. GALLOPS: Yes. That's what he told me. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, if it's surrounded by Commercial, why wouldn't it remain Commercial? Ask her. It's not surrounded by Commercial. I was just told it practically MR. GALLOPS: MS. EDWARDS: COMMISSIONER HASSE: is. MS. EDWARDS: The front of it is Commercial on 29 and on three sides by Residential. And our designation, the portion that is developed Commercial, is designated Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. The portion that we're recommending to be changed to Residential is vacant and it's surrounded by Residential on three sides. MR. GALLOPS: Are you trying to change -- is this Roberts Avenue -- everybody where, from Roberts Avenue back to just -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIE~ COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 19 MS. EDWARDS: MR. GALLOPS: Taylor right now. Just the area that's crosshatched. This is north just between Forest and It's bordered, like I said, on the west side by Commercial and I guess on the other side by Residential and he wants it to remain Commercial for whatever reason. It's his. He's owned it for 25 years as Commercial property, I suppose. MS. EDWARDS: Just clarification. All the properties that are included in this rezoning process have been notified prior to the adoption of the Immokalee Master Plan. After the adoption of the Master Plan, we conducted a workshop out here for the property owners that are being rezoned; and then they were also notified as a part of the zoning re-evaluation process prior to that and they were noticed again prior to these meetings. So, I've never heard any objections until today. COMMISSIONER HASSE: You're hearing it now. MS. EDWARDS: Yes. I just wanted to note for the record that they were notified of the potential change to their property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mrs. Edwards, it proposes RSF-3. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 20 Is there going to be a designation of RSF-5 under our new Unified Land Development regulations, because it looks like the densities are higher than RSF-3 in the surrounding area? MS. EDWARDS: To the north and to the east, yes. But the land use designations are -- is Low Residential, which permits up to 4 units per acre. If we designate it to RSF-5, then we're permitting more density than is permitted by land use. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Then that would be appropriate. But how about RSF-4, which would be? I mean I didn't know why you pick 3, just why in terms of density. MS. EDWARDS: We picked RSF-3 because the other -- the area to the south, you know, crossing Third Avenue and all the area to the east is all zoned RSF-3. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's on that piece of the property immediately to the north of it? MS. EDWARDS: A single-family house. COMMISSIONER HASSE: The big one? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Roberts Avenue. It's not Third Avenue. It's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 21 MS. EDWARDS: Oh, Roberts Avenue. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes. MR. GALLOPS: North of what we are discussing. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: On our map it has got Third Avenue, and it's not Third. to First Street. COMMISSIONER MASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Robert's goes all the way down And Immokalee Drive. Immokalee Drive is north, but on the map it says Third Avenue and it's Roberts Avenue. Do you know how many acres is in this proposed here that's behind the C-47 MS. EDWARDS: Within that property, let's see. 1.81 acres. COMMISSIONER HASSE: in that, five houses? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, with RSF-3, more or less. less, yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next area. MS. EDWARDS: Would be just to the -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: On the same map. MS. EDWARDS: On the same map, just to the east of that property it's currently zoned RSF-5. The other area So, you get about five buildings More or OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 22 surrounding, that's also zoned RSF-5. As I mentioned before, it's all improved, and we're only considering unimproved properties. We're recommending that it be changed to RSF-3. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Charlie, this looks like the property that's east of your mother's house. That's what they're building the school MR. GALLOPS: on, isn't it? MS. EDWARDS: property. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: there. It's east of the house. that. MR. GALLOPS: No. No. It's just west of the school I think that it is right up I think that you-all own That would belong to Tiny Skipper. The big block at the end of Forest is ours and the little block going over was part of our house at one time and it has been -- whenever Uncle Johnny moved out, he had sold that little piece to Tiny Skipper. So, that's not part of our house. It does butt up to the backside of our fence. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: from RSF-5 to RSF-3? MS. EDWARDS: Right: So, they're changing the zoning Is there an objection? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 23 MR. GALLOPS: I don't have an objection to that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. MS. EDWARDS: The next map would be 7904 Sell, and there are two parcels on this map as well. The first one is in the corner of Boston and Fourth Street, it's currently zoned C-4, and we're recommending to change it to VR, which is Village Residential. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So, that would make that entire block there that -- MS. EDWARDS: Would make the entire property Village Residential. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: And what did you say it is zoned now? MS. EDWARDS: Its currently zoned C-4. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's that one little corner there. MS. EDWARDS: Yes. It's the northeast corner. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: For those of you in the audience, it's a piece of property that Floyd and Murray own there on the corner of Boston and Fourth. It's undeveloped. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's on the other property? MS. EDWARDS: The entire block is undeveloped. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 24 So, you make one full parcel out You'll have to Go over that again Half of this is now zoned RMF? COMMISSIONER HASSE: of this? MS. EDWARDS: Right. It's all under one ownership. Are there any questions on that particular property? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any questions from the audience on that property? Okay. Next. MS. EDWARDS: The next one would be -- COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: Don't you have another piece on that same page? MS.EDWARDS: Yes. On that same page its current zoning is Residential, Multi-Family 16. It's bordered by Delaware, Ninth Street, and Eustis Avenues. And we are recommending to change it to -- it indicates RMF-6 on your map. The Planning Commission recommended to change it to RMF-12 with a condition to only have it max out at 8 units per acre, which is what the land use designation is for that area. COMMISSIONER HASSE: with me. 16. The portion that's shaded is It's vacant. MS. EDWARDS: MS. EDWARDS: undeveloped. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 25 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Is the other portion developed? MS. EDWARDS: It's developed, yes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: ThrouGh 167 MS. EDWARDS: It's 11 units per acre. COMMISSIONER HASSE: the west? MS. EDWARDS: And you want to continue that to To the west of it we're recommending to change it to, as per Planning Commission recommendation, Residential, Multi-Family 12; but the land use designation on the Immokalee Master Plan Map has HiGh Residential, which maxes out at 8 units per acre. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: could Go up to -- MS. EDWARDS: To 16. But with density bonuses they They can Get -- that's if they're doing affordable housinG. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Why wouldn't you designate it as RMF-8? It still would be entitled to the density bonus. MS. EDWARDS: RiGht, but there isn't a zoning designation today that's RMF-8. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Then why don't you leave it at 6? Is there one at 127 There isn't one at 12, is there? MS. EDWARDS: There's one at 12. There's RMF-6, and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 26 then it goes to RMF-12. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: But you're capping it at 8? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: You're just trying to get them up to a reasonable density? MS. EDWARDS: Right. The only thing that I'd like to mention is that we don't really have a process currently that allows us to monitor those properties that are zoned higher, and we are conditioning them at a lower density. We'd have to develop a process, somehow, to help us monitor that. Because if we change it to RMF-12, the zoning map's going to indicate RMF-12. And when they come in for development, there's nothing that identifies on the zoning map that they're only conditioned at the maximum of 8 units per acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Maybe I didn't understand why the Planning Commission, then, was recommending it because you only wanted it to develop out to 8 units an acre. The only way they're going to get 8 units an acre is through some sort of a density bonus. MS. EDWARDS: They can get 8 outright because of their land use designation under the Immokalee Area Master Plan, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 27 but if -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER. THOMAS: Fred. The situation was -- Fred Thomas, member of the Planning Commission. That piece of property is zoned by one individual in the plan to development for housinG. Everythin~ around it is either RSF, RMF-8 or 11. I'm talking about did exist at 11 or 8 right now. We agreed to Go to HiGh Residential, which is one of the categories under the Immokalee Future Land Use Plan which allows them to Get 8 units an acre. But there is a zoning category to cover that, so we say Go to 12. But the cap -- they can't build more than 8 per acre. See, we do it as RMF-6. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How do they Get to 8 under the designation under the Immokalee Master Plan? MS. EDWARDS: Their land use designation on the Master Plan is HR, HiGh Residential, which allows them 8 units per acre -- up to 8 units per acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But there isn't a zoning classification that allows for 8 units an acre, so how do you Get from 6 to 8? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 28 MR. THOMAS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: coming down, either. MS. EDWARDS: We can rezone them. You go to 12. We don't have a mechanism for We can rezone them to RMF-6 and they can come in for a Planned Unit Development and get designated at 8 units per acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: the -- MS. EDWARDS: That would be consistent. Or, you can do as the Planning Commission recommends. Zone them to RMF-12, but we have to establish a mechanism that would monitor that particular property that would make sure they don't exceed the 8 units per acre that they're permitted under the Master Plan. MR. THOMAS: There's some other properties on the coastal area getting the same kind of thing, okay, because the problem is they are right now holding a piece of land that's zoned RMF-16. We felt that would bring them down to the maximum that they can Get, 8. The only way we can do that is to go to Category 12. Now, on the other property, I think we went to a development order that says you can't Get more than 8 oN And that would be consistent with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 29 that piece of property unless you go to a density. MS. EDWARDS: I was just told by Barbara Cacchione that within the Unified Code there are -- they are going to be developing a system which monitors this. So, if we do rezone it to RMF-12, it will be -- right, they will be monitored under the Unified Code. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any questions from the audience? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next item. MS. EDWARDS: There are several properties within this area. It's all within the New Market subdivision. We are recommending that the block that's between Jefferson and New Market, half of that, the properties that front Jefferson Avenue from Flagler to Dade, be rezoned to Residential, Multi-Family 6. And everything from Flagler to Immokalee Drive between Jefferson and Adams be also rezoned from its C-4 zoning to Residential, Multi-family 6. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any questions from the Commission? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. What's on that now? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 30 MS. EDWARDS: There's some properties that are vacant and others that are currently developed as duplexes or single-family homes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Will they fit into this? MS. EDWARDS: Right. They're consistent with the Residential, Multi-Family 6 zoning district. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have got a number of speakers that are wanting to speak on this. MR. GAL50PS: I'd like to say something as soon as I figure out where I'm at with this map. The numbers are I can't really tell what lots I'm concerned smeared. with. MS. EDWARDS: The block numbers are circled in the middle of each block. MR. GALLOPS: I don't have a problem with the one in Block 31, Lots 14 through 20; that's on Skipper's house, that's fine. But the next one is Block 40, Lot 17 through 20 and 21 through 23, I can't really tell where I'm at with this map. I can't read the numbers, and my map looks like a section of Immokalee Drive is left out. Won't it be changed? I'm not sure if I'm falling within that or not. MS. EDWARDS: Yes, it would be. Everything that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 31 fronts Jefferson on Block 40, all those lots that you numbered, were fronting Jefferson Avenue between Dade and Immokalee Drive. MR. GALLOPS: I still can't tell where Lot 17 through 20 or 21 through 23 is on my map, so I really have no idea. What's in that area right now? Uncle John owns these. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: On Lot 40? MR. GALLOPS: Lot 40. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Or Block 40, we're talking about the key place. And then, the rest of that, the rest of that is vacant except when you get up to Dade. And then that's where there's a couple of houses that's on Dade, but they're not owned. Jefferson, they're down closer to Adams. Otherwise, its completely vacant. MR. GALLOPS: I'm trying to see where the lots are located, but all along right through here is Industrial and ours falls right here through this corner. I would have an objection. If it falls here somewhere, then I couldn't -- I can't tell, exactly. What I'm trying to do is determine where Lots 17 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 32 through 20 and 21 through 23, where they're located within Block 40. If they're located back to the, I guess it would be the northwest side of Block 40, then I would have no problems at all. If they're located within the little triangular piece directly behind Shelly Carter's, then I will register an objection, in that it did not rezone Shelly's Locksmith shop. And if these are the lots that I'm concerned with, then I would register an objection; and I would feel like that whole side could remain commercial. But I don't know where the lots are to decide whether or not to register an objection or not. That's what we're trying to figure out at this point. Where 17 through 20 and where 21 through 23 are located within this section of Block 40. MS. CACCHIONE: description. MR. GALLOPS: little numbers. in that block is -- MS. EDWARDS: locksmith. MR. GALLOPS: Both of those parcels are in the legal It's just with my map I can't read the I can read Block 40, but everything else 17 through 23 are all behind the It's directly behind the locksmith. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 33 MR. THOMAS: Jefferson. MS. EDWARDS: MR. GALLOPS: MS. EDWARDS: MR. GALLOPS: Those are the ones that face on They face on Jefferson. That's 17 through 20? Through 23. Through 23, okay. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: on that? MR. GALLOPS: MS. EDWARDS: Has there been an objection filed Yes. I would like -- There's been a Compatibility Exception Application submitted to Growth Planning Department on both of those properties and both of them were denied. period to appeal was ended on July 24th. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you aware of that? MR. GALLOPS: I'm not -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, are you the owner of the property? MR. GALLOPS: No, I'm not. I'm his nephew. He's ill and unable to attend the meeting. This was known to me this morning at about 10:00 o'clock. He said, "Here, go to the meeting." So, that's why I'm here. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand. The OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 34 MR. GALLOPS: And I know nothing about whether or not he's ever been noticed. I suppose he has. They said he'd been noticed. I supposed he has. I know nothing about any appeal, when the appeal dates run or anything else. I was just told to come and use my judgment whether or not to register an objection with Johnny Johnson's property and specifically instructed by Dick Johnson to register his opposition to any change. So, that's why I was trying to figure out where the lots are located. And as far as the appeal process and whether or not the time line has ran or not, I have no idea. But just for the record, I am registering an objection. Whether or not it's valid, whether or not it does any good, I don't know. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We appreciate it. Thank you. MR. GALLOPS: But at this point, if these are located behind Shelly's Locksmith shop, then I would register an objection in that it would -- I don't see where it would benefit anybody to change to Residential. If it's not going to change Shelly's, then you left it all C-4. You know, just one whole section be Commercial. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I guess that my only thoughts on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS~ COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 35 the thing are that I would have a tendency to agree with it, especially since across the street is the Health Department and it seems like to me that this would be an excellent area to have some type of medical facility such as a doctor's office or something like that, since it is located so close to the Health Department. And I guess that my other -- and this is not what Charlie is talking about, but along -- I feel like that if you need to have the dividing line for the Residential and the Commercial at Jefferson Avenue and not the lot behind them or the lot that's abutting Jefferson. Because the lot that's abutting that's on the other side of that lot is New Market and it's zoned Commercial but the lot behind it is Residential. So, they would not be able to use the entire lot there if they wanted to put in some type of a commercial building. MS. EDWARDS: Are you recommending that that entire block be Commercial, or -- I don't understand the dividing. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: From Flagler to -- from Flagler to Dade, yes. That the entire block there on Jefferson Avenue on the east side -- west -- east side of Jefferson OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 36 Avenue should all be Commercial there to even it up. mean, I just feel like that there is no road or anything that is separating the two lots. And so, Jefferson is the road. And that way, if there was a building to be built there, then they could use the entire portion and only -- instead of only using part of it. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, let me just note one thing. You need to -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: For the record? MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler, County Attorney. You need to make a finding if -- if, for example, both of those are compatible zoning designations, you need to go with the one that complies with the Land Use Plan. In order to have something that is different from your Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan, you need to basically find that that is a compatible district and the other one is not a compatible district. That is one way you can differentiate. That's really the only way you can differentiate. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I understand. For example, on the block between Flagler and Escambia on fronting C-4 there on the corner of Flagler, there's a grocery store and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 37 what we call a Strip Commercial area that's along C-4. MS. EDWARDS: Fronting New Market? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Fronting New Market. If you will look right there on Flagler and Jefferson, there's two lots there that are not part of the rezone; and that's because there's a beauty shop that's there. And then the rest of that area in there is designated to be Residential but it is going to be abutting a grocery store at the back of a grocery store and there's not -- I mean, there's not that much of an area in there for real buffer area. Right now, the Sheriff's Department is allowing them to park a semi truck in there and the semi trucks are tied. I mean so, you know, we know how long a semi truck is-and, you know, I mean I -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Isn't that the same situation, though, in Naples Park? The same sort of situation along U.S. 41 and we have got Commercial designation along a major thoroughfare, but there are Residential lots to the west and one of the concerns was the compatibility. So, I mean that logic, I think, could be used as -- aren't all of these -- isn't this all currently zoned C-47 MS. EDWARDS: Yes. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 38 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You could make the same argument for everything. Because once you've done it, say directly across the street, it's all developed as commercial. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But on the west side of Jefferson, it's only a residential area until you get down to Immokalee Drive where we're talking about Shelly's locksmith space, which is there on the corner across the street from the Health Department. MR. GALLOPS: I mean, it just seems to me that if everything is abutting Jefferson, on the south side of Jefferson you are making Residential. Well, a lot of these lots that are abutting Jefferson are also abutting Immokalee Drive. So, I don't see why you just don't Go towards Shelly's west side and Go up to make that whole block, leave it Commercial. public health office there. Like Anne said, there is the And if any future development was needed around that area, that would make for a -- you know, an ideal area instead of making -- you know, Shelly's little place there is Going to be Commercial and then everything else around it is Going to be Residential. It would seem like it would block everything up a lot better by just Going through Shelly's -- I Guess everyone OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 39 knows what I'm talking about -- Shelly's west side and just going north to Jefferson and leaving that whole corner, which will -- you know, all of those lots will be abutting Immokalee Drive as well as Jefferson. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Jimmie, you own some property right there and you've got a duplex or two? JIMMIE: I have two houses right there behind the bakery, which is on the corner of Jefferson and Escambia. MS. EDWARDS: Well, I just wanted to mention that when we were designating this area Residential, we discussed it quite a bit with the technical advising committee and it was pretty much unanimous that this area is more Residential in character than Commercial. The reason why we split those blocks between Flagler and Dade was because we thought it was -- it would be more appropriate to have Commercial in your -- behind you rather than facing it if we brought the Commercial all the way to Jefferson Avenue. But that was -- a lot of discussion, it was determined by the technical advisory committee that Residential would be more appropriate; and that's why the designation is the way it is. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: When we held the public workshop OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 40 here with the commissioners, at that time I brought it up again; and I think that the Planning Commission recommended that that entire block there be left Commercial so that it can be developed and not be actually abutting a Residential. I mean, you know, my problem is that -- and Commissioners, if you'll look at the map, from Escambia to Dade is completely vacant with the exception of the small building that is abutting New Market Road. And so, to be able to put a commercial area on there, we're not going to be able to have the setbacks (inaudible) a stripped zoning, the same as what we have got where Shop Worth is now from Escambia to Flagler, whereas if the entire block was able to be used, then there wouldn't be a Residential area that is going to be abutting it. To where we would have to have setbacks, there would be a road that would be separating it. And I mean, you know -- MS. EDWARDS: If we do leave this as Commercial, it would be -- it will be inconsistent with the Master Plan; and that would mean a plan amendment because the properties were not considering anything that's improved in this rezoning process. The entire block, as you said, is unimproved and it would be consistent to rezone it to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 41 Residential rather than keeping it Commercial. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there anyone else -- is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak to this matter? Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS: Commissioner Volpe, that parcel that Commissioner Goodnight is talking about between Flagler and Dade, that block is not a very deep block. You understand? He was trying to explain this just a minute ago, and you have the Strip Commercial that's almost abutting on the back property llne Going -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: What is your -- I'm not wanting to interrupt, but what is not very deep? Between New Market Road and Jefferson MR. THOMAS: Avenue. COMMISSIONER HASSE: How much is not? MR. THOMAS: 150 feet. And the development that faces New Market Road is all the way back on the back property line, you know. It's a long, long strip building. And if you don't do some of the things she says, you're not Going to be able to find many Residentials are Going to be able to butt up from that from facing on the Jefferson side. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Thomas, I will just , COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL '~. ? 42 identify these by -- I think our block numbers, Block 30 and 36. MR. THOMAS: 30 and 36. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're suggesting those entire blocks remain commercial? MR. THOMAS: Yes. Use the middle of Jefferson Avenue to separate the Commercial from the Residential. COMMISSIONER SALrNDERS: What about Block 40? MR. THOMAS: I think they should bring that line down and then turn south on Dade Avenue and come over to Adams and down to Immokalee Drive. So, you pick up -- MR. GALLOPS: You will being changing 36 -- 36 and 40, leaving it all Commercial. MR. THOMAS: I would bring the line down the street like that, turn down Dade, and come this way and make this all Commercial here, Immokalee Drive here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's deal with Block -- MR. THOMAS: For the record, I'm talking about half of Block 30 and 36, let that stay Commercial, and all of Block 40 Commercial. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And also Block 39 would be. MR. THOMAS: That's already Commercial. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 43 MS. EDWARDS: Just to know that they're currently Residential properties or developed Residential on Blocks 30 and 40, so we would be chanGinG those Residential properties. Well, it's currently Commercial; and they're nonconforming, so we'll just keep them nonconforming. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: There are three units. MR. GALLOPS: One There's two units in Block 30. right beside the beauty shop. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And then there's two units that you have that are on Escambia. MR. THOMAS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Do you have an objection? MR. GALLOPS: I don't care either way. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I guess to -- I've raised an objection about -- nobody's has called me, I haven't heard any objections of the thing at all, but during the public -- during the workshop we had here, I raised the question then and I'm raising the question again, that I don't feel like that to allow -- I mean, I had rather see that entire area be a Residential area than I had to see us put Commercial on the front and Residential on the back because I can't see anybody, even habitat, trying to build that's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 44 going to be abutting because there's not going to be the setbacks that need to be there from the Residential area -- I mean from the Commercial area. And that's my only concern about the thing, is that if we divided the road up, there's only 3 units in the entire parcel there. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are all the properties along New Market on the -- I guess that would be the -- COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: Northeast. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- northeast, are they all developed out as Commercial currently? That's all developed property? MS. EDWARDS: Most of it, yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: From Flagler to Escambia abutting New Market Road is developed. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Thomas was saying. As Residential. As Commercial. Commercial? Yes. Well, I think that's what And I think what he's concerned about, whether we shouldn't make all of those units Commercial so that you didn't have a residence backing up OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 45 New Market, those two blocks. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: all developed also? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Escambia and Dade, is that No. From Escambia to Dade there is only one small building that's about middleways, which would probably be about ll, 12, 10, some -- 9, 10, somewhere around there that's abutting New Market. But to give you-all an example, remember that the Immokalee Bakery had to come in for a variance because it was under new ownership and they were going in to do some renovations and they -- and because of the renovations that they were doing, they had to get a variance because the back of their property did not have the proper setbacks from residents that Mr. Spires had. And we had a long rigamarole to trying get a variance for the bakery that was already preexisting, but because it was sold and under new ownership, then we had to come back through the variance process. And like many of you-all, I hate to see those variances, and so we have the opportunity now to rectify that some. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only reservation that I have is that this has been through the process. We are trying OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 46 to bring these zoning classifications into conformity with an adopted Master Plan, and what we're doing is we're going back and we're revisiting the Master Plan, it sounds to me. And there really doesn't appear to have been any changes in circumstances with new developments and the like. So, I don't know, Mr. Cuyler said that we need to make some sort of a finding. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can I suggest that we see what the consensus of the Board is on this. And I will start, if you would like. I'll support the staff's recommendation in reference to the 6933 South. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I opposed that recommendation. And my reason is that during the public workshop and the planning commission, we were both under the impression that this was all going to be Commercial. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I would like the get back to Mr. Thomas again. Are you supporting the staff's recommendation here? MR. THOMAS: No, no. COMMISSIONER HASSE: It seems like we are splitting this. We have the same concerns as the Planning Commission, as Commissioner Goodnight said about how that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 47 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS COLLIER COUK'T¥, NAPLES, FL 33962 thing would shape out. And from Flagler to Dade, north and east of Jefferson needs to stay Commercial. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you speaking as Mr. Thomas or as the Planning Commission? MR. THOMAS: As I remember what happened at the Planning Commission, that's what we recommended. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that what the Planning Commission has recommended? MS. EDWARDS: I don't recall, but it might have been recommended but it was never adopted that way. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Flagler to Dade along Jefferson. MS. EDWARDS: Can I just add one other comment. The ownership patterns in these areas that we're discussing right now, there's -- there may be a few of them where the ownership extends from New Market to Jefferson, but for the most part that doesn't occur. And if we do leave this as Commercial, I'm not sure we can control Commercial fronting Jefferson and not develop in the way it's already developing right now because the ownership pattern is not such that would lend itself to that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: How is it developing right now? MS. EDWARDS: With Commercial fronting -- you know, 48 it's -- the blocks are split. There is a portion of it 150 feet that fronts New Market, and then the other 150 feet would front Jefferson. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's that, an easement in the middle there? MS. EDWARDS: It looks like an easement. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: It's not developed at all. There hasn't been any development in there in 20 years. MR. CtrYLER: Madam Chairman, if you're inclined to have them designated as Commercial, I would suggest that you go back and direct staff to have a comp plan amend- ment. And ultimately you're going to have to do it anyway; and if that's what you want to do, then the appropriate way to do it is go ahead and amend it. I think Barbara said it could probably be done by March, if you're inclined to go in that direction. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's that going to do with the whole plan? That's the problem. MS. EDWARDS: We are going to have to -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Why don't we finish with the consensus of the Board first, if we could. I'm supportive of the staff's recommendation. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COSLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 49 COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: I'm reluctant to make any changes in the staff's recommendation unless I can be convinced that it's a good action to ask for a Growth Plan Amendment. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, I have a problem because I can see the sense of what Mr. Thomas is speaking of now. And knowing -- not knowing that much about this particular lot, it seems to make sense to make a larger portion of it Commercial in there. Because, as he said, Residential in the backing up to Commercial isn't the best idea, in my way of thinking. So, I have some questions about them. Okay. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: this area. Mr. Pitts? MR. PITTS: I'm Robert Pitts. Is there any other discussion on I own Lots 21 throug~ 30 -- 21 through 26 and Lot 36. Behind me I'll have Commercial and on the side of me I'll have Commercial. front will be Residential if you change it. I would like to see it left as it is, C-4. COMMISSIONER HASSE: All Commercial? MR. PITTS: All commercial. The two blocks she's talking about. COMMISSIONER HASSE: It seems to make sense to me. In OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5O MR. PITTS: Why would you split it? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Don't ask me. MR. PITTS: I've asked them a bunch of times. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any other discussion on this? I guess that when the consensus was taken, it was also taken on Lot 40 or Section or -- MS. EDWARDS: What was the consensus? 30 and 36 and 40? MR. GALLOPS: The only thing I would suggest was, the little triangular piece that you already left out as Commercial, is that you start at the western edge of that triangular piece and go back to the northeast to block it out because all of those lots -- or the majority of those lots are going to be facing Immokalee Drive, anyway. And that would be better by blocking up, so that part would be Residential, part'would be Commercial, and that you wouldn't have any Residential lots as you have got them right now. The Residential lots are going to be backing up against Immokalee Drive and against Shelly Carter's Commercial property. Do you understand that? I can draw better than I can speak, sometimes. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 51 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there a consensus to complete that or not complete that? What is staff's recommendation? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I believe that it takes four votes to change the zoning, and I think three commissioners support the staff and one did not. Commissioner Hasse is not sure. COMMISSIONER HASSE: entirety of this. I go along with staff. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perhaps let's see if there's some other solution to this, then. Does anybody else have any suggestions? COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: The other thing that's at least worthy of discussion is consider taking those blocks between Flagler and Escambia and Dade and just take that entire section and leave it at the C-4 Commercial zoning, and we would have to get a Growth Management Plan to accomplish that as well. But, you know, I can see some rationale, some good rationale in con~:~dering that kind of an approach if the rest of the Board ,;ould consider that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's what: I'm concerned with. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: I understand that. The rest of it, as far as I'm concerned, ought to be what staff is Well, I don't want to support the 52 recommendinG. MS. EDWARDS: So, that would be Blocks 30 and 36. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: That's correct. That's open for consensus; we need to find out. If that's amenable and acceptable, we can move on right away. If it's not, then we can move on right away, also, because we don't have a consensus. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: that. don't have any problem with COMMISSIONER HASSE:. I'll buy that. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: I'll buy that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only reservation that I have is when we talked about Block 36, all of that property along New Market is undeveloped. There, was only one building there. I would support -- if we're Going to do that, if the concern is those properties that already have been developed as Commercial and they're Going to have Commercial across the street and they're Going to have Commercial in their back yard, I can support the redesigna- tion of Block 30, which is between Flagler and Escambia where you've Got all that property along New Market, but the same argument does not carry from Escambia to Dade. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 53 Those are undeveloped. There's one small building that's been developed, so I would support the concerns about how those properties would develop. I can do the one section there, the one block. If you would, Block 30. COMMISSIONER HASSE: There are no buildings on 36. Is that what you're telling me? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: There's one building somewhere around Lot 10 facing New Market. COMMISSIONER $HANNAHAN: We may have a consensus on the whole package, starting with you, Burr. Let's take a look at the whole package from Escambia to Dade as C-4 and let's see if we can get a consensus on that, that section that we've been talking about all night. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: number. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: that. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: all right? Let's talk in terms of section 30 and 36. I don't have any problem with I don't have a problem with We have a consensus. Is that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 54 COMMISSIONER MASSE: Where does Hike -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: As I said, it doesn't make any difference at this point but I'd support 30 but it doesn't -- 36, you can make the same argument ~his Gentleman has been making down here at Block 40 if that's the logic that you've used. So, I can support 30 but I can't support 36. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So, you don't go for it? Correct. Then on the lot, Section 40, that is the consensus to leave that as it is or to change that to where that it's leaving it up. COMMISSIONER SHANNAMAN: it as it is. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MS. EDWARDS: Okay. Staff recommendation, leave Next map. The next map would be -- MR. GALLOPS: What did you do on that? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The consensus of the Board was to take the lots from Flagler to Dade that are abutting Jefferson and go through the Plan Amendment to keep that all C-4, but Section 40 is to leave that as Residential. MS. EDWARDS: The last map would be 6931 North, because we have already discussed the -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 55 COMMISSIONER HASSE: MS. EDWARDS: discussing now? COMMISSIONER HASSE: MS. EDWARDS: Lake Trafford Road. Where does that show on here? Which property, the one we are Yes. It would be this fraction on here along That property is along Lake Trafford Road and just to t~e east of the Lake Trafford Elementary School. It is currently zoned.C-3 and we are proposing to zone it to A-2, which is consistent with everything that's surrounding it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's on the very corner of it there? MS. EDWARDS: On the corner where it's not shaded is -- currently, Lake Trafford is a convenience store. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That is fine. I was just going to inquire about the -- what the reason for rezoninG it from C-3 to A-2 would be. MS. EDWARDS: our neighborhood center and a little Residential zoning district. The property that's to the north of it, that is pretty much surrounding, is all zoned A-2. So, we -- for That particular property is right now by OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 56 compatibility purposes, we propose to rezone it to A-2. COMMISSIONER HASSE: A-2, you are going to go -- MS. EDWARDS: With that zoning, you're allowed to do 1 unit per five acres. But under the land use designation, they've got several options because that particular property has 2 designations on it. Within the neighborhood center, they can get up to 12 units per acre. Within the portion outside of the neighborhood center, they can do up to 4 units per acre. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is that presently zoned -- the property to the north of it, is it zoned A-2 or -- MS. EDWARDS: Yes, A-2. It's all under one owner- ship. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I guess the only question that I would have is the little shaded out area between the handy store and the fire station, is there a reason for that or it's ~ust -- MS. EDWARDS: It's all one ownership, and that's an out parcel. It would be splitting the .larger parcel, actually. The handy store -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any speakers here? Are there any questions from the audience? All right. Then OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 57 that's fine. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: And with the fire station right next to it, what are the other two parcels there? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: A church and a water plant. The water plant is the small area, and the larger area is the church. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: And the fire station. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are we done with the maps? Are we done with these maps? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't want to belabor the point, but just to go back to that discussion about the Commercial, we might want to consider perhaps allowing those properties to develop out as P.U.D.'s as we have done along Golden Gate Parkway because I can envision these are all very small lots and if you allow each one of them to develop out as a separate Commercial use, you're going to be back to Strip Commercial. And I think about access along New Market and Jefferson, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I would even suggest to staff and Mr. Pitts -- and Mr. Gallops is Gone -- but, you know, it's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ~8 got to go through a Master Plan amendment anyhow. But, you know, I wouldn't even be willing to compromise to look at Lot -- at this Section 36 as, you know, a multi-family and no Commercial at all. I mean, my problem is strictly the narrow size of the lot and it abutting to a residential area. And so, I think that staff needs to look at this and bring back some better recommendations on the thing. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, the recommendation was to rezone it to RMF-6 so that would allow multi-family in all of that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But the front part of it is to be Commercial, so it would not -- I mean, you know, you're not -- there's not that much of an area in there at all, I mean. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You're saying -- going back to 36, you're saying that you would support actually rezoning the property that fronts on New Market to change that from Commercial to -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That would certainly be a suggestion. I mean it's either -- it should either be all Residential or either all Commercial. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 59 COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: We ha~e made it all Commercial at this point in time. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: At this time we have asked staff to make it all Commercial. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: Mike's concerned about ingress and egress. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Allow each one of those individual lots to develop out for stores, it's just going to be a disaster there. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I think that's a good idea, and that might be something that staff could look at to see if we could put some restrictions to it that would be similar to what we did there on Golden Gate. MS. STUDENT: If you do follow the sample that we followed in the Golden Gate Master Plan, this -- I just want to make two points. First of all, I think we have to have a plan amendment to address that. And secondly: The way we treated this in Golden Gate, if for some reason there was a problem, a combination to achieve the necessary size for P.U.D. there would have to be some kind of procedure set up where an individual wasn't able to do that. They would still have use of their OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 60 property. Just for the record I want to make that point. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We're going to have to go through a plan, anyhow; so, it's something we could look at. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just -- if your concern now would be just having consistency on Block 36 to have all of that as RMF-6, could the Board take that action this evening, or would that have to -- sure. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MS. EDWARDS: That would have to be a plan, I'm It's the same thing because half of that block we have got designated as Commercial, half of it is designated as Residential. If the Board chooses to designate it all as Residential, then we would have to do a plan amendment for the other half and -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And I'm sure that Mr. Pitts would object to that because he was objecting to us changing it. So, it's something that needs to be worked out that I think we need to look into more detail with it. Is there anything else on that one item? MS. EDWARDS: No. That concludes all the properties under the first item on the agenda. CMAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there anyone that needs to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 61 speak on this first item? All right. to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: close the public hearing. aye. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (None opposed) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I need a motion So moved. I have a motion and a second to All in favor signify by saying Aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion carries unanimous. Madam Chairman, I will make a All What is the pleasure of the Board with this Zoning Amendment R-91-77 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: motion to approve that with the changes. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second. there any discussion? Then I will call the question. in favor signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: opposed? (None opposed) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 62 .CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The motion carries unanimously. Is there a required second hearing on this, or is it just the one hearing? MS. EDWARDS: Just the one hearing. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next item is P.U.D. 88-741. MS. EDWARDS: We're discussing this area right here on the map, is the Heritage P.U.D., the Commercial. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Would you show that again, please. I'm sorry. MS. EDWARDS: Its 29. It would be this area in here, and the Commercial tract is what is inconsistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. There's a map in your packet that identifies the change that's going to occur. The current Commercial tract has more frontage than depth. Under our designation and the plan that allows Commercial within a Planned Unit Development, one of the criteria is to have no more frontage on your Commercial tract than depth; and that's to avoid the Strip Commercial pattern that we've seen so much of. And the other one is a stipulation that requires that no construction of Commercial designation be permitted until 30 percent of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 63 project has commenced construction. And those two things are what needs to be changed within the P.U.D. documents to make it consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. What's been done is we have looked at the P.U.D. document, and in some way we have updated it to reflect some of the new changes that have been made required for P.U.D.'s. There's two stipulations that were added to the document on page 1.1 indicating the subject property meets all the criteria of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the project is consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Element. We've also made some minor changes to the language. Wherever it referred to the Zoning Director, it was -- the terminology was changed to Planning Services Manager; and wherever it referred to Natural Resources Department, it was changed to Project Review. , The two changes that were made to make this P.U.D. consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan was the configuration of the Commercial property was changed to smaller acreage. Its current acreage was 13 acres, and it's been revised to a 10.5-acre tract. Where the road OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 64 goes through on your -- the map, there's a map on the back of your packet that shows the new provision. There were two Commercial properties split by the roadway, and there was a community use facility project that could have gone either way. Community use or Commercial. The two parcels, Commercial that was designated Commercial and Community Use/Future Commercial are now incorporated into the Community Use facility to include a total of 14.8 acres. The reduction in Commercial acreage now makes the P.U.D. conform with that criteria that would not allow more frontage than depth, and what's been done to the P.U.D. document is a stipulation's been added under I believe it's page 6.4 in the P.U.D. document. "J" has been added for development of Commercial tract, which would not allow development of the Commercial until 30 percent of the project had commenced construction and was consistent with the stipulation under the P.U.D. Commercial designation and the future land use or in the Immokalee. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Changing that -- MS. EDWARDS: That's what's been changed. This identifies the change. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 65 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: P.U.D.'s that's been documented? MS. EDWARDS: Right, uh-huh. it consistent with all the other P.U.D.'s. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MS. EDWARDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Consistent with the other This addition would make In the Immokalee area? Didn't we on -- was it Randall Boulevard, didn't we waive that 30 percent requirement there to allow the development to go ahead with the Commercial and advance? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. The Board can authorize that waiver of that particular stipulation. The requirement in the Master Plan says 30 percent of the infrastructure or the project must be developed before or commenced con- struction prior to the construction of the Commercial; but if so authorized by the Board, then that provision can be waived. And those are all the changes that were made to What is that community use, this P.U.D. document. COMMISSIONER HASSE: again? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: hospital is to be built. That's where the proposed OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 66 'MS. EDWARDS: Right. That would be hospital or any other type of community use. There's a list of what would be permitted under the community use within the document. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Where is it? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We don't have that right here. Page 7.1. I got a number right. On the bottom there. Is there any discussion? there anyone from the audience that wants to speak on Petition P.U.D. 88-7417 MR. THOMAS: That's the Heritage P.U.D.? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (None opposed) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. What is the pleasure of the Board? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 67 ~ COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion we approve Petition P.U.D. 88-741 as recommended by the staff and CCPC. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: there any discussion? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have a motion and second. Is Just on the question. I notice that with respect to traffic impact, that it is anticipated that the development of this project will -- may have some significant traffic impact along Madison and New Market, in that area, and I was just wondering if it looks like all the developer's going to do is coordinate his efforts, but it doesn't appear that there's any dedication of any right-of-way or any other significant contribution to the traffic impact aspects of this development. MS. EDWARDS: No. None of that section was changed because it was a staff-initiated amendment to the Master Plan and we changed only that that would make it consistent. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And I think that the right-of-way already belongs to the County. I know the right-of-way belongs to the County on 29, and I'm almost sure that there OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 68 is enough right-of-way there on Madison to enlarge it or do whatever that needs to be done that is already owned by the County. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: If there is any singlization, they've paid their fair share? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Right, and all the impact fees. I'll call for the question. aye. COMMISSIONER SHANNAHAN: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (None opposed) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All in favor signify by saying Aye. Opposed. The motion carries unanimously. There is nothing else to be brought before the Board? Is there anything that any of the speakers, any of the public needs to say? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I appreciate everybody for coming, and this meeting is adjourned. (End of proceedings) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 August 12, 1991 .here being no further business for the Good of the County, the was adjourned by Order of the Chair. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL GILES, C .E15. RK .n~e~am~es approved by the Board on .'esented '~'Z./ or as corrected 69 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Jeffrey W. Marquardt, 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 at Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-aided transcription, consisting of pages numbered 1 through 68, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 13th day of September, 1991. Jeffrey W. Marquardt Deputy Deputy Official Court Reporter 20th Judicial Circuit OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962