Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/23/1991 SCOLLIERCOUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .' PUBLIC HEARING GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS ORIGINAL HEARD. before the Board of County Commissioners, :~mme~cing at 5:05 p.m., Wednesday, January 23, 1992, in the r's Board Room, Third Floor, Bu]]di. ng F, Collier ounty.Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962. PRESENT: -.Patricia Anne Goodnight, Chairperson Michael J. Volpe, Vice-Chairman Max A. Hasse, Jr., Commissioner Burt L. Saunders, Commissioner Richard S. Shanahan, Commissioner Reported by: Christina J. Reyno]dson Dep~ty Official Court Reprofret Notary Public State of Florida at Large OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Carrothers Reporting Serv'ice, Inc. 20th Judicial Circuit - C¢~l]~er County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 (813) 774-8126 FAX: (813) 774-6022 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COI!~TY, NAPI..E,,, FL 33962 ~i([STAFF: APPEARANCES Robert Blanchard, Growt'.h P]anni|ng D]r~ctc,r' Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator Barbara Cacchione, Long Range Planning Kenneth Cuyler, County Attorney Neil Dotrill, County Manager Michelle Edwards, Growth Planning Staff Bill Laverty, Growth Management Plannor Ron Lee, Long Range Start Litsinger, Growth Management Director Robert Lowden, Water Management Department Jeff Perry, Growth Planning Department Elly Soto, Growth Planning Department Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney David Weeks, Senior Planner .IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Steve Ball Steve Barnes Daniel Brundage Jim Coletta Tim .Constantine Jimmy Crews Dale Danford Frank DelleCave Robert Duane Tom Grant Dorothy Johnson George Keller Kim Kobza Wayne Martin Gerald McKenzie Georgia McK~nn~y Jim Melchore Anthony Pires, Jr. Jeff Purse Alan Reynolds Charles Smith Neno Spagna Fred Thomas George Varnadoe Jay Whidden OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[: 33962 .'~- to order. (WHEREUPON, the herein meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners having been held at the scheduled time and day, and properly and legally advertised, s,lch affidavit(s) being on file, the following proceedings were had.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: We'll call the meeting All rise, please. Mr. Dotrill, if you'll lead us in a word of ~. (WHEREUPON, the invocation was presented; ~. fo].ldwed by recitation of the Pledge Allegiance. ) " CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Good afternoon. The ..~ reason why that we're meeting here today ~s for the first public hearing for Growth Management Plan Amendments. The second public hearing will be held on February the 5th at 5:05. That is the correct date, isn't it, Bill? MR. LAVERTY: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: At the 5:05 meeting on ~.. February the 5th will be the final hearing, and at that '?:>- time the board will adopt the plan There will be no formal adoption of the plans tonight. There will only be .instructions to staff as to how the plans should be changed or they should be kept the way they are. There will be public comment. If you wish to "~.,.~. 'speak on an item, there's sign-in sheets that are out on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAP],ES, Fl, 33962 4 ..the table outside. If you'll sign in and lay it up here Y, by the manager, your name will be called on the item that you wish to discuss. Bill? MR. LAVERTY: Good evening, Commiss.ioners. For the record, I'm Bill Lavetry, Growth Management Planner. Tonight's public hearing is the first public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners to consider the adoption of the 1990 Growth Management Plan Amendments. The Growth Management Department transmit. ted the 1~90 amendments to the Department of Community Affairs in August of 1990 after public hear~ngs with the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The transmittal of these amendments initiated a 90-day review period for the State and other reviewing agencies. The Growth Management Department received the · :.!i<.~J Department of Community Affairs' objections, recommendations and comment report on December 13th, 1990. Collier County has 60 days to adopt, not adopt or adopt with changes any of the amendments ~nc]uded in this package. Upon adoption, the State has 45 days to issue its notice of intent to find the amendments in compliance or not in compliance. In addition to the plan amendments transmitted OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, Ff, 33q62 ' ito DCA .in August, you will find the second annual update '" of the. Capital Improvement Elements on the ag~.nda. Stan Litsinger will discuss the issues regarding inclusion of the CIE in this Plan Amendment Package. .MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director. This first item on your agenda Js a previously unreviewed amendment in that it was not previously submitted for review upon normal submittal of our amendments cycle. As Bill had mentioned, we had previously adopted by ordinance the second annual CIE update on September 26th in accordance with Rule 9-J-1]; .'had submitted it to the Department of Community Affairs for administrative review. They subsequently made a determination that in their interpretations of the definition of update and what corresponded to an update and what required an amendment process, they felt that the degree of change in this CIE update required that we adopt Jt as an amendment. Since then, staff has had discussions with County Attorney; we've looked at the various options; and .that we feel at this point in time it is more OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 ~.advantageous to the county to adopt the second CIE update · as an amendment, as an administrative procedure rather .~.;~ ~i.~than to challenge the DCA's interpretation of the - statutes' and the regulations in this case. · ,~.. I can tell you that the County Planning _Commission passed the second annual update onto the Board ,./~,.:;s for review and consideration for adoption as a plan ~'·' amendment but expressed some concerns and reservations '.....The staff is recommending that the Board adopt the second ~:: annual CIE update as a Growth Management Plan Amendment. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any i~.discussion? '~ ' ' COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well I guess the only question would be, Mr. Litsinger, does that mean then that's going to be one of the two amendments for the year 1991 ? MR. LITSINGER: No, Commissioner Volpe. If we adopt it as an amendment without prior review as we are doing now, it will not take a separate amendment cycle. If we were to go back at this point in time and start an amendment process for the second CIE update as opposed to adopting it as is, we very well could be we]] Jnt, o the third update and adopting it before we resolve the '~'Second. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES FL 33962 7 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is this simply housekeeping or are there going to be some changes that you're going to be proposing, that the staff ~s going to .be proposing? .... MR. LITSINGER: At this point Jn t~me, I can ..... tell you that staff will propose that we adopt the CIE on the final hearing on February the 5th as is. In the .meantime, based on some conversations with the DCA in consideration that they have not had an opportunity to review it, we will be addressing Jn a narrative explanation format some of the changes that have taken ,place s~nce the last time or s~.nce the f~rst adoption of the CIE, which may broach some of their concer~s. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I guess -- I just -- just We d~id rho I'm jt~nt a littin confusnd. first update September 26th of 1990. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And now we're being told that rather than it being an update, it actually should be a plan amendment; dJfferemt procedure tham what. wm follow. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. Our first update, if you will remember, our first CIE included six years. Consequently a second ~p -- our first update to the original CIE included five years. What happened OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, 33962 ii~>which triggered the response from DCA primarily was the fact that on the second update we added a year. And their interpretation, that alone requires it to be ~.. treated as an amendment and not as an update under the very vague directions that are in the statutes. ~i'>heard your answer, between Sep -- when we reviewed the plan in September, we took certain action at that time. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Wall, wh~t T'm trying get at, maybe you've answered the question I just haven't MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You're now asking us to go through a different procedure. MR. LITSINGER: More or less a rerat]fJcation of your original action, but doing it as a formal plan amendment under 9-J-5 and the statutes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So it's -- there aren't any changes then between September 26th -- MR. LITSINGER: None proposed at th~s t~me. (;OMMTfl.qTONER VOI,PE: '['h~,l '~ wh~l I w~; r'~;,lly trying to get at. So we've considered -- everything's been considered before, it's just a,..question as to the procedure -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- that we follow. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Hasse? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Supposing we can see some i) changes in it as of now. what kind of a problem does that. present? :-~ .... MR. LITSINGER: It would depend on the nature 'of. the changes. Specifically as relates to revenues and projects and the timing thereof due to the fact that we ..are currently using this as the basis for a concurrency system and issuing development orders on the basis of the projects of this plan, I would -- as far as the consequences of trying to change it at this point as ? ~:.:.opposed to looking at the situation that exists now during our third update cycle, information as to what you might have in mind. COMMISSIONER HASSE: We]], I'm speaking basically of provisional use and uses of different zonings. MR. LITSINGER: I beg your pardon? COP~ISSIONER HASSE: things like that. MR. LITSINGER: address any of those issues. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Provisional uses and In the CIE update, we don't You're not going to address any of those? MR. LITSINGER: Not in the CIE update; no, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess the next step OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER C. OUNTY, NAPI,ES, Fl., 33962 then we need to conduct a public hearing on the Capital .Improvement Element and see ~f there's anyone registered to speak on that item. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: registered to speak? MR. LAVESTY: registered. Is there anyone No, ma'am, there's nobody CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Okay. Then may I have a motion to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So move. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: 'second to close the public hearing. by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: unanimously. I have a motion and a All in favor s~gnify Opposed? Motion carries Is there any direction that this board wants to ~'.~? ....give to staff in consideration of the CIE? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just a question. Did you suggest that when this was reviewed by the CCPC that they expressed some reservations about the Capita] Improvement ~:. i;Element of our Growth Management Plan? OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,TER ColINTY, NAPI,E:~, F'I, ~...:---~-~.. ..... MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Commissioner, they did express some concepts that they thought we should ;~'.' . consider, the Board should consider, that go bac, k to some .of their original recommendations prior to the original ' .adoption by ordinance as an update. And they had to do They think that some consideration should be ...given to looking at all the amenities and recreational ~. with issues related, for instance, to the jail, its .needs; its funding; alternatives to incarceration. Of course they question the need for the seven cents sales tax that appear in the CIE now because it is, of course, not going to be a reality. They also expressed some concerns about the road assessment district as the alternative financing method. opportunities available Jn Collier County for inclusion in their parks inventory, to reduce some nf ~h~ ne~.d for .further facilities costs in that area. -.~ . They feel that the board ~n its deliberations either now or in the future should look at a]] levels of service standards in consideration of possibility of hlowering levels of service standards, where possible, to reflect revenues available. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I tb~nk that I agree with those recomm0ndations, but. wo.'rn not --- they're not calling on us to do that between now and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO[,IJER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, .13~62 · February 5th. I assume that that would be the next ':update of the Capital Improvements Element. .... MR LITSINGER: They generally expressed concerns in this area that the Board address these concerns. I did not get a direction from them that we should do a major revision at this point, but that these thoughts should be kept in mind as we move forward for ~ :,. the next update. ~.~ ..... COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Which will take place when? MR. LITSINGER: We will be beginning that i',.process very shortly. You will receive the AUIR report " in probably May, and that will culminate in the next CIE update this summer. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Let's just take, for ', ,example, the fact that the CIE element does include the option one cent infrastructure sales tax as a funding mechanism. It's -- it doesn't make an awful lot of sense perhaps to continue to include that. Have we -- you _know, what are we accomplishing by leaving it in there? MR. LITSINGER: We]], it's really a non-operative revenue source because when we prepared the CIE and we adopted it, as you know after much debate we included the assessment district as the back-up funding .mechanism, which retains the financial feasibility OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI.,I_,TER CCHINTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 13 ~.?.requirement. The fact that the sales tax is no longer :operative does not change the financial feasibility of ,:. ~: . Each ~ tern that -- for , ..each .item that showed the one cent local option sa]~. tax CIE at this point. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: as a funding source, we adopted an alternative. And I think what staff is sl,ggestJng Js that. as :~ :' ' we go through the next update, if we do not implement .~?~./,.:.[..i:!:'...those, that alternative funding source, we're certainly "-?* ' ..~..question going to have to make some massive changes in our conference plan, Capital Improvements Element. But .. that's not for tonight or February 5th, that's going to be for -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Let me ask one other We've been discussing, at least conceptua]ly, an alternative to the county wide special assessment district. We'v~ b(,r~n ta]king about perhap:~ fur~¢ifng those ...:.<...improvements through the bonding of the gas tax revenues. If we don't include that as an alternative in our update to the CIE element, what impact w~]l that. have, ~f im .fact that happens to be the direction that the majority of this commission should pursue? MR. LITSINGER: I believe, Commissioner Volpe, that what you w|ll find ~nd wh~l ! wo~ld r,:r:r,mm,?r~d th~l. if you do decide on some other course of action, some OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ~.~.other .revenue source in combination with any other _actions, you will want to incorporate that into your third update As it stands now, this CIE would remain ~111! i",/,. operative with the back-up source being the county wide road improvement assessmenL dist. rir:l. as ]or;g as w()' ~e moving forward with the process the rather lengthy :.~7~j~Drocess involved in the establishment of that as~mssmemt CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: ]¸4 Any further ctisctls.qion? Then staff has their Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: The next item then is Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. LEE: Good evenJng, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Ron bee wJth Long Range Planning staff. ~ ~ . The Golden Gate Master Plan before you is a _culmination of a two and a half year effort between staff, the steering committee and the citizens of Golden Gate. The development of this plan relJes heavily on citizen input; the workshops; questionnaires; and . ~ committee meetings. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPbES, FL 33962 15 The public has provided significant input and and the committee have responded by developing a .~,-.. plan that is representatfv~ nf t-.l'~ de[~irn~ r~f t!l~ community and provides a balance between preserving the ~.'.'~ ....residential integrity of the area while providing an opportunity for support services. Throughout the process, staff and the committee .have worked conscientiously and diligently toward a .... common goal to produce a plan which is workable and will enhance the quality of life for Golden Gate residents. What I'd like to do this evening is provide a brief summary of the plan, outline DCA's objections, also outline some staff changes and then have a discussion of the outstanding issues. Now I'd like to move to the maps and provide a brief summary of the plan. This map here is the official Land Use Map for the Golden Gate area. First area I'd .Jlike to cover is commercial and the Estates. We have designated five neighborhood centers throughout the estates and each circle here .~.representat~on of 20 acres; 5 acres is reserved for commercial and the balance is for provisional t,s~s. The other commercial area in the estates is the Randall Boulevard commercial district, which ~s Randall .Boulevard and Immoka]ee Road, just a seven and a half OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 3.3962 16 ~acre commercial piece. The next area I'd like to discuss is the Country Road 951 commercial area. You've got a ten acre tract designated south of the FP&L substation and you also have an approximately one acre tract designated at Golden Gate Parkway and 951. Moving into Golden Gate City, we have designated an approximately 20 acre tract for lieut..professional office uses. These properties now are RMF-12 and they will be permitted to have professional ..... :~ office uses consistent with the C-6 district that we /~:currently have. COMMISSIONER HASSE: C-67 That's been changed to MR. LEE: Yeah. And the final change was the reconfiguration of the activity center at Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado. Previously. it was a square activity center consistent with the activity centers throughout the county. And we have reconfigured that to be consistent with the existing ~¢ommerc~al~zoning in Golden Gate City. What I'd like to move on to next is DCA's objections to this master plat,. They had two objections iwhich were fairly minor. I'm working off the staff report to the Planning Commission, and I'm on page three. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 17 (Commissioner Shanaban entered the board room.) MR. LEE: The first objection was they want a clarification on how this master plan relates to the :~i. county wide Future Land Use Element. And we have ~.,..provided language which indicates that this Future or Golden Gate Master Plan will become a separate element and.will supersede Policy 1.1 and Policy 1.3 of the county wide Future Land Use Element. I've also indicated that the Golden Gate area Future Land Use Map will be instead of the county wido. F~ture l,and Use Map. The second object.ion related to the fact that they felt that the permitted den..q~t~es and ~ntens}t}en · should .be in policy form. We had phone conversation w~th DCA staff and it was an oversight on their part. All of our land use designations ar~ Jn p~]'icy form. S~, we felt that the approach that we have taken will meet DCA's .objection. The next area I'd like to address is additional ~changes proposed by staff. Moving to page six of that staff report, we've added two new policies, Policy 1.6 ~and Policy 1.7. What. Policy 1 .6 does is provide that properties that have been granted an exemption, exception ' or have found vested rights will be considered consistent with this master plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Excuse me. That's page OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLt, IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 six, did you say? MR. LEE: 18 Yes, of the Planning Commission Staff COMMISSIONER VODPE: Where is it? MR. bEE: It should be behind a cover memo to and there was a Planning Commission Staff Report. MR. LAVERTY: Commissioner, it's under your first blue tab. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. We've got a lot of ..papers.here. MR. LEE: Then the second change is an addition Policy .1.7. What we've done is those properties that were zoned RMF-12 which were in the square activity center which have been removed by the reconfionratior, of the new activity center will be recognized as being consistent with this master plan. We have added a map as ,~,..; an appendix for clarification, which properties fall within the old activity center. The next staff change is -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. bee, suppose we were to concur the change of something along these proposed indications you have there, for instance. I'm speaking :,~,,. ~ ,' in conjunction with a business zone and you feel it would ¥< , ;~.11,. be better to change a budding residential zone and change ~.:.~. and place gas stations. OFFICI-AL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fl., 33962 19 MR. LEE: Could you say that again, please? [i:' '..._the Parkway. problem for you? COMMISSIONER HASSE: MR. LEE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yeah. I'm talking about Would that create any district? MR. LEE: No, they had no problems with that. at MR. KELLER: Would you have a problem? MR. LEE: You mean the professional office MR. KELLER: From residential to commercial. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: We'll cover that when ...we get to it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. Go ahead. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: C,¢~ ahead ar, d we'll take · _care of .-that when you get to it. MR. LEE: Okay. The next change, we have adopted Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance, and the master plan as drafted before didn't recogmJze that _Affordable Housing Ordinance being adopted, so we've made .some changes to that. Going to page seven, we have provided some language in there to allow commercial under criteria consistent with the county wide Future Land Use Element. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F~, 33962 ]~.'L lhave ,withdrawn all of the applications for zoning ,,re-evaluation in Golden Gate; is that correct? ~i~ ~ -. MR. ,LEE: That's correct. The next page, eight -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How are -- right now we COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And that's pending the adoption of the Golden Gate Master Plan. 2O MR. bEE: Correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So that when you're talk:ins about comm~.rc~a] unclnr crito. l"i;i, that '11 ~., .........establish a new criteria -- or not a new criteria, it'll /.ii/'make that criteria applicable to those applications %~i~ii:.,: - ..within Golden Gate. MR. LEE: Yeah. Some applications that have i,.i::,.-,:.~.-:.exemptions or exceptions may be found to be consistent because they will meet the criteria under this -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: In the originally proposed . Golden Gate Master Plan this criteria did not appear? MR. LEE: Right. That was not in there. This is a new addition. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And is that now as a result of -- this is being suggested and proposed by staff because of -- · :~:¥',, MR. LEE: I think it, was an oversight by staff /~that we didn't include this. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, Fi, 33962. 21 '~': ~i.,.~.~COMMISBIONER VOLPE: All right. You may have mentioned this, and I may have missed it, under this '.Policy 3.7, did yol~ mention that? ...... .'MR. LEE: Yes, I did. ...... :~., lONER VOLPE: Okay. MR. LEE: Do you want me to go over that again? .... - .....COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If you would, please, just MR. LEE: If you remember, the previous .:;.activity,~center was square in size and allows up to 16 per:acre. We have some RMF-12 property theft falls within that square. We have reconfigured the activity .~..~center and those RMFL12 properties are no longer within square. And we feel to be consistent with promoting higher density around our activity centers, we're saying ~.:.~-.even though they're not in the activity center, but we'll y.they.'.are consistent with the Golden Gate Master Plan. And we have a map that shows the old square and which ..... properties will be consistent under that policy. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But are we talking about RSF-12 or are we talking about commercial? MR. LEE: RMF-12. Just the RMF-12 property that is no longer within that activity center. I can show you a map of the old activity ,OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAP],ES, F[, 33062 22 center.- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just don't understand the~.effect of that is. The way I read this, I :hought it was talking about the density outside of the :activity.:.center. I didn't realize it was something to do .... ...<. :with -- MR. LEE: This red patch, square, is the old ty:center. Any residential property within there was permitted up to 16 units per acre. configuration is this yellow area here. The new All this '.::residential property outside of the activity center will .longer. be consistent with the plan if we did not add Policy 1.7. ........ Sp, we've added this policy that says that .:.::~these residential properties are going to be consistent :virtue. of.being in close proximity to that activity center,· being consistent with our approach of allowing .ihigher density around the activity center. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: All right. Are they going ..to be able to develop out at 16 or 127 MR. LEE: Their zoning allows 12 units per :~ :acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And then you add the -- " MR. LEE: But they can't go any higher than ;:~'hatev~r.:' their .existing zoning permits. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 23 ....:'.~.,COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. Got it. MR. LEE: Okay. The next change was on page This regards the professional office district. inal{:list of permitted uses did not allow gh banks, but we did allow a bank without -~' drive-through facility and we've met with some people An the banking industry and they really don't make any banks · , without. a drive-through anymore, so we have allowed banks ....with drive.throughs. ..:. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: .page are we on? Ron, excuse me. What CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We're on page eight. Eight? page -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: ~page. i.. : We're talking about I just couldn't get the 'MR. LEE: Then the last change is on page 35 of the text. Th~n t~ nlno anc, t.h,,r r~vr~rslght by ,,l~,rr. Thr. ..~i~....'~activity center at 1-75 and Pine Ridge, which is in the ~county wide comprehensive plan as an activity center was recognized as the Estates in the Golden Gate Master Plan. :i"~,~./....Then w~at we've done is made that correction to recognize as being in the county wide activity center at 1-75 Pine Ridge. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 Are there any questions on these proposed ges_by. staff? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: a question about -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: I have a question about 24 Commissioner Hasse has the outstanding issues here that you have on paragraph ~.seven, page eight. ":~" ' 'i:~:11,MR. LEE: It's a case -- Of the text? gas stations. . . MR. LEE: COMMISSIONER HASME: Okay. · COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Th~s Is the case Jn point, Ron, that's a commercial PUD that we just approved and I think the """ ~question.,is,if we don't change the configuration of the 'ilactivity center, are we creating an area that is of non-conforming use or should we change the activity center, to include that -- MR. LEE: Right. That's the one outstanding issue. That's what I was going to move to next if there _'.were no questions on the text changes proposed by staff. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is there another activity center on Pine Ridge Road and Logan? MR. LEE: No. COMMISSIONER HASSE: ':this :one first. I think I'd like an answer '.?,'.. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 25 ~.,~..~....~, ~. MR. LEE: This is the existing configuration of ~,'~.the activity center as we know it, as proposed by staff ~{i~i]~.~.,,and the committee. Since we have last discussed, there ~i~'J,i~has been a~project that has been approved on Golden Gate :~..iParkway_and 47th. What we have here ]s commercial lots fronting Golden Gate Parkway, RMF-12 zoning behind it. This notch here represents the approved project. The issue -- ' ' ~COMMISSIONER HASSE: What happens to that? What happens to t.hat? , ~.This issue was brought before the Planning Commission, MR. LEE: The issue before you is whether we .to.amend the activity center boundary to ~nc]ude project as a part of the activity center or not. ,.~.~.to include this parcel. ?./... · COMMISSIONER VOLPE: ·. saying it should go to a plan amendment; is that what and they recommended that the boundaries not be changed At this time, or are they their recommendation was? MR. LEE: Planning Commission recommendation is ,not to.change it now and there was no suggestion of a plan amendment in the future, but that is an alternative. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I thought the Planning Commission, CCPC did permit that, okay that. MR. LEE: Right. OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COI,LTER COIINTY, NAPI,ES, F]. 33967! 26 ........... COMMISSIONER HASSE: pproved it. .... MR. LEE: Right. COMMISSIONER HASSE: And the Commissioners What does that do to it? MR. LEE: Well, what happens is Policy 3.~.K says that no development orders can be issued for a ~.~,?~% .....project.that's inconsistent with the master plan. After ~i~i/February 5th, half the projects won't be ~n the activity .center boundaries. And if they come ~n for any subsequent development orders, they would be inconsistent :..and could not proceed with development unless we change the boundaries of that activity center. COMMISSIONER HASSE: And what impact would that ..have on the entire Dian, our changing this? What would .'~that do to the plan? MR. LEE: Well, any new changes since DCA has seen it .will have to be re-reviewed. And when they respond back in 45 days, they can either find our changes .'.to be in compliance or not in compliance. We don't know how they're going to review this. COMMISSIONER HASSE: As it stands at the present moment, the Commiss~.on approved that. MR. LEE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HASSE: '...:.:going to do? So now what. ts th~ DCA OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, Fl, 33962 -MR. LEE: To the project, or what? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Roger. 27 MR. LEE: They don't have any specific :recommendation on the project. What they would review is if we.~ha~ge the boundaries of the activity center, that's what they would comment on. And they can either say that that change is okay or they can say it's not and -the whole plan would not b~ An compliance. that? COMMISSIONER HASSE: When are they going to do .... MR. LEE: After the February 5th we transmit .within five.days and they have a 45-day review period and . then they will send us a letter of intent as to whether '::hwe're in compliance or not. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I see. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Was there any discussion .as to whether perhaps the entire boundary of the, that activity center should be increased along what would be the solJth nJde of Goldon GnI,, Pnrkwa¥? MR. LEE: When we -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Rather than just taking out that little piece. I mean, I assume that the driving force would apply to all those properties along there. MR. LEE: There are some developed properties, · residentially developed properties behind there, and that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 28 ~was~never~ really a consideration. When the committee .redesigned the activity center, the reason why the residential area wasn't included was to prevent any encroachment of commercial uses into the residential ~ineighborhoods. And that's why that line does not come back here._· They wanted to limit it to where the ~·commercial zoning exists today. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But isn't there an alley · that separates, I mean there's -- as I recall when we ~'~ere considering that particular petition, there was a 'vacation of an alley that runs between the property that .fronts on Golden Gate Parkway, those first lots, and ~.hen . there's an alleyway. And then there's resi -- there are lots .that actually front on whatever the street that's south of the, immediately south of the Parkway. MR. LEE: Right. There ~s an ex:i. sting a]ley, .. '.~and it was vacated. ?, · ::. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. So the boundary ~.line, ·though, as it was proposed and as it was reviewed ~by the committees, set the boundary line at the alley. MR. LEE: Right. Right between the commercially zoned and the residentially zoned property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. MR. LEE: The issue is whether the Board feels '-~" ~ ~ ....OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 pproprfate to.amend the boundary to ·include this :.property or not. 29 .COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, the Planning Commission:didn't feel it was appropriate ..... 'MR. LEE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did you make a ' ~:recommendation to the Planning Commission? MR.~.LEE: We made no recommendation to the Commission. We merely -- COMMISSIONER SAJNDERo: Do yr)~ have any · ~;.::i~"-,mecommendation for us on that? ~..-~.~ ' ~,.~.,2'.MR. LEE: If the staff had to make a ,mmendation, I don't think we would support a boundary COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry? MR. LEE: Staff would not support a boundary 'i:i'-~:~i.'~COMMISSIONER HASSE: But in the event the ission did approve that particular site -- MR. LEE: Well, that project came in before or ~after..we. had originally developed the plan. ~.',,.'~ ~ COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'm aware of the .... circumstances. I'm just curf¢,us. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: From a practica] ~oint then, would Ashleys -- if we don't amend the i'~;..OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 30 y.,.~does.the improvable for Ash]eys, does that ~i%~aporate andsthey can't build anything there until they .,~.get a comprehensive land use change? MR. LEE: If we don't do a change -- .. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I mean, they would be -- at_this point, they would be subject to zonJng i.re,evaluation, is that.it? .~.-..~ MR. LEE: They would not be subject to re-evaluation. They would -- if -- they'd have a zoning, but they'd be inconsistent with the plan. They'd have to their project boundaries consistent with that activity center boundary, if they wanted to proceed. they could pursue a plan amendment at the next cycle. · - .......- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's really a question of .timing. And we've seen that all along with people who were issued building permits and they had to commence ~.construction by a certain date or you had to get your -application by a certain time and so on. I think what we're all saying, and what I think 'i~ is beings said here, is that this seems to have been in ~[~i~i~:.' the minds of both the CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners to be good plan two weeks ago because it ,{...was allowed under the Growth Management Plan and two weeks later it's still probably a good project at least · '.~._from a planning perspective, but it's inconsistent or OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COL[,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33q62 .be.as of February 5th with the newly adopted Growth i. Management Plan. some reservations about at this stage in the ~proceedings going ahead and amending a -- the Future Land ~Obviously to the untrained eye it would seem [..of,.midiculous, wouldn't it? I'm just wondering in of the:process, I mean, there's a procedure -- I p.to_address a particular situation. I'd like to see it go through the process, but by the same token, I'm not sure how you achieve that ~7~.result .... Simply what I'm saying is at this late date .?i~i~after .this has gone through all these committees and we had so much public input, at this point to intervene and '....k~~.make .the change without going through the same process ~Causes me some -- well, I just have some reservations )ing it. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't do it, the procedure and I don't know how we address it; made myself clear. COMMISSIONER HASSE: My only concern, if you want to know the truth, is that you've got a piece of .i~ii..:land there running the length of the parkway in that ':;i:.:.area, whatever's indicated -- what is it, green there? Or not green, yellow. · .. MR. LEE: What this green represents is -- ':"~': · '"' COMMISSIONER HASSE: I khow that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, 33962 32 '~:~?.MR..;LEE: --.if the Board elected to change the ~oundaries; that's what it would look like. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. But the front ~ .. section of that on the Parkway is commercial. The back ',section..is_residential. .And is it good to have an type of structure on so on land or would it be to condense it and put a four-p]ex, five-p]ex on ~.11~.;~..the back, whatever you can get in here? ,.~ ....:. ' MR,..LEE: then /That's -- ........ .,:.' ~ .COMMISSIONER. HASSE: MR LEE' That's correct respond to that. I don't know if I have a response You don't know what? I'm not sure how to COMMISSIONER HASBE: I know. I figured that. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: ... discussion? Is there any further Ron, go ahead with MR. LEE: Do you want to have any input from (No. response. ) iii':;':. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: ·next. public?. I'm done with mine. .~,? .. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: ;_;:i:i~through.with.your presentation? ,hat:.we have. I'm sorry. You' re This is the one outstanding issue i:.ijOFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAP[,ES, F], 33962 33 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What's the other one, ~roved.'~provisional uses? .J~R. _LEE: We found through further investiga~ion.~that is no longer an issue. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So that's not an issue any :summarize then for us what your recommendations to the ...','staff are and then we can hear the public input. --., . ,,.'..MR..LEE: Okay. Summary of the changes, we have added Policy 1.6, Policy 1.7; we've amended the -- ,;,_there .was one other change I forgot to mention is that ~,~ DCA objected that we refer to ordinances and we did not cite them. as to ordinance number and adoption c%ate. And ~we have gone through the plan and cited all ordinances, ~ce,lnumber and adoption date. We changed the density rating system to reflect ..... :adoption of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. We've .~:,added commercial under criteria. We have allowed ~,i::drive-through banks, and those are the major changes by staff. .,, And we just have the one remaining issue that we're looking at direction from the Board as to whether we want to change the boundaries of that activity center. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 34 VOLPE: What's the last ndation'or CCPC recommendation regarding issue 7-A ~and B? .... ~MR.,.LEE: First one was the Ashley service ~,~and~he' second one was provisional use, but that .second issue is no longer an issue. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: public speakers. Ron, Bill? Then we'll hear from MR. LAVERTY: Mr. Tom Grant. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: If you'll call one and '~;<,;,.then call the other so they can be ready. ,i~Kobza. ~_ .... ~!,'~ COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. LAVERTYf Following Mr. Grant will be Kim Could everyone just talk little bit? It seems like I'm having a difficult time hearing you. So Mr. Grant, ]f you'd speak right into the..microphone so we can hear you. MR. GRANT: Okay. My name is Tom Grant. I'm with the Golden Gate Parkway Rezon]ng Committee, the ~..Lchairman of it. We've been working on this to try and to .~...get the.rezoning for commercial on Golden Gate Parkway ':i!~,for'about six years. .... We feel -- we've talked with the staff over the 'ears and that and basically worked with the community, '%.the community leaders and everybody and we're pretty COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ;~[~happy..with .what is the result of what happened, 35 ly. ~,i['.. ....We ~just feel that -- you know, what I'm worried , and~I think maybe the community is too, is that we've all waited so long for this, what scares me and the people out there I think is we don't want -~.~tO wait.anymore We would like to get on with what we i'11'i~'i~ feel the~staff -- and we've worked very very hard through the years and diligently at it to get this project done ~!~i'.~iJ'or~this master ~plan or however you plan it. ~'~i.-'~ . · But we just feel that the community wants it ~..~,...done and get it.done and let's go on from there. The last-minute changes, I don't know. At the last minute I i-.heard there's changes and whatever. I mean, Jt kind of ~.~.~.scares me because it might be something that might hold )._what we've been working for for years. I don't know. But I'd just like to commend staff, thanks for listening to the community ar~l l.hr~ ~.~:system does work. This is the third set of Commissioners !i~l!ve worked with, and I really appreciate your time and that. But I'm sorry, I'm still nervous after a]] these years of talking in front of y¢)ti We just feel, basically, that the community's .;.?ipartially satisfied. We feel we are going to have our downtown area or downtown strnnl'.. And j~;l. l'ik~: t.o l.h,lrtk OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS COLLIER COUNTY NAPLES, FL 33962 'OU andshopefully it,ll Go through or you'll vote on the '~:-5th, from what I understand. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Grant, do yo~ have a recommendation or comment specifically about that loutstanding issue which really seems to be one of the key issues as we proceed this evenJng? MR..GRANT: My feeling is that, you know, we've ~fworked real real hard and there's been enough publicity ~on everything that we've been doing out there through the ~.~o~.~'papers, through television, through everything. And at i'!the last minute, somebody's coming in with changes. That's why we've tried to publicize -- at least i.~.'!~J~.i'~/.what .we've.done is we've gone through the petition and re_petitioned the people on the sides of the street over through the years. I mean, it ~sn't something that you just do overnight. ........... .~i~.Now..what they're proposing to do, I don't know the full story. I'm just worried about what we've all done through the times, and T j~,nl. fee] [hal' if lhoy ..they should go through the process like us, like anybody ii'i~>~.~.else. I don't know. But I just know that it's time. Maybe a last-minute situation, whatever they're trying to do, that's what you're there for, to decide for. But we just feel we want to get on w~th this ' .'.rather than holding something up again. It's -- you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 37 i,..know -- I.'ve been waiting and waiting and we've heard nough,.I..think'. A lot of the people, we just want to ~get on with this. I think everybody's just afraid that 're going to sit and wait again and now hear something that might.stop us. I don't know. But we just feel that, you know, we would like to get on with the project or.'the planning. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Grant, I don't in any way, shape or form want to hold anything up. I can ~.assure you of that. I think what's happening here is for Golden Gate, and I'm looking forward to it. My concerns were if there is something that isn't going to hold up the entire plan and Js to the benefit of Golden Gate -- I'm not that interested, if you · ' want to know the truth, Jn four-plexes, t.r]plexes and perhaps even worse in the back there on the back portion of this property. So, I'm concerned about that. But nevertheless, I don't want to hold it up. ._That's what my questions were. I don't want to hold anything up. I want that to go through and then know where we can move from there. MR. GRANT: Well, I agree and I th~nk most of the community probably will agree with you. It's just that I think it goes back to the process that, you know, .'.the quicker we can get it done and we can get on with our OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 y..out~there and get our downtown area going. And, you know, it's just like I say when you 38 change something, I don't know. I mean, there's so many ~es and whatever; too complicated for me. And like I ,.~..I,mean, I just -- if it's good for the community, I think people will be behind it. That's pretty much it. Thank you. I thank you all., .............. ~ ....CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: MR. LAVERTY: Kim Kobza. will be Jim Melchore. Next speaker? Following Mr. Kobza ........ MR., KOBZA: I thank you very much. Ms. '.i..Chairman, members of the Board. For purposes of record, · my name is Kim Kobza. I'm representing Curt Ashley. ~ ~' _ I'd like to address a number of the points and ;_.eight~to one Planning Commission vote supporting the ..project and achieved a 5/0 vote of the county board for approval of the PUD that was the subject or that was the questions that have been made, and I think when I do, you'll see very clearly that your support for making some ..changes .to this plan, and specifically this change, is warranted. We came before you on December 18th after an culmination of a lot of public input; a lot of planning ~oeffort; a lot of work with your staff; a lot of work with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO[,],TER COI~NT¥, NAP[,E,q, F;, ~q062 39 ~develoDmental.services staff; Mr. Lee sat in a pplication meeting; had input into that process and : not once really during the process did we hear an x~ .~objection to the substance of the plan itself. .... ~?~ .... Pretty much everybody agreed it was a good .plan. And it was a good plan for a lot of reasons. created a.signature intersection in Golden Gate. It eliminated and deintensified the site by eliminating ~multi-family development on the back of the site. It It has substantial landscape buffers which create a pleasing And It generally ~njoyed ~.om,,,llntty eric appearance. support. f;'~ ;,- ,. ~-..~,.: ....... It wasn t as if we la~d back and ran in here ~.~and..said, commission, we want to make last-minute changes ?;"to this plan. We actively participated in the community, ~." went out solicited the chamber's op~n]on, the c]vjc ' association and so forth. So, we're not coming in at the '"" 'last minute and there is no intent to hold up adoption of .~.~.~:~.~ 'the Golden Gate Master Plan. YOU~ stall here Js suggesting ~hanges to this i' .;.~ ' :.,~,..-;.;~' p~an. ~n~ th~s ~hange Js not unlike othe~ ~hanges. They're suggesting policy changes. Mr. Vol -- or Commissioner Volpe you specifically asked a question as .related to the RMF-12 that was in the activity center. '~,"'~i"~' That now is going to be outside. But it's going to be OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAP[,ES, F[. 33962 deemed_consistent, okay? This change or this set of facts isn't unlike the changes that staff is proposing. And to create really. something much bigger than it is, I think it's y~very -- that's what's inappropriate at this time. We've really tried tn work with nt~FF. Wo np~nl ;i i~.i.~ ~1ot of time in the process because we were trying to work ?~,i~..with staff~an'd achieve the relocation/vacation of the ..... ~'au toway. Now, you've got to th~nk about what staff is saying. They're saying as a precedent, that if you don't -- if you don't change this, then they're not going ..to allow this project to go forward, but the predicate is residential encroach -- or encroachment into residential areas. And if you think about that, the conclusion is lthat.commercial development on the front two lots .separated by a 20 foot alley, then having multi-plex developments, possibly a fo~r-plex on the back two is somehow less encroachment than spreading commercial development throughout this site. I don't -- I don't understand the logic to that, and I hope that you question that same type, the logic to that as well. Now, I think what you have to look at is this: ~%:- .~There are some solutions to this problem. This is a very OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 41 .technical .issue. I think we're taking a very legalistic -' ~/: approach to it on the part of staff, and I think there ...are some very easy solutions One is to make the small change to the activity ..... center back to what it was under the original plan. You're talking about a change of a very small percentage i..1tnan_area.less than half an acre into this activity .~¥~ center. That's a possibility. Another possibility is this: When you adopted i):!~!i~. the. Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance -- excuse me county '"~".!~"._.wtde, you provided some provisions and you recognized certain equities when you adopted that ordinance. And · ·specifically, you created exemptions where property was i"...g0ing.to be inconsistent for property said achieved final ~i:i!STP approval prior to the time of adoption. "~ '~ '..~ You also created Jt in the vested rights .._provision, and I have the sections here. A provision where a PUD approved within two years prior -- between the effective date of the comprehensive plan and the date ~of adoption of the ordinance created a presumption in that,situation of a -- a vested right, ~f you will. So you've recognized these situations ~n the past and yo~ !'L~.did so after great amount of deliberation in the case of (f .the ZRO. Here we have a case where a PUD was approved ..OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .,:Jthree..weeks ago and it was a good planning solution then '' " and it's a good planning solution today and I don't think you should allow a very techn]ca] read]ng of tb]s .t~.situation to_prevent us from achieving that good planning ~..solution. And I'd ask you to find some mechanism for ..allowing this project to go forward. So, I think the options are one, changing the p; or two, providing a mechanism through the fnclusion of an objective or policy in this plan which allows us to go forward. I would like to touch for one second on what the Planning.Commission did, and I disagree with Mr. Lee's characterization of what they did. There were five members there. They deliberated over this issue for quite some time, but at the end of that deliberation, they basically said, let the County Board decide it. ~:'~:. ". T ~-' ' .?,~:. ......s a political J~Gu~. We don t rea].]y re. el comfortable '" in addressing it. And that is really what happened there. In fact, Mr. Keycap, Member Keyes, exactly said ~.th a t. So, I think in all fairness, there was more indecision there as to what to do and what legal mechanism to use than there was a vote against inclusion :".....of this into the activity center. And I think we need to. .. be clear about that. :' .OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 3~g62 ..I..can answer any questions, or I know many people want to speak. COMMISSIONER HASSE: MR. KOBZA: Four to one. 43 What was t. hm vol.e on that? And four members were i~iabsent.of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Four to one in favor of -- MR.~KOBZA: Basically, what happened was this: y voted four to one to recommend, to forward staff's r. ecommendations to the County Board, including the issue · .~.~i~as related to. the drawing of the activity center after a .or,debate. But again, my characterization of that. ]s they didn't say the County Board, County Board, w~ don't .~approve. of this project; or, County Board, we don't '~SUppOrt~it or think you should develop a mechanism for i~?i.9oing forward. We just don't know how to deal with it. And that's basically what they sa|d. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have a question for our ~i~".~'Assistant County Attorney. With the background and · information that you have, Ms. Student, do you have an ,~i... opinion as to whether someone in the position of Mr. '~!..Kobza's client may be able to make a claim of equitable estoppel, or perhaps some common law vested rights based ~upon what has transpired and the actions that have taken i~!i!./..~iplace by the Board of County Commissioners during the last three weeks? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLE.q, F~, 3,1062 MS. STUDENT: Yes, Commissioner Volpe, I do. For the record, I'm Marjorie Student, Assistant County I ~do not believe that under the common law 44 submittal to the DCA. ples of equitable estoppel this petitioner could make a case for it because of the good faith requirement. This plan has been before you this summer for It was before the Planning Commission earlier than that, and it's my understanding that all along it was we]I-publicized. Petitioner has knowledge that this change was you know, "iiYJ>:~.~comin~about, so I do not believe that a case for the good faith element of equitable estoppel could be sustained and therefore I feel that the county would )revail. MR. KOBZA: I would like to address that if I might, .Commissioner Volpe. Just so there's no misunderstandings here, it ;~.~'..is true and I think you'll find it recJted in the staff report, in the original staff report prepared by Mr. ._ . Bellows (phonetic), that we knew there was going to be :~..~:.some issue as related to adoption of this plan You " know, .that was up on the table. That's different than saying that now the te of residential or encroachment to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 45 areas should prevent us from going forward, this.is a Door plan for this property. Those are two entirely different things. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that. I was 6st .--~ifrankly, I'd assumed that -- I'm glad that. we iJilhave competent legal counsel here. I assumed based upon the facts that have been presented that an argument could be made. for equitable estoppel. I hadn't thought about the'.fact that .throughout the process the Petitioner had not chosen to participate in t. he discunsi¢~ns relating to ~.the.configuration of the activity center. MR. KOBZA: Well, that's not entirely true. didn'.t.not choose to participate. The application was We ultimately submitted shortly after that plan had been adopted. As a matter of .fact, just after; like a week after. And it wasn't a matter of choice. Throughout ,...the petitioner has been very careful to participate everything and solicit community support. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What I'm asking, Mr. Kobza, just what Ms. Student has said is that the petitioner .here knew or should have known that the proposed Golden Gate Master Plan would make this particular commercial use inconsistent under the proposed Future Land Use Map in the Golden Gate Master Plan. And I'm just trying to understand, you know, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAP],ES, FL 33962 s.been any discussion. See, the ,i. suggest:Lon.~s' been made that .minute.~ ;and_'I~,m .just trying to get a handle on it, "!t, ha~'"Jn Ea~ ~om~ up at ~h~ la~ minute or not. ..... COM~gg~ON~R ~UND~Rg: Commi~ion~F Vo~pe, mi9ht,..the.issue isn't whether they have vested rights ~uitable estoppel argument or whether they knew ior'didn'.!'t'know. Obviously they knew that we were 9 the comprehensive plan. I believe the staff ~port.lwhen~this came up said it would be inconsistent ..the_.new.plan but it would be considered under the old plan. is do we want to change the boundaries_as.a matter of fairness or whatever. Legally, .don't have to. I don't think there's any question tbout-'i:that. It's a question of whether we want to. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. Thank you. MR KOBZA: And the practical matter is, you :know,..now we've zoned this property PUP and I was just king with Ms. Student. What happens if we don't do this? It's zoned PUD, we're going to close down or we don't close down contracts and we give it 'back to the original sellers with PUD zoning now where had consistent zoning before, and it's a practical OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 47 ~understand, Mr. Lee, is would they not be subject to some ,2~.i~review under our Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance? You've said no.' ls that because of the status of the thing ~n .of"th'ei~, application for permits? MR. LEE: There are specific deadlines in that :~2~Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance for submitting applications and also deadlines for a commencement of · ..construction.~. And all those deadlines have passed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But what's a little odd ~?.~is,.all of_those deadlines have passed but we're adopting the'comprehensive plan for Golden Gate tonight and ~ry_5th. So they've never had an opportunity to ,~. apply.under that. I don't know if that creates a -- MR. LEE: This is the only property that will i!~? ..,be affected. ~..~.i ~ .~..COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS' Right I understand '~'%7~"~!.!i ...... MR. LEE: So there wouldn't be a need to establish a new re-eva].uation pro,gram. MR. KOBZA: But why would we treat this any differently than all the other properties we treated under zoning re-evaluation where we had identical ~ situations? Why is the matter of policy different? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are there any other questions, Mr. Kobza? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33q62 4~ ..... MR. KOBZA: I have none. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Will you please call the next .speaker, please? MR. LAVERTY: Jim Melchore. After Jim Melchore l_be Georgia McKinney. MR. MELCHORE: My name is Jim Me]chore. I've been living in Golden Gate City for ll years, and I speak to you here tonight. I understand you folks have asked for and i.obtained a rezoning along Golden Gate Parkway for the ~ose. of establishing a scene type of -- buildings going along there, professional type of buildings. This was the way it was sold. .... Now, my concern is I am chairman of the last years of the Advisory Beaut~fJcation Committee for Golden Gate Parkway. We have spent $525,000 tax payers' money in Golden Gate City up to this point. We wi]] have ~-'spent roughly $800,000 by time the Parkway is finished. I can't see when I drive along there and measure as I did, several times, four-tenths of a mile, there are four gas stations within four-tenths of a mile all on the same side of the street, with all four convenience stores associated with them. We had two car washes, one of which is already . up for sale hav~ng just been built. We have a lube OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COL[,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33962 of this, too? 49 ge..section here, also. What this is turning out to be, to me, is nothing but a gasoline alley. Now, if you'll take from Naples and go back and ;, Dies, what has happened in Naples as a rnsult At four corners, they had a gas stariron; it folded. The gas station at Second Street North, it . The gas station at. Fifth Street North, it :~..f~:: . .folded. And what did they leave there? A big hole where ~..?~.. they took the tanks out and it's filled with water. · '. Is this the type of blight we want to bring ..upon Golden Gate Parkway where we have saturation now of i.,'"' gas stations? Do we need more gas stations? There are Gas.stations in Golden Gate City; two of which offer r...:i/i,'.. repairs, car repairs. I can't take the argument that's /. ..... being.put forth that we need a gas station as full "i.'.':,iservice because we already have two of them ~n the c]ty ' ~' ~'": .951,: '..;-'~....and I don't think you can find any Parkway, including 41, ..open that somebody's going to fail, and there's no question you get oversaturation in a market. I think we've seen enough of this along 41. Are we going to have the same thing happen here to the people of Go]den Gate? I've sold the people of G~lden Gate. All the associations want to put th~ngs to beautify the Parkway, OFFTCTAL COIIRT REPORTERr:, COI,I,[E~ Cc)~;N'I'Y, NAI'I.I.:::, I71, 5O whtch'ieven comes anywhere close to the way Go]den Gate Parkway now looks today. I hope you would take this in your consideration when you think about oversaturation and what can happen. You'll have a blight sitting there and as these properties are set down there on 41, just empty. · "'·,~..And that certainly will not add to our Parkway. And I would feel I'd be leaving my people down who had voted to have a referendum if indeed we do not come through and we keep it remaining beautiful and not add.another gas station. COMMISSIONER VolJPE: Mr. Me]chore, I'd j~:~ .... like .to compliment yol~ and thank you for the work that you've done on the Golden Gate median beautification committee. I think it's a real improvement to the community. I just want to ask or maybe for clarification purposes, there's a portion of this property that we're discussing here, for Ashley, that no matter what happens with respect to this proposed amendment or discussion relating to the configuration of the activity center, would still be able to develop out as a gas statJon. MR. MELCHORE: In the front. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's right. So it really isn't a question of whether -- what action is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER CO~;NTY, NAP;,ES, 3.3962 ;.~,,. .. _'iraken here,.this evening will or will not permit a gas station at that par. ticular location. As I understand it, .a.gas station of some sort could be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the zoning be constructed at .that location. ..MR. LEE: Full range of commercial uses would be permitted on that front piece of property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So that unfor -- Xo~tunately.or unfortunately, there is that opportunity for the land owners along that area of the Parkway to develop their property if they think it makes economic sense as a gas station, as a car wash or whatever. MR. MELCHORE: We were given to believe when there was going to be a changa of zoning along the .... :,Parkway. indeed we'd.have professional buildings along .."there as much as the Smuder (phonetic). The Smuder ;..? .....building's an excellent example of what I'd like to see ?... along the Parkway. We don't see any much of that coming .... ~.~along. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Georgia McKinney, Following Georgia McKinney will be Dale Danford. MS. McKINNEY: I'm Georgia McKinney. I live in Golden Gate Estates for the past ten years; 3270 13th le Southwest. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COUNTY, NAPI,E,q, FI, 33962 52 ...... :,.Finally a master plan. And I would like to see ..... it as it is written. It is a good one. And I approve of the way Jt is written. T de, not fef.~l c.¢,mf~rt:~b]e w|th changes, variances because if we start that there's no plus in having the master plan in the first place. So ?~.~ let's keep it as it is. And don't make changes. ,.you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? Thank MR. LAVERTY: Dale Danford. Danford will be Jim Coletta. Following Mr. MR. DANFORD: My name is Dale Danford. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates, and T would ]ik,? to i4~ .....~ recommend that no variance or change be issued to the ~'~d~"~ Golden~Gate Master Plan at this time. I think the greater issue is getting this plan approved in force on February 5th. And I think that anything that detracts from this goal is certainly not in the best interest of the people served by this master plan. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Jim Coletta. Following Jim Coletta will be Frank DelleCave. MR. 'COLETTA: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jim Coletta. I was former chairperson for the Master Plan Steering Committee. And I want to thank' you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CObLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 53 first for allowing me to have that position and I really truly.enjoyed the process and going through it with you. ~We spent over two years on this process. And . we arrived at the final conclusion with the aid of all ~:..the citizens of Golden Gate, numerous meetings, mailers sent out at the cost of the county. We met with everyone that had something to offer or something to say. A number of bu~in~sses wer~ very worthwhile proJecl:~'~ were .boundaries to be. rejected because they weren't going to fall within the boundaries as the citizens so determined they wanted Now we have at the 11th hour someone coming in ..the back door and asking for a variance to this master plan. I -- my problem is not so much that we've got one more business that wants to go there. My problem is the fact that there's been n[~merous people that have been ~.<. :/..:irefused'due to .the fact that the master plan boundaries were already la~d out an(] tho. y wer~ no longer ~c~pted and we weren't going to alter it. " Now at the 1]th ho~r we're talking about _changing this plan to accommodate one person, one business. If we're going to do that, possibly we should ::: ,. consider opening it all up to review again so everyone else that may wish to ask for a change and may want a ,,:~... chance at it one more time. There's a number of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33962 '~"-'')rovisional uses out there would like to have a crack at -it. again. ........ The master plan at some point in time has to ..... reach an.end where it's going to go to press and be able .to either. fly or not. I think we're at the point now · ~i~.~..where we just have to say, this is the master plan. At ...some point in time if they want to, a gas station might ~..~.~L~....be..very~equitable or if they go through the process of asking for the plan to be amended just like everyone else .%_-..will or should. .. There's a lot of land still available within the activity area there. I know it's expensive land, but there is land that's available. I have nothing against _.2'.Mr'.~lAshley. or his service station. It's just that I think we ought to give serious consideration for all the time that's been put into th~s and all the people that have contributed what they wanted for their master plan )lden. Gate. This is what they want. I'm not anti-commercial. If anything, I'd probably be pro-commercial. It's just that I'm here tonight for one reason. And this is to discharge the - .last part of the duties that I have for this plan. Your approval before, when you gave approval previously for the Ashley service station, you were correct. You gave it under the old criteria. These OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CObblER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fb 33962 )le,,.came in with the idea that they could make it under that criteria. They have -- they have or have not .succeeded and that was their decision at the time that they, went into it. .I -- basically, that's about all I have to say. We did meet one time, not as a group hilt as ~[nd~vJduals, the..former_members of the group. We got together and we ~ether and we discussed it and we took a vote and 'that vote was four to one not to change it. There was some question whether there was a .]~:~'J~./violation of the Sunshine Law, so we held another meeting and invited everyone to it and did the whole process again. And the vote basically came down the same, one person.sent .in one through proxy, written vote, and it was ,still four to one The opinion has not changed COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What committee was this again, .Mr. Coletta? Committee. meet as a steering committee, they met as individuals COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Jim, wam there five MR. COLETTA: TbJs was the Master Plan Steering .They're no longer in existence. They didn't people on that steering c,',mmJ tte~}? MR. KELLER: Nine. MR. COLETTA: Nine. Since the steering OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 56 ..~.=_committee..disbanded, some of the people went various ways for various reasons such as Norm Hatcher (phonetic), our fire chief. Some people got sent outside the area and some people who just no longer interested. citizens,. what was their objection? What was their, discussion? Just share with us for our thoughts COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Those that voted at that informal meeting which just really at that point private the MR. COLETTA: Their objection wasn't so much to the idea of the service station on the Parkway. Their objection was to the altering of the master plan after so much time was put into it and so many people had their y.in it. And the process just went through for two years to come up with a final conclusion and they thought that it was_inappropriate at this time even considering any sort of amendment. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So is it fair to say it was more to the procedure that was being followed than ~ecessarily looking~at this particular land use at this point? MR. COLETTA: Right. don't think there was -- well, .there was some objection to the station tself, but ~not so much that as just the changing of the master plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's helpful. Thank OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 · . ~ MR. COLETTA: Yeah. That's the way we felt, and we still feel that way now ..... Any questions? ........ CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER'SHANAHAN: Thank you. MR. COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? 57 Frank DelleCave, followed by Neno "~'~: '" MR DELLECAVE: Commissioners I was on that committee..and they keep saying we voted I was not in - favor. I believe that -- I think I might be reading Mr. ' i£;';.~-~.Volpe..and. Mr..Hasse' s mind. When a person goes through -- and I was a ~~i~little undecided when I saw the public hearing signs on this for another gas station, but I watched it and I ...talked to_some of the planners, commissioners. It goes ....... through the civic committee. Everybody likes a civic ·. The. Chamber of Commerce, staff approved it. .When I saw that, I said hey you know And then I went to see the plans. .;I.even didn't like the idea of breaking the '~?i20'foot.~ieasement. I went to the water company and they OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 58 ..isaid they w0rked that out because water and sewer will go through that easement And the County Planning .Commission approved it. You fellas approved it These people~ spend money. ' '~ ~Ths mastsr plan is not written in stone. It can be changed. And I guess I was the only person that .thought it should be changed in favor Your activity committees are drawn in circles and the land out Jn the .Estates is rectangular. This is rectangular why can't you put a little circle in it? It could be that simple fbenot. But I'm voicing my opinion. Mr. -- he's going to get not all we It's they and me. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Mr. Coletta and Mr. Keller says we. It's I'm for changing it. For the record, we didn't get your name. . MR. DELLECAVE: Frank DelleCave, and he pronounced it right, the gentleman. Thank you. MR. LAVERTY: Neno Spagna, followed by Dorothy Johnson. ...... MR. SPAGNA: Good afternoon. My name ]s Neno Spagna. And I'm here this evening on behalf of two clients who could possibly be affected by the adoption of ithe plan on the 5th of February. One of them is the Golden Gate Presbyterian OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LTER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 !i;!.i~iuChurch_which~we discussed I believe it was yesterday. ~.~.iAnd the other one is the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist ' ..~Church. I would like to treat these separately because i~2..some of the members may want to comment and speak on them ,.~ ....~.also. I have asked the members of the Unity Faith Missionary .Baptist Church to withhold any of their in order to save time. However, we do have considerable number of them here, and I would like with your permission to let them raise their hands just so .'you'll know the interest that they have in what happens to their proposed church. So, would you people please raise your hands? What is happening in this situation -- and this '~is a situation that I don't believe the planning staff is aware of. I did check with them on all the other cases ..,.that I.had in the Estates that might be affected by the master plan, and they were all eliminated. However, this one was approved by the Planning Commission on the 17th, which was so recent that it's very possible that the planning staff was not aware of it It is very poss~.b]e that their church could be .Laffected, and before going into that, I would like to ~:possibly ask Mr. Lee whether or not they would be adversely affected with the adoption of the new plan. .OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ..This property.is located on the east side of Street Southwest in Golden Gate Estates. It's immediately east of th~ norl.h/~o~]t.h canal along 951 and 6O located immediately south of the Church Of The Gate that'.s _spelled G-a-t-e. I know I don't sometimes .~ ..... pronounce words exactly like they are, but I want to make .;;~.:~. .....sure everyone understands where that is. ~g'f6'~:'~-' This property is five acres that's immediately ..~ ..contiguous ~ith a~d south of that and it was approved ~,,. ....,,. u~animo~sly by the Planning Commission l~st Thursday. ~,{~.,:., ....~he~ .had ~o reservations ~hatsoeve~ r'~ ' ; 'did meet all the requirements currently regulating the ~'~'~'.~:.. ....provisional uses for churches in the Estates. . ~ They were fully aware that the master plan ..... could change that. However, they felt that the location ~?~... was a good one, that it should be there; and it was my ~{:ln~erpre~a~ion ~ha~ ~h~ felt ~hould be ~here before or after or ~ith or ~itho~t the proposed master plan for Golden Gate Estates. So at this time before going any further, I would like to ask the Chairperson if she would mind asking the staff whether or not this parcel of land would ;.-;.:..be affected by the adoption of the proposed Future Land ....;.:.~. , .. Use Map. ~';;" _ . HR, LEE: ~he provisional u~e i~ not con~i~nt ;',.~ ~f., .. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 ~i.u~.~with.anyof.the siting criteria for provisional uses in the proposed master plan. .... MR. SPAGNA: So then that would mean that they i.would not be able to continue with their church; right? MR. LEE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is there any facility ... hlalready ,.there?. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But there J s a provisional use on the site, it's just that. they haven't MR. SPAGNA: There is no facility on the subject property, but there Js a church immediately north of and contiguous with the subject property. generated enough funds to begin construction, is that the . ':jii<~situa tion? ..... MR. SPAGNA: There is not a provisional use at this time. As a matter of fact, it will be coming before the Board I. believe on February the 5th now that I think MR. bEE: I think February 4th. MR. SPAGNA: But it has been unanimously approved and recommended by the Planning Commission. They have owned this property, I believe, since ].986 or .7. They have planned on developing this as church, as a '...church facility for all these years. And there has been quite a quandary about how OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 62 handle. churches.under the new provisional use :11.restrictions and I know I've discussed it with the staff and I've discussed it with you and I'm not prepared to ~. give you the best answer for solving that problem, but I ld like to make one suggestion for your consideration. And that is that if this property as we]] as the property which we discussed yesterday for the Golden i.Gate Presbyterian Church were to be included and ignated for.uses, for church uses in the Future Land Use Map, I think then that would qualify the petitioners ~?~': :~._.'to proceed .with their -- with the construction of their churches. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The problem I have with that, Mr. Spagna -- the problem we've got, and it is a ,.problem with Ashley is entirely than the problem that you have for your client A), the CCPC is an advisory board There's been no official action to speak of. And .secondly, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I recall, and it may be that you were .gentleman who came to us who had a piece of property on .... representing that particular petitioner, but there was a Green Boulevard and he wanted some direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to whether he should go .ahead and close on a piece of property because there was a Latin church, as I recall, that wanted to build there. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY NAP~,ES, FL 33962 j.And. we told .them that it would be inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and suggested to him that he 63 _probably should even go ahead and bear the expense of filing his application for provisional use. The line has to be drawn somewhere. There is a mechanism available, as we were told yesterday, that we shouldn't. just apply this plan dogmatically, that planning is -- allows for some .flexibility. But to do that at this late date, I mean, we could be opening up Pandora's box. I mean, there may be people who have gotten that application for provisional use on their land use planner's desk or on their attorney's desk and how do we treat them? MR. SPAGNA: Well, I keep hearing everybody ~ talking about "this late date." And to me, our being here is a charade if it isn't to be here to help you make these decisions. If that means changing the Future Land Use Map, well then I don't see anythJ. ng wrong with that. don't see anything late about the date. I th.~nk it's incumbent upon us to be here and tell you what our problems are so you can -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I agree, and then -- MR. SPAGNA: -- make wise decisions. And I don't feel like I'm late. ...... in. through the back door I don't feel like I'm coming I feel like I'm here doing my OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 64 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I guess when I say "late," I'm thinking about maybe more of concepts. If you came in and said, we need to revisit the issue of appropriate areas within Golden Gate Estates for institutional type uses like churches, we're looking at an overall plan. But to come in with a · . specific application for a specific church, you know, really .looks to me as though we're going to start tailoring the Future Land Use Map to address individual :. ..... property owners. ..... ~ MR. SPAGNA: Well, I think I agree with you a hundred percent. The reason why I'm not talking about churches as a whole in Golden Gate Estates is because .that will.not solve my problem, my immediate problem. Definitely if I'm given another opportunity, I intend to come in and talk about the general requirements for the location of churches. But I really am trying to avoid that. tonight and sort of zero in to the immediate problems. The !:i.i.'immed.iate problems are that I have two churches, one of them probably will end up not even submitting a petition; the second one, which has, as I mentioned already, been approved or recommended, will not be able to proceed. So OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LTER COIINTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 65 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: They won't be able to "~"~': proceed, you know, immediately, but there is that process ~.:; ....&n place. ~ mean, ~r. Coletta was objecting, as I ~,~. understood his objection, to the situation w~th the ,~ ....Ashley project because of the process, the procedure. ;;~;~i ', · And that seems to me to be a little bit further along ?;~ ·than the situation that you've got. And as I indicated yesterday, I'm -- MR. SPAGNA: I guess really what I'm here for is to ask you to consider designating these two parcels ~,~,,~.: .. on.the Future Land Use Map for church uses and we 11 get · ',L to the other part of it. I'm sure we will, but I would rather not get into that at this time. And I'm not going to say any more, but I think there may be other people that would like to speak on that. I would like to return just to more or less say ,:, .........the same thing for the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church · and ask the same consideration and answer any questions that you might have, if I may do that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Spagna, I've been here six years. I've listened to you come forward with churches all this time. Have you been anointed with sainthood yet? I was just curious. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Doctor Spagna's 476 years old. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 · .MR. SPAGNA: They used to call me father, but I appreciate the attention that you've given me all through those years, an'd I know a lot of other people have, too. So maybe you'll get sainthood, too. .. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Doctor Spagna, what you're wanting to do is to have the people from th~s one .church that you've just spoken about, have them to speak ''and then you come back with the other church? you a question. MR. SPAGNA: If I may, please. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Doctor Spagna, let me I th~nk that all of us are somewhat in varying degrees sympathetic with what you're asking. .And I think all of us are certainly sympathetic with the ".. needs of providing churches for the community. One possible -- your suggestion about having some designation on the Future I,and Use Map for certain .:... .specific sites I don't think is a viable suggestion. for you to think about while ym]'re listening to the One other speakers would be perhaps the County Commission as a statement of policy could agree to consider all .applications that are filed prior to February 5, 1991 for approval. That would -- at that point, that would give us ..the option to review in the evening of February 5th the Ashley situation in terms of the changing of the activity OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33962 ,.~??~ .... ......center. It would give the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist :~i~i · Church an option because they -- an opportunity because have an application already in the pipeline. Golden Gate Presbyterian Church would have ten days to Get their application in. So, just Give that some thought as a possibility to -- as a way to solve the problem with these two particular churches. MR. SPAGNA: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Spagna, you made mention before and you had the people raise their hands. Are all those people going to speak? MR. SPAGNA: No, I've asked them not to. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I was just wondering if we should send out for dinner. MR. SPAGNA: There may be one or two of them. MR. LAVERTY: The next speaker is Dorothy Johnson. Following Dorothy Johnston w'l]] be Ge~rge Keller. MS. JOHNSON: Commissioners, my name is Dorothy Johnson. I live on Golden Gate Parkway, and I've lived there for 17 years. I was so happy when the Golden Gate Master Plan finally was completed. I worked on it myself on the first one. We had three meetings. They didn't ask us to come back any more and wrote it themselves and it never .. ~ OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI.ES, FL 33962 ,pass. One of the problems the residents of Golden 68 ..Gate has always had is the encroachment on their private property by all kinds of provisional uses, commercial, all kinds of organizations and everything else. Every time I came up here, and we've been up here so much, :~_every time.I came up I said, these people have to have a place to meet. these people. centers. There has to be a place provided for Now we have it. They made the activity Now, Gulf America's original plan was this way. Every so often there was a place for all these things. When the county took it over, that all went bonkers. Neverthe]ess, we now have activity centers and that's the place for them not infringing on residents and i~?,~.~residen ts' rights. Now, I was here the day you passed that one down on the Parkway. And I heard the woman who ].ived ,i~ across the street say, I don't want a filling station in my front yard. Then I heard Mr. Ashley or the petitioner ~,.~ ...... say a multi-family is more encroachment than a filling ~station. Now, I don't presume to speak for the woman, but I'm sure she would rather have a residence across the street than a filling station~ And this is an OFFICIAL, COURT REPORTERF~, CO[J,IER c.O~INTY, NAPI,E?,, F[, 33962 69 iment .. . .~:~:.i. I think. the master plan is great and I think ..... they worked very very hard on it and I think they have activity centers for all of these things and we make the aws and then somebody right away wants to make all the · differences. It's never the residents who do that. It's groups, the.churches, all the organizations, always want ~11 those variances. Now, I think it's time you give something to the residents because you ask us what did we want, and we .told you. And I would appreciate it, you passing it as it is. And I thank you. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: George Keller, followed by Neno .... :.'. Spagna. ':"::~': - ' MR. KELLER: George Keller, president of i:.i .....Collier County Civic Federation. I was a very active member on both of the planning committees on Golden Gate .Estates, both seven years ago and the one that just went through. We worked very diligently on this for two years. We originally had to talk a lot of people in Golden Gate Estates to put any commercial in the Estates. And that's not an Jmmue her~, I.on[ght b.calJ~o T think that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 70 people in Golden Gate Estates are satisfied that we '~;i~ have a good plan that will last ,is maybe for 20 years, :~..':-,..' .....but it was. a .lot of work. ~'~ And the staff did a marvelou~ job They worked diligently with us and the public. We had two public hearings and we moved one hearing to the school out there and we filled the hall. ~.~ to -- this is not a zoning hearing, so I'm not going to ;.: .....go and argue about whether it was a good or not And we listened to all of these people that.had gripes or wanted to make some changes. This particular Ashley deal, I'm not going proposition. The proposition is very simple. They ididn't come in until about six months ago. They never -- their plan never was even considered when the committee was in session. We abandoned last October, a year ago. :~, ..... So it wasn't even considered. .J¥~_ So consequently this came in later, and I want to correct some things. If you listened to the tapes of the County Commission meeting, you will realize that they were well advised that they were coming in under the old plan and that anybody that came in under the old plan if they didn't have a building permit by the time the new .plan was adopted, they wouldn't have anything. They were advised. When it went before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commissioners voted for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 71 unfortunately the Planning -- I was at this last Planning.Commission meeting and they said they felt that they were ~n a box because they approved the thing and staff had never really brought up to them the fact that this was.on the old plan and ~t wouldn't be consistent with the new plan. So consequently they didn't have a chance unless .they had a building permit to build anyway. And that was their problem. But, between you and I, anybody's that been involved in planning in Collier County the last ten years as I have, knows that when yo~ have a new plan, there are certain restrictions that you have to comply with before the plan goes in, otherwise you're not grandfathered in or vested. And I think the development in this particular case knew pure and simple that he was working on the old plan and that he didn't have any vesting or _grandlathering in when the new plan was put in unless he had a building permit at the t~me the new plan was put in. So nobody has been hurt, nobody has been -- there's been no illegal action taken; anybody that's in zoning, including the gentleman that stood up here and -- incidentally, he did not tell you correctly what the Planning Commission said. The Planning Commission said ~OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fb 33962 :..what I said, that they were disappointed because the point hadn't been brought out to them that it was under ;,.the old..plan...and not the new plan. They did not go and vote again to say that this was, this zoning was correct. They voted and said four to one that unfortunately that they had permitted the unfortunately they didn't specify to the ,:;.~:..;::.person, to the petitioner, that he didn't have any vested rights unless he had a building permit by February 5th And that is the truth. .......... And the man that voted against -- against it the other four, he was a little bit perturbed that in the .~.~ ....~ ~irst place they had set themselves up, and you're in the same boat, that you agreed for the zoning and that in ...... their case they hadn't warned the petitioner that he was ~...,i~subject to not being able to build. And that's why he ~said -- I have to be consistent, so I'll vote with the petitioner and vote that the plan should be changed. But I tell you now, any single -- anythJ. ng, the changes we make that is going to hinder this plan two days, three days or four days is going to bring in more people that are going to come in here with petitions right up until the February 5th. I don't agree with Mr. Saunders', Commissioner ~.....Saunders' idea that everybody can come in by February OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .... That.isn',t ~the way the zoning laws are now set up. That isn't the way it's set up. so let's be consistent and let's follow the ?~ii.i-~rules. If there's any amendments to be made, there's .l~i,Drovisions_for amendments, they have to get in line with i~'/' 'everybody else. There's a lot of people out there that would like to go and have some rezoning, both in the Estates and along the Parkway. Now, as was said before, we made concessions .~along that Parkway from the existing commercial up to the ~.Santa Barbara was all duplexes and triplexes and nobody wanted to see them along there. So we made concessions ii..~..i~'?~.and we decided that okay, professional type buildings ~there with fewer curb cuts was the solution and the .people that owned the property accepted it and as one of them, that Mr. Grant said he's happy with it and please '-.i .....don't do anything that's going to disturb Jr. '~'~" Secondly, I want to go and correct some ?- _misrepresentation here. The original activity center did · !~ -'~ .. ;!~.~[ not go into the residential. It was just the strip ,~zoning along the main street, only as far as the commercial -- as the activity center now exists. And to go Jnto residential now, this doesn't even comply with the old plan. It doesn't comply with the old plan. We made an exception then because we OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 74 ght,. you thought, and I think maybe you might have right, that it.was a better setup than having some other kind of activity center. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you saying, Mr. ..Keller, that this was not -- that this particular Ashley property was inconsistent with the current-- MR..KELLER: Right. Because the alley was -- the alley was the separation between commercial and ~' .residential. MR. LEE: The existing activity center is a ~..square, and his property was in there. MR. KELLER: activity. center? The r'esidential was in the and. use. MR. LEE: Correct. MR. KELLER: ~But as residential. .MR. LEE: But he could apply for commercial MR. KELLER: Okay. That straightens that out. But it was residential. Okay. And anyplace else along .that strip where there are commercial there are residential behind it right now. So this is going -- this would make an ~exception to the rest of the development that is ....commercial along there. Thank you. I hope that -- my point is let's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 75 .~any..changes now that was -- that's going to hold ~'.. ~..us up even a day, get it through and if there's any )ther --~naturally all zoning is subject to change and ........ e_11 go. through the regular process of changes later on. . you ~';~?/. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Neno Spagna. Following Mr. Spagna will be Timothy Constantine. MR.. SPAGNA: Thank you, and good evening again, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Neno Spagna and I'm up here representing the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church. And this situation ~s a little bit different the last one. We have prepared plans and have been working with the staff to submit a Planned Unit Development for a church on 12 acres of land that's located immediately north of the east/west main canal ~emptying into the Gordon River and on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard. And one of the reasons that we're taking into consideration at the time whether to apply for a ..... provisional use or whether to apply for a Planned Unit ~'/~Development is because the new master plan, Golden Gate Master Plan does not -- does not prohibit Planned Unit Developments for a church facility; whereas under the new master plan they would be prohibited for this particular OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .'~~..-necessary .to submit an application for a Planned Unit ~'~117'<Development for this church facility, we received an So after preparing all of the material interpretation from the staff that they felt that this would not be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, t a church,is a church by any other name and just the fact that we would be coming in as a Planned Unit .Development instead of a provisional use would not make .any difference. And I kind.of feel like there is a great difference between a Planned Unit Development and a 76 ..provisional use. The Planned Unit Development is much more restrictive, requires a lot of additional information that would not be required of a provisional use and I think it's a good -- it's well that this was ?" '.~not included as part of the Golden Gate Future Land Use Element. .So, I guess what I'm here to ask you for .tonight. is for your interpretation as to whether or not churches as Planned Unit Developments are going to be .permitted in the Golden Gate area like they are in any other residential area throughout the county, or whether or not it's going to be your interpretation that a church is a church by any other name. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, -?;>?~.-:'.::;i.i]~i:And~ think. there wtl! be other people that will be speaking on this. I'm not going to belabor you .with any further detail. We discussed this yesterday at ili'11'~'!length, which I appreciate and thank you for. I would simply like to leave it that we would like to have an interpretation. from you that the new Golden Gate Master Plan does not address churches as a provisional use and that we are perfectly -- that we are perfectly have a perfect right to proceed for a request for a church on that 12 acre parcel of land for a church facilJty, under a Planned Unit Development. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Hasse? 77 · ~:i! ~ .... COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Lee, I just heard Mr. Spagna say a church is not a provisional use. Did I hear him righ. t? MR. LEE: A church is a provisional use. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's what I thought. don't understand what you meant by that. MR. SPAGNA: Well, I don't understand why -- .what either one of you mean that a church is a i. provisional use. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can we -- I MR. SPAGNA: A church can be a Planned Unit Development just as well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Doctor SpaOhS, you've OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 78 asked a good~question and that is, does the comprehensive ~.'~"~11 plan as currently drafted affect an applicant's ability ...... to file a~provisional, a Planned Unit Development for a ..church in areas outside of activity centers and areas that are~designated for churches that are applied for as .provisional uses? · . .I,..d.like to hear Marjorie Student's answer to that because that's' clearly a legal question. I think that's the question, isn't it? MR. SPAGNA: MS. STUDENT: Yes. Mr. Commissioner, I don't have the zoning code down here with me. I may have to defer to. staff on that or ask to be excused to get it. Bear in .. mind, however, provisional uses carry with them the ..requirements of a minimum of five acres. So -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: PUD's? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, PUD's. Excuse me. PUD's carry that minimal requirement. I don't know from a planning standpoint whether that aspect of it might make it impractical to develop as a church or not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Lee, do you have -- MR. LEE: From our standpoint, we look at the use, whether it can come in as a conventional zoning or PUD. It really doesn't make any difference. The actual physical use is a church, and that would not meet OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES 33962 79 · !:'~'...~the zoning..criteria outlined in the plan. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And have you reviewed ~J. ....that~with Mr. ~Cuyler.or anybody in the County Attorney's -~'~ .......... MR. LEE: No. But they did ask us . preliminarily if that would be consistent with the master plan and he indicated that it would not be. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Aren't there -- provisional uses -- I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Hasse? COMMISSIONER HASSE: You know full well that .this Presbyterian Church is on 12 acres, not 5. MR. LEE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Proposed for 12 acres. Does that make a difference? .MR. LEE: In our interpretation, it is still a church and that doesn't meet the siting criteria and that approach is consistent with how we've made other interpretations. For example, provisional uses in the ii';.~.211J_hA-2 you .have to look and make sure the use is consistent. You just don't say, because it's a provisional use in the ~:" A-2.it's appropriate · ~,~ ..... And I think that line of thought is consistent with what we've done before. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I happen to agree with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F~, 33962 8O ..that interpretation and I said that yesterday. Also, I think the question though that needs to be asked is not simply a provisional use as a church. It would have to be.whether.any provisional use, any use that's permitted under a provisional use criteria that comes Jn as a PUP, would it be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? I.don't understand how we can select churches only, because provisional uses, as I understand, are just one of several different types of provisional uses. .~o really, an lnterDret. ation that goes beyond, could a daycare center which comes in as a Planned Unit Development rather than a provisional. use, would that be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Or any other .type, an ACLF, any one of those provisional uses, .whatever they are, and I don't know all the uses that are ..provisional. .MR. SPAGNA: I think you have a good point. However, to be specific at this time, I'm not interested .in daycare centers or -- I'm just CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: But then on the other hand, -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand. trying to get a clear picture here. MR. SPAGNA: The problem with daycare centers, they can come in and get an interpretation. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 81 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: On the other hand, you can have a provi -- yol~ c~Jn h~lve a PUD that h;~.~ ~Jllocatf~d in it churches, schools, multi-family residential, single family residential and commercial all within a PUD. MR. LEE: '../'i -i designation. But not within the Estates' CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: But if there was -- I mean, they could come in. I mean, it's conceivable that someone could come in with several hundred acres of land in a PUD or DRI regardless of what the zoning classification was. MR. LEE: They'd have to do it on a plan amendment. And if they just left it Estates, they'd have to be one unit per two and a quarter acres, albeit the provisions in the plan. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: mean, it's -- That's the problem. I lqow. MR. SPAGNA: I would like to comment on that PUD, a PUD is a type of zoning that really has no restrictions until it comes in here and has been submitted and you review it. Now, it does have criteria that has to be met. But it's a sort of a floating zoning district, if you want to look at it that way. And it would seem to me like unless the Golden Gate Master Plan specifically says that PUD's are not OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER CO~INTY, NAPI,ES, Fi, .33962 permitted, that they would be treated like any other area in the county and a person would be permitted to submit ....... th a t. ?<i: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Doctor Spagna -- Ron, I ,.... think we still have in our Zoning Ordinance the ability ~:~'.. .to grant a variance to the five acre minimum requirement .... :for..Planned Unit Development; is that correct? still have that? -< Do we MR. LEE: PUD's within activity centers. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, there used to be a procedure where if you had less than five acres you could actually apply for a variance to that five acre requirement. Can you do that any longer? MR. CUYLER: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Actually, I think the problem is that for every five acre chunk of land then anywhere in the Estates, using your argument, they could get the ability to build a church on any five acre tract :'77:'!:: ..:~%: ,..:,.of land. And our staff is telling us that that is not :.::!~. their interpretation of the code. You' re a~k J ng us t.~ ~]ay t'.ha t t}'~oy 'r'(:? wrr~ng, and · i:"' I don't think any of us are in a position to do that. ~::~[.~ ....Our legal staff and our planning staff have said that I would say this, the PUD simply they would not be -- MR. SPAGNA: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 83 ..says that we have a right to come in and apply. That doesn't mean that you automatically go in it and you apply the criteria if somebody wants to come in, that's fine. That doesn't mean they're going to get it. i!./i~[~. ~ · .want to make that decision. We're going to have to come ~n with our PUD and convince you that we've met all the criteria and that we ..~belong.in there. And we woulC like that opportunity. .That's what I'm asking you for tonight, or whenever you COMMISSIONER HASSE: Ms. student, is there any reason why they can't come Jn and apply? I mean, knowing full well or possibly that they'll have a real problem? MS. STUDENT: Commissioner, I believe the appropriate procedure would be for Mr. Spagna to seek an interpretation from the P]annirig finrvice$~ director as to whether that district contemplates churches. And then, you know, if he has a problem, appeal that decision, if he has a prc,b]em with Jr, to this Board. And I believe that that, you know, would be the correct process because the Planning Services manager under the same code is charged with that responsibility. MR. CUYLER: And the Board also needs to be careful about delving too deeply J_nto the matter since you are an appellate body. And if Mr. Spagna does take appeal, you're going to be the one that's sitting on that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPT,ES, FI, 33962 84 )eal, - "' COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'm not delving into anything. I'm just asking questions. MR. CUYLER: Well, you do ask questions, but be ..... .....careful..about giving any final answer. MR. SPAGNA: I'd like -- just so I understand .-~ what Ms. Student is saying, in other words, her ~./~ _, recommendation is that I write the Planning Services ~' . .. manager for an interpretation and then if I disagree with .:..i]> that, then I can appear before the Board as an appeal and .~ .......what about. the timetable on that? Now, that may not .:.. happen between now and the 5th. Would that have any .adverse effect on it? MS. STUDENT: Doctor Spagna, just let nm .. correct one thing. You would need to direct that inquiry to the -- but first to the G~owth Management director and --.not -- I'm sorry, Planning Services. would need to direct that inquiry to them. MR. SPAGNA: Planning Services. And you MR. CUYLER: I believe that appeals directly to _the county manager and Mr. Blanchard reviews Jt and provides an answer, county manager provide that. to you and the appellate remedy is the Board of County Commissioners. MR. SPAGNA: Wait a minute. OFFICIAl., COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,]I::R C,O!INTY, NAI'I,I'~], FI, F~3962 85 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: They're having a hard time picking you up. MR. SPAGNA: We're mixing two things here. In other words, I believe Marjorie is saying that first I should appeal to the Planning Services and I think -- COMMISSIONER VObPE: What she's saying is there's a provision in our or~inance and she's suggesting that you follow it. I think that's simply what she's suggesting that you do. MR. CUYLER: the procedure to you. MR. SPAGNA: That's correct. We can provide All right. I'd like to ask my client if he has any problem with that personally. I don't see anything wrong with it myself. But I want to ~make sure that I'm saying the right thing here. Am I? Do you have any problem -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The PA system's out. can't hear what you're saying anyway. We COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Neno, try to speak into It's out. that and see if they can pack it up. Everything is out? .speak to -- MR. SPAGNA: Could 1: l:ake a min,~l:o and just CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: What we're going to do is we're going to take about a ten-minute break. We'll OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAP[,ES, FI, 33962 ~-~i;~:~adjourn. back at five after 7:00. ~,~ ~ ,{' (A break was had from 6:55 p.m. until 7:05 p.m. and proceedings continued as follows:) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: ~{...i]back.to order. I'll call the meeting Can you hear us now? Testing one, two, three. Our next speaker, Tim. MR. CONSTANTINE: For the record, I'm Tim ...Constantine. I'm president of the Golden Gate Civic Association, and I'll be speaking on their behalf this evening. We are urging -- at our last meeting, we went .~_.th. rough,all .the information certainly not J.n as mllch ~ iiii.'.i. detail'as we are tonight, but went through the .information on this project. And o~ir c~vic association voted to favor the Ashley project, the activity center /.'::being amended to include the Ashley pro ect. From the very beginning, the Ashley people have cooperated not only with the county, obviously, in the planning process, but with the community, with the civic, different civic and the chamber associations out there. And~ they've also worked or tried to work with all the And it's my understanding that they have gone . ~ to all.the residents in that area that's being affected OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 87 by the proposed change and with the exception of the one family across the street on 47th; is that correct? Then the other people all like the idea. It's single-family residential on the street directly behind, parallel to the Parkway. (Commissioner Volpe entered the board room.) MR. CONSTANTINE: T]~ose people apparently like ~ the idea of a well-laid out commercial development better than th~ idea of multi-family h~ll~ing. Thny'r~ n~! rna] pleased at the prospect of quadplex, triplex, what have ,you · It's kind of a shame that it seems as though we may be penalizing the Ashley project just in a matter of timing. They're certainly not trying to sneak in the back door as we've said or an llth hour thing. This has been going on for the last six or eight months and they've been working on it. And it's unfortunate their plan overlaps the master plan changes and all and the submission to the state, but I don't think they should be penalized for it. It kind of comes down to the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law ~s ..is the project good? Is it good for the community? Against the letter of the law, does it fit in the activity center? And it does not fit in the activity OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES F~, 33962 · ~-i,.-,~center that ~we have outlined here; however, I do think it's for the good of the community, for a number of · reasons o 88 · Again, going with the opinion of the civic association and all of the residents surrounding, with the exception of one, surrounding that property, they certainly would rather see a commercial project of this nature rather than more duplex, triplex. We have in some people's opinion, including my own, too much of that concentrated in those areas out there in Golden Gate :,-F.':'-- already. There's some concern about light in the area. The. landscaping and greenery that is planned for this project, I believe you've all seen it in detail, it's certainly not going to be causing of any blight. It's an attractive layout. It's well laid out, it's well planned ~..and bottom line, it also provides a needed servjce for the Golden Gate community. So if you go back just a minute, through the spirit of the law against the letter of the law, no, right now it doesn't fit J~n w]tb the activity center that was laid out but in the spirit of what s good for the ~..-~.. ~ t community, I think this is. There's been some concern about the delay or the possible delays if the activity center is amended, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER CO~TNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 8 g but I think after six years, as Tom Grant mentioned, working with three different commissions and working over =.a course of six years, and I think after six years it's worth a few extra days to make sure we get it right. And I think this project is right and this project j~ good for Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: One of the f~rst questions that I had asked was actually why not just extend the boundary line of the activity center to take in all of that property .that would be on the south side of that alleyway? I mean, the argument that you made for the ..Ashley,property seems to me to be equally applicable to all that property along there. MR. CONSTANTINE: Most of that, if I understand what you're talking about, most of where that alley is is .already.developed with the little Parkway Plaza and some of those and has already been designed in that manner or you have the alleyway there and then you have backs of buildings and so on. You mean just as far up as where those .buildings -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What I was trying to get .at is that there's a whole strip of land there that -- .maybe not. Right in the green? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLTER COI. tNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 :.:",.'. .. :, ,'.COMMISSIONER ,VOLPE: Yeah, right. !i::..ii'i- MR. LEE: Residential zoning. .... -..~... COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Now, that's on the south :';..side of.-- what's the street that runs along there? 9O ..... COMMISSIONER VOLPE: street that's behind -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Golden Gate Parkway. No, no, not that one. Forty-seventh? The MR. LEE: I don't know the name of that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: No, it isn't 47th. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm just wondering whether ..,the staff has given any consideration to extending the '::::i'<.b0~ndary..line of the activity center to take in all of ~:. .that property if it's along 47th to make that l]ne ',:~,.,.consistent rather than just having that little square for ;!..~ -- · ~:;.i.:-<the Ashley -- ~".:.~i...i~.,here and you would get a situation where you could have MR. LEE: All the way down here? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah. MR. LEE: When you mentioned that, I indicated that th~re are delveloped reni,lnnl. Jal hounding ,,ni.l~ in ' commercial right next to a res.fdontial and ]t could be on ". either side by -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, that's what we're ';...:,':.-'.iTgoing to have .with Ashley. I mean, the lot -- the lot -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ..... COMMISSIONER VOLPE: going to be residential. MR. LEE: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. LEE: This one here? The one to the west is So I mean, I guess what 91 I'm looking at, that opens up a whole other issue ~guess, .but one of the other thoughts that I had was along · the. Parkway, we actually established two and a half acre PUD's along the Parkway, as I recall. So consistent with that, I mean, you're never to be able to get a two and a half acre PUD in that area, are you; in the area that we're talking about, which would be -- and I'm sorry, it's hard to describe verbally, west of the Ashley. Are you going to be able i]~?'~,'?-'.~.~.to get two,and a half acre PUD's in there? MR. LEE: I don't think so because of the development pattern in there with sporadic residential uses appearing in between there. MR. BLANCHARD: Just to make sure I'm understanding, Bob Blanchard from the Growth Planning staff, in the.area that's designated for the Parkway commercial, we can get two acre PUD's in there. I th~nk Ron is suggesting behind the existing activity center -then because of the size of the parcels we would not be able to get PUD's in there. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33962 one .other point that I wanted to make about extending the activity center to a large degree is that Ron did an analysis of the coJnmercja] zoning [r~ Go](ler~ Gate and looking at the needs into the future and it after the planned text. study that we're all 92 familiar with for the Growth Management Plan, and there's .a lot of commercial zoning in Golden Gate and a lot of it's going to be retained through zoning re-evaluation. The reasoning why -- the reasoning for the extension of the district down the Parkway was because it .... serves as an entry and that -- it is hoped it would be ~'~ .... designed as the main street for Golden Gate and Golden · .Gate City, really. But as far as extending the activity " center, I think at this time that staff would discourage 5' ;~.....that based on prior analysis that says we've got p].enty ,~;~.. of commercial zoning; may not be the right kind of .... ~,commercial zoning, but after the master plan's adopted, they'll be able to get the full range of commercial .activities within the activity center. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That helps clarify the question. MR. CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Any other questions? Thank you. Next OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Next speaker is Gerald McKenzie. Followin9 Mr. McKenzie will be Robert Duane. MR. McKENZIE: I'd like to say something on behalf of Faith Unity Baptist Church. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Mr. McKenzie, would you . .identify .yol~rself so that the stenographer w/l] know who's speaking? MR. McKENZIE: I'm Gerald McKenzie, and I represent the members of the Faith Unity Baptist Church. And I think -- you know, they're trying to get a provisional use for their church, and, as Mr. Volpe said, the issue is really one of fairness. Where are you simply trying to do things the best way they coulO. They're not a very sophisticated organization. going to draw the line? And I think in the case of the Faith Unity, they had no intention of doing anything in a devious way or coming through the back door. They were They can't anticipate the new regulations that are coming down. They may hear about it, but they don't know a lot ..about it. They were working under the only law that they knew, and that was the current plan. .that the system required them to do. They d'[d everything Last week the -- your advisory board, the Planning Commission, unanimously recommended, you know, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 the provisional use. 94 And I just think any way that you can, you should consider trying to help them ...... :meet their.goal. That's basically all I have to say :!i:' about that. But I do have a general question about the Golden Gate Master Plan. I'm just wondering if the staff has looked at the constitution31 impact on zoning out fundamental constitutional rights. I don't know. It's Just a question. But it seems like the plan may be overly restrictive on organizations just such as churches. .question. And I think there could be a constitutional That's just a question. I don't know. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I don't -- I have never seen a case of this type where certain limitations placed on the location of a house of worship has been thrown out because of a First Amendment concern. ~ .....~., I .would suggest, however, that this is ~/~i analogous to a situation where there are limitations ~?.??~? i.: /..:~.9.0 I..placed on say where you're lee] to put newspaper strands in -~~.~'~:~::~. :.th. city. Th.r. hay. been chall.ng. to those kinds of ~~~"~'~ I.~::~;:~ requirements and the Court said reasonable time, place ~M%~,~.-',..., ,.',' ..... ~~/:Z:>25 I ;::-::~'. Also, on other cases ~nvolv~ng religion, for ' .'. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, PT, 33962 95 /~.example, Indian tribes have not been allowed to take certain types of threatened or endangered species for use ,i~in their religious rituals. Again, because there was an .~ overriding concern for the public health, safety and ..welfare. So, I feel that as long as the restriction has ~a rational -- these restrictions have a rational basis ~.and are supported by our studies, that there would be no First Amendment challenge that would be sustainable on a freedom of religion ground. MR. LEE: I'd like to add to that some. For clarification purposes, we have allowed 55 acres within the Estates for provisional uses and we also identified 11 additional sites that would meet the siting criteria ~being next to commercial or next to a fire station. So with those 11 sites and in addition to the 55 acres that are allowed, we feel that we have provided for churches and other provisional uses in an adequate fashion. MR. McKENZIE: I guess my question is I know the plan allows for certain types of things. But I don't know that the net result wn,]]d actually end up being that · way. it. We may be zoning out certain uses and not knowing So I'm just wondering Jf we actually looked at OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CObblER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .what .the .real effect may be. that's my only point. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: speaker? MR. LAVERTY: And, you know, -- Thank you. Next Robert Duane, followed by Wayne 96 : MR. DUANE: Good evening. I'm Robert Duane representing myself. I'm a resident of Golden Gate ::,::..i: .....Estates. I appreciate the dilemma the Board has on plan changes .and just one or two comments to make. I think it's obviously within your purview to make some reasonable changes as long as they're in the :.:. .community's interest and they would meet with DCA's approval. I think the service station that we're discussing this evening is probably one of those and I would hope that you would put your good common sense and .good planning principles draw up that petition rather than getting bogged down in some of the procedural issues and process related issues that you have received, because I can't believe for a minute the Department of Community Affairs would look at a change like this, in my opinion, and frankly have any problem with it. Nor do I think it would undo a lot of good work that's been done in this planning process, with all due OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLE,q, FL 33962 respect, to.the opinions that others have expressed tonight. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Wayne Martin, followed by Daniel .Brundage. 97 MR. MARTIN: My name is Wayne Martin. I reside at 812 Saint Andrews Boulevard. I was a resident in Golden Gate Estates for 13 years and I still currently own six acres on 23rd Avenue Southwest. I'm the moderator of the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church Building Committee. I as a resident of Golden Gate did send in my response to that questionnaire and at the time as a member of the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church and a citizen of that community · didn't see a need or it wasn't pointed out or I didn't .recognize it that we were -- we felt legislating churches out of business as we are today. We -- as the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church six years ago, five years ago and four years ago, we thought we were in pretty good shape on our present site. We have four acres in Golden Gate City. Since that time and in the last year, we moved ahead with plans for a 12-acre site on Saint Andrews Boulevard and spent and have plans worth about $10,000. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COIJNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 98 So_we also have made an investment. tinder the -.~.t ><'direction of staff, we were going down some roads with a provisional use and have turned towards the Planner] Unit Development. . .Staff has told us that our plan would be now .inconsistent with the Golden Gate Master Plan and that's we're here to hopefully change that on Santa Barbara h.~t. ~..where we currently have a church on the corner, where we currently have the Naples Christian Academy. Across the street is the David Lawrence Child Care Center. We border multi-family and Berkshire Village as well as the park, would be katty-corner to it, the Co]]let County park. ~.~': : So we th~nk w~ wo,ld b~ vory cons'J. nl:.ent and we think maybe the zoning along this area for Golden Gate . . should have said churches or schools or what have you along that four lane section of Santa Barbara Boulevard · Along with the one-acre site on Golden Gate Parkway, personally I support. that. The woman who objects to it's Mrs. Kelly or Mr. Kelly, who are relatives of mine, but I'd rather see this site. It's good for Golden Gate as we've bear(] here tonight, and if ~we can do that, why can't we make a few of these other .. changes? We're also not trying to come An the back door. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,lER COllNq'Y, NAPI,I.]:], FI, .13062 99 u .......Wetve been working on our project. It's good for Golden Gate. We shared some petitions yesterday. And again, if .... -.'.. we have an opportunity to change it, this is what we feel ~:',..:,.?.~'::.the public process is about, throughout it, whether it's . . the first meeting or the 10]st meeting, until someone has it, we don't have it. So if we can change it, let's change it. We .feel it's good for Golden Gate. We fee] the people are behind us that signed those petitions and sent those letters. And if there's any way possible that this is l..~.i...the opportunity to do it, then we ask that you please do that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: speaker? MR. LAVERTY: ._the last.public speaker. here? Thank you. Next Daniel Brundage. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: She's blocking that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: .~'~... _ .......Brundage. And he will be Can you bring that over He's telling you you're in All I can say right now is that Wayne's got some problem with some relatives. MR. BRUNDAGE: For the record, my name is Dan I live at 2695 66th Street Southwest, and I've been a resident of Collier County for 14 years. I'm ~"~'~' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER CO~NTY NAPLES, FL 33962 .'......speaking to you tonight as a member of the Grace Bible Church and a member of the Board of Deacons of the church. 100 I wasn't necessarily prepared to speak tonight, . ~ ~. so if I sound a little bit illiterate, that's probably because.I.am. First of all, I'd just like to support Dr Spagna's position and many ott,er speakers you've had tonight supporting churches in our area. I'd just like to make a statement for the record that I too support churches and I think they provide an essential service in ....... our area and I'd like to see a little more favorable governmental atmosphere as far as approval of the churches. ~,:~::.~ ...... As a member of Grace Bible, we too find ourselves in the same position as some of the other churches in that we may gain provisional use approval for an expanded site on one week but the following week after that we may find ourselves not being vested. And I guess I'm here on behalf of that problem, to seek some solution of that to encourage you all to come up with a solution to the vesting problem. Churches were approved as provisional uses in .residential areas and as such should not be considered as an encroachment into a residential but rather as an · .essential service. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33962 lol I~d also submit to you that a church is less of an encroachment to a neighborhood than a six lane divided highway which is.what we're going to find on Golden Gate :~'~(~'" 5 .Parkway. And as such, I would submit to you that the church would provide somewhat of a buffer between that major highway and the residential areas that surround it. ..... Finally, Just looking at the language in the provisional uses here and as an engineer in the community, I don't know if consideration's been given to the fact that we may be boxing ourselves into a corner as far as other essential uses such water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants, pumping stations, electrical i'il,/':i;.~l>substations and telephone switching equipment as far as the language in the provisional uses stated here. .It appears to me that provisional uses are going to be allowed in a very very small area. And as the community continues to grow, so will the need for essentia] services. And T'm not sure that we're ]~avirlg ourselves enough room and flexibility to provide for those future essential services. With that, that's the .end of my speech and I'd be happy to entertain any "/" ~questions. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Any questions? MR. LEE: I'd like to respond to his comments. allow essential services such as water treatment OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,]ER COUNTY, MAPLES, FI, 33962 102 "~.(':~...!~plants and those kinds of essential services defined by the Zoning Ordinance anywhere within the Estates. It's those other provisional uses such as churches, child CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: And social clubs. MR. LEE: -- and institutional uses that are governed by the new criteria. _CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Next speaker? .> ..... MR. LAVERTY: There are no further speakers, ~Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: ...... . please, or give.us a real fast synopsis of what we need b...~'~.' ." to do herQ bQcal~e you and stair is going to need some direction on a couple of problems that we have. MR. LEE: Okay. It's staff's recommendation '~ .........for. approval with the changes that were outlined in the staff report we would add Policy 1.6 and 1.7. We have cited all reference ordinances. Ron, would you outline, CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Let's start with the Is there any discussion on the addition of Policies one. 1.6 and 1.77 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is also our first public hearing. We're not makJ. ng any final decisions. CHAIRPERSON GOODNTGHT: We're not making -- I'm OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER C. OUNTY, NAPI,ES, F.L 33062 103 .~i~i:i:!i:~i[i,,asking the Board .if we have a problem with them to direct, to address staff or for staff to address them to ' ~ ._bring them ·back to the February 5th meeting. :.~:,.:~ ...... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I certainly have no problem. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: No problem. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIG}~T: All right. The next item? ............ MR. LEE: Item number two is citation of all ........... ~eference ordinances. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Housecleaning. MR. LEE: Third one is we have amended the plan to recognize the Affordable Housing Density Bonus .Ordinance as being adopted. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Sounds good. Sounds good to me. MR. LEE: Allowing commercial under cr/teria. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Sounds excellent. .MR. LEE: Allowing drive-through bank facilities. The only outstanding issue Js the Parkway or the activity center on the Parkway, and perhaps .... provisional uses. "" COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'd ~%,?~.: like to have the Board consider a policy whereby ~f there OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33962 .,., .........'~is a property owner and there's an application that is on · -il~:.~..' file on or before February 5, 1991 that. the Board ......... consider that application. For example, the Faith Unity · ,,..'.:..Church has a provisional use that's already in existence, so that would be a permit or an application that's ...... ~: .....already on file. :11~./_:w..~ .... Ashley Oil has their' approval already on file. ...... And if the.Baptist or rather the Presbyterian church, Golden Gate Presbyterian Church was able to get a complete application in for provisional use prior to or on or before February 5th, 199] that the Commission state .as~a matter of policy we will consider those applications "" "~ - under the old comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Would you group Grace Bible Church in that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If they're able to get an application in prior to February 5th. MR. KELLER: Point of order. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: There are going to be change of petition, so that's before. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They've already got an application in, the Grace Bible -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Yes, they're on the · agenda for Tuesday. MR. KELLER: Point of order. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 105 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a reason for that, Madam Chairman. When the comprehensive plan Generally for the county was approved, property owners that had applications in that had made plans prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan were given the opportunity under the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance to ;~.~i~.~ ....'.at least have an opportunity to argue that they were vested, to argue that they were within the process prior to the adoption of the plan and therefore should have some opportunity to continue with their proj(~ct. With the Golden Gate Master Plan, on February 5th, we are approving it. And unless we have some language that I'm suggesting, then property owners that .~ have been planning expansions or whatever would have no opportunity like other property owners would have under the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance. .... So I think it's a matter of policy we could permit property owners with applications in on or before . ~.February 5th, 1991 to proceed under the old comprehensive MR. KELLER: Po]r~t nf ~rder. MR. LEE: So somebody could come tomorrow and file an application -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Just a second, Ron. George, according to Robert's Rules of Order, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLbIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 106 ..,:,i~,~5 .....:point.of ordercannot be asked unless there's a motion on the floor and there's not a motion on the floor. If you have a question~ you may stand up at the microphone and · ask the question. MR. KELLER: The point that I'm making is you can't specifically like he, the Commissioner said, the certain pieces -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: The name is what? MR. KELLER: My name is George Keller. He has to say all applications that have been started before the 5th, regardless of who they are, because you can't -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I said. MR. KELLER: -- take exception. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I sa~d. MR. KEbLER: Secondly -- you did, I think, .... :....correct it and that's where it shotlid be. If you're going to do that, you have to leave it open to anybody up 'til February 5th that starts an a[,p]icat'ir~r~. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. And that would give the Commission the opportunity to review the application or petition. It would not be an .automatic approval. We would have the option to review it and determine compatibility and all other zoning issues that would be related to it. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 107 ~COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So essentially -- MR. LEE: Then I have two questions. Would that permit somebody coming in tomorrow that does not have anything active and filing an application? I guess .that's my concern is that you could get an onslaught of requests for provisional uses tomorrow and the next nine .subseqtlent days and we'd have to consider all those. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: And I think that at that time then this Board is going to have to address them and look at them to see what the criteria is. I .mean, we had exactly the same thing with zoning re-evaluation when we had some deadlines on that. As staff well.knows, there was an onslaught of people coming in to try to get their fezones before that deadline. And I concur with what Commissioner Saunders is saying. I think that we need to be consistent and we're not being consistent with the overall county and, you know, with the Golden Gate plan or with the Immokalee plan because something very similar happened with the Immokalee plan because the Zoning Re-evaluation letters were sent out even though to what was inconsistent in the overall plan, but it was not inconsistent with what was .in the Immokalee plan. So, you know, I have a tendency to agree with him. Commissioner Volpe? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33062 108 MR._ KELLER: Could I ask another question? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Just a second, George. Commissioner Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have a -- I'd like -- I have a.problem with that policy. If what you're saying is let's create a new zoning re-evaluation program for Golden Gate, if anyone has an epplication for a provisional use on file before February 5th, then essentially that triggers the zoning re-evaluation program. What criteria would we use in evaluating whether they come within the compatibility exception or are we just saying that if it's approved that that then will be consistent with the plan? I just don't understand how you administer the policy, what kind of direction we give to the staff. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'd have to conduct a typical zoning evaluation that we would for any Planned Unit Development or provisional use or any application that's filed. It would be, you know, the typical compatibility with the neighborhood, all the standards that we apply to any zoning. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How would you apply that policy to Ashley service station? We've already been through that process. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's a good question. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 109 I think that that's a tough one because quite frankly between now and February 5th, they may very well have a final site plan in which case they are, from what I understand, they're okay anyway. for building --. MR. LEE: Is that a possibility Get a building permit. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the other -- you know, as I say, and I'm just -- for purposes of our discussion, I mean, you're saying that fairness says that these people have to have an opportunity to have their property evaluated under some type of a zoning re-evaluation system, and I don't deny that. I mean -- but I'm not sure how you do that and what criteria you're going to use and I don't see where any of these would come under any of the criterias I understand under the zoning re-evaluation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're not creating -- we've giving people a window, an opportunity to have the commission review their projects under the existing comprehensive plan, in a similar fashion what we did with other property owners that were subject to the Zoning Re-eva]liar]on Ordinance, bill: we are not say:Jng that |[ they're in a certain stage of the process that they are subject to zonin9 re-evaluation. What we're saying is that we will apply the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 110 .traditional.zoning standards to any applications that are applied on or before February 5th, and, you know, if we find that the use is compatible and is acceptable, then we can permit it. We're not -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So the plan wouldn't -- the Future Land Use Map then of the Golden Gate Master .Plan would not be, would not ~pply to any petition that was filed before its effective date. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. them -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAM: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: them that approval. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: consistent then. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if If we elected to give If we elected to give Yon would deem them to be That's correct. MR. LEE: Just so I'm following you, I just thought of some language. Would it be like any development order reviewed for project that has been filed prior to February 5th will be reviewed under the old master plan, something like that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Correct. And the County Attorney'~ Commission agrees in principle to that policy, the County OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 '~ .... 22 Attorney's Office will have to work with the planning staff to provide us the appropriate language for approval .on February 5th. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Ken? MR. CUYLER: As we]] as any ramifications. We haven't had a chance to research the effects of that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I understand. Right. MR. KELLER: George Keller. I'd like to just make a comment on that. Number one, are you goJ. ng to advertise this in the paper tomorrow morning that anybody .. that wants to come in here with another permit to fezone, that they're going to be vested if they come in before ..February 5th? Because, you know, there's been hundreds of people, and they include all the people along Golden Gate Parkway that wanted commercial, that they were willing to accept professional with curb cuts with two and a half acres and fewer curb cuts. Every single one of those .people can come in here and quick file an application and that'll all be commercial. In other words, all the work we did for two years is thrown right out the wi. ndow. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: George, let me ask you this: We have been debating publicly the Go]den Gate Master Plan, the new Golden Gate Master Plan for some, several years. We haven't had a rush of applications in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLL?ER c. OUNT~.', NAPI,ES, PL 33962 112 .the last six or eight months. MR. KELLER: ........ opened up the~door. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You will now because you have Well, Mr. Keller, what is different between now and February 5th and a period of time, say the summer up until now when everybody knew ...what we were talking about? MR. KELLER: Because everybody knew that -- everybody was assumed that this -- that we took a position and the staff took a position and that it went to public hearings and they were advised what the plan was going to be and most of the people accepted the plan except the people that had some chance to make a dollar by having their property rezoned. And.now I wouldn't blame every single person · ' that had duplex zoning along Golden Gate Parkway that's "il, ....~ not_in. this activity center to immediately file a request to have their property rezoned commercial and C-1 ~f they feel like. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The other -- I understand the policy and I guess there's some consensus here. I just think about the gentleman who I mentioned earlier who had a piece of property on Green Boulevard who asked that same question about what he should do and we told him not to bother filing his petition. We should OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 25 113 ._probably call hfm and tell him to come back in because he's got a chance now. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: There's a difference in policy, Mike. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand. I'm just saying for purposes of our discussion, that would have that effect. And the other w.~uld be, you know, when we approved that Fraternal Order of Eagles on Green Boulevard, I think it was a Fraternal Order of Eagles, we looked at them in a budded residential neighborhood and we looked at them and sald, we're going to look at you under both the old and the new and we satisfied ourselves that in that instance it was consistent. So, I see the hardship here. I think that there is a mechanism for those like the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church and the church that Mr. Spagna, the other church that Mr. Spagna represents, to go through a process where there is the substantiation for why it's good planning to change the Future Land Use Map. So, I hear what you're saying. I just -- I don't know how we get to that result. I'm not sure that that policy's the way, but that's the reservation that I have right now. MR. KELLER: The truth of the matter is -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: We can't satisfy OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33062 114 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: George, just have a seat, okay? You've made your point. There's other '~.- ..........Commissioners.-- there's Commissioners that want to talk ..... about the thing and you're interrupting them. Commissioner }tasse? COMMISSIONER HASSE: My concern is that are we disrupting this entire master plan by this kind of an action on our part? It would seem to me that we understand the building permit had been in place. Is that the criteria we use? Now somebody can come in and say just apply now .and they're still -- they're still underneath the old plan. So now if it takes a year or two years from the Board for a building permit, it's all right? Is that basically what I see here? Well, I'm wholeheartedly · opposed to.that. I think we have a good master plan here. have some concerns about the churches, whether they will be granted provisional use or PUP, and that has -- we have a proper method in which to apply for that. But I can't disrupt though or destroy this entire master plan because that's what we're doing basically. So I cannot support that. .... COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Frank, I'd like to have OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER c. OI,NTY, NAPI,E,q, FI, 33962 · , your.or.staff's.view of this potential policy. MR. BRUTT: Well, I wanted a clarification. For the record,. Frank Brutt, Community Development 'Services Administrator. I.believe the statement that Commissioner Saunders said was that anyone who has a complete application for provisional use on file by February 5th. George was mentioning rezonJng. There's a lot of ...difference.. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think anybody -- I don't think anybody can have a complete application on file for a fezone between now arid February .5th if .they haven't already expended a tremendous amount of time and effort to get to that point. MR. BRUTT: Looking at it from the provisional use, you have a very narrow band of activities that can .be under the category of provisional use. I just wanted that clarification. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the policy would exclude the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church then. MR. BRUTT: Well, it might also exclude Ashley's gas station. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The Golden Gate Presbyterian Church can file a provisional use. They've talked about a Planned Unit Development. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO[,LIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 116 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's just -- I'm not trying to-- ~;~:~?."~:i.:,~?~.3=l_, ........ . . MR. BRUTT: Am I correct that your statement ~':".~ ;.':~-~ :::' %1, ' ~:~'?,:.?::~i4:{..:.:,:.. .would also e~clude Ashley · 9a. station because Ashley ,4.- 5 O~s 8tation ~as not ~ provisional use presentation .... 6~';.':'., . consideration. There was another zoning action. So how would we handle that? I mean --- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Good question, Mr. Brutt. I'm not sure how you'd handle that one. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Point well made. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Bob, can we have your viewpoint? MR. LEE: I think I stated earlier my concern .was how many provisional use applications are we going to get between now and February 5th. That's staff's concern. If there's somehow to limit those applications, I think we may feel somewhat comfortable with it. But it's hard to predict. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, the other aspect of the policy is. that the Commission would not be saying that any application would be approved. The Commission would simply be saying that we will go to the evaluation process that we would typically use on any provisional use and make a determination as to whether it was acceptable. So this is not. a situation where we're OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 :It". ._17 ~'.~ ~,.. '. ~ ~:;' . ~:',.. ' ~ . . ..23 .~.~ .,-,~=., .....Lsuggesting .that_:any application filed is going to be .'- approved. 117 MR. LEE: It'd be just considered. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It would just be considered, under the old comprehensive plan. MR. BLANCHARD: Bob Blanchard. I don't really have a response other than what Ron said. I've taken Commissioner Saunder's recommendation to be one that what you're doing is finding that anything that's in the works right now could at least be considered consistent with the Growth Management Plan and then the merit, they'd be judged on their own merits of the individual application. Frank brought up a good point, though, that the way that it was worded does not address the Ashley service station. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I don't deny for a second that I'm groping for the appropriate language. That's why I suggested that the -- if the Commission agreesin principle with this, that the County Attorney with your help would provide us the appropriate wording for this policy. But the absc)]ute cut-off would bo February 5th, 1991 for applications. MR. BLANCHARD: I think that we'd have to work with the language because somehow we would have to modify the intent of Policy 3.1.K because obviously if the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2':' 118 application is in, as Commissioner Hasse said, it could be years down the road before they'd get a building .:. :.permit if all they've done is submit an STP. I don't believe the STP's have timelines. So there's no guarantee about when development would occur. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have a problem with ..still creating another exemption to the Future Land Use Map. I mean -- and that's essentially what we'd be doing is creating another exemption. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a minute ago you said you didn't have too much trouble with it. COMMISSIONER VO[,PE: No, did -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Bob, that's not what provisional use say. The provisional use said that they have to have a building permit within a one-year period and they're allowed to have an additional year to acquire that building permit. It doesn't say anything about a site development plan. MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: So within a two-year time period, the provisional use is null and void. MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, ma'am. But if -- for instance, if the suggestion was to expand applications -- I'm just taking the hypothetical situation that we take it out and you do want to try to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 119 on .tho .corner the Parkway ith the service station, that if they got their STP approved and we would still consider the future development orders, then you may run into that type of situation. COMMISSIONER HABSE: on the DCA? MR. BLANCHARD: Would this have any impact Well, it's hard to estimate what DCA is going to respond back to. A lot of it depends on the justification that we're able to put in there when we show the changes. The main point to consider on this Js that .they've had 90 days to consider the master plan Jn the form that we've got it right now. They will not have had that opportunity to review th~s, but yet when you pass the master plan on the 5th, ~t becomes ].ocal law. And from that day forward, we can Jssue permits based on that, on that document. So all of a sudden we're in a potential situation whereby we may be implementing a plan that they may find to be, that they may issue a notice of non-compliance, and then we're back in the administrative hearing process and we're really implementing a plan that hasn't gotten through the entire approval -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Here's one other thing perhaps we need to keep Jn m~nd: We're not making any OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPbES, FL 33962 24 120 · .final policy.statement tonight if the Commission goes along with this. What we're simply saying is that on February 5th we may adopt this as our policy. On February 5th, we're going to know how many ~applications are filed. And if we have 300 applications on file all of a sudden, that may affect how we want to respond. On the other hand, if we have two on file, we may want to ratify the policy. All we're doing -- all I'm suggesting is giving property owners a little, a very short window of opportunity. I, suspect that: we're going to have two property owners that we're going to be dealing with. I don't think we're going to have 250. If we do, then I'm not going to elect the policy myself. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, just for clarification so I understand, Commissioner Saunders, · .before, what I was saying was the procedure. I'm supportive of going through the procedure. What we've heard are some objections to going through a plan amendment process with the proper ~ubstantiation, and what I would like to see is those people who are filing these petitions for provisional use, for Planned Unit Development, file an application for a plan amendment at the same time because there may or may not be the same informat-ion that's required, but OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 -'2. 6 10 15 -.,: 1.7 there is that process in place. That's where I was trying to come from. mean, with Golden Gate Presbyterian Church, you know, we could approve their application; they could come in, we could approve their application; they would then have to go to a plan amendment process, and it's just a question of whether they go through the plan amendment process versus the rezone. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't have to have any particular policy to permit them to go through a plan amendment. procedure. They can do that. They've got an absolute right to do that, but -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER SALINDERS: You're talking about at least a one year process if not more. And the potential of the Commission amending the comprehensive plan for an individual property owner under these circumstances is nil. It is not going to happen. So I would suggest that we see what: happens. Let's see how many applications we have in, and we have plenty of protections in terms of the review of those petitions that are filed. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: My concern with that, Burr, is to wait and see how many we have, and are you suggesting if we had 300 that would affect how some of us OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 122 may consider_that policy? I'm concerned about leading people to believe that they may have an opportunity and 300 file and then we say no, too many of you filed we're not going to do it. So I have a little bit of a concern about that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Only 295 will -- _COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think we're going to have that problem. COMMISSIONER SIIANAIIAN: W~ll, ynah, it. would be great if that in fact -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Quite frank]y, I think if we were going to have that problem, we'd be sitting here with those 200 applications already on file, people would have done it six months ago. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Doctor Spagna? MR. SPAGNA: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to make sure I understood that both of my petitions, the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church and the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church would be included under Mr. Saunder's, Commissioner Saunder's suggestion. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: If the paper work -- at this point if the paper work is in the hands of staff by February the 5th, then yes, it would be included; if not, then it would not be. MR. SPAGNA: Okay. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,TER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fl., 33962 123 COMMISSIONER HASSE: The paper work on Ashley is already in, and it's been approved. So they don't have anything to worry about; is that right? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: No, because if we .don't -- on .February the 5th, if we don't change the boundary of the commercial area, then they have something to worry about. If we change the boundaries, then they're not going to have anything to worry about. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if we do this, it should be by 5:00 p.m. on February 5th so there will be a time certain. MR. BRUTT: Madam Chairman, my only comment is if. you have a closing date same time as your meeting, there may not be an opportunity for staff to even have a moment to review them and get you an adequate staff report. You'd have to take that into consideration. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we can have the cut-off that Monday before the meeting. Don't leave, Neno. MR. CUYLER: I think that what Commissioner Shanaban said was a good point, Commissioner Shanaban brought up, and that is no final decisions are being made tonight. Everybody's at their own risk whether or not the Board ultimately approves something along these lines, if you file a fee, you're on your own. No OFFICIAl., COURT REPORTERS, COLI.,TER COUNTY, NAPLES, Pl, 33962 124 decision's going robe made on this for two weeks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Maybe the cut-off should be February 3rd at 5:00 o'clock. .Chairman? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Shall we move on, Madam All right. did you -- I'm sorry, sir. subject? Were you wanting to speak on this MR. BARNES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: If you'll identify .yourself, please. MR. BARNES: at 366 Henley Drive. Presbyterian Church. My name's Steve Barnes. It's regarding Golden Gate I reside Commissioner, I appreciate your guiding this, but there's a couple things that I've listened to. Our church has got to go on a Planned Unit Development. And the reason is it's a 12 plus acre tract. It'll be phased construction. For our lending requirements, we will have to have zoning that runs with the ground, and that's why we're using the PUD. And it's for church use only. The concern about having hundreds of people coming in here with a complete set of plans, it's t3ken us mix months to get them ready and several thousand dollars to get them OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COM,TER C. OUNTY, NAPLE.q, Fl_, 33062 there. 125 And what I'm trying to find out is between now and February 5th, the word provisional use has been used. Commissioner VolDe has used the word PUD also and I want to make sure the PUD is in there. And then yesterday in this -- we discussed this and you mentioned that perhaps that if the Commission did not pass this on February 5th that the fees would be refunded. And what I'm trying to do here is be a good steward of our church's money. We don't need to have a $3500 filing fee, and obviously you don't have to go to Las Vegas to gamble in this world. So, we can get a package filed, but if the Commission for technicality reasons decides that it won't work, and you know good well the county's not going to spend any money really -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The staff obviously is not going to do any reviewing, and I think since we are considering a policy that we may not even approve, that it would make sense that if lhere is a filing fe~ paid that it be refunded if we don't adopt the policy. I would have no problem with that. MR. BARNES: That -- and our church has done a PUD with a full-blown set of plans, so -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Will it be a complete OFFICIAl., COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,TER COUNTY, NAPbE,q, FI, 33962 126 application? .... MR. BARNES: Gee, I can't lie to you. It'll -- we'll make them happy between now and then. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What's dragging all of this is fairness and equity. At least that's what I'm hearing. And in my view, the knee jerk reaction is that we have lulled a certain number of people into not doing anything because they didn't feel they had enough time for them to file their applications, to go through the process and they acted in good faith and for us now at ....... the 11th hour to say htlrry tip, anybody who can file a completed application for provisional use or PUP in the next ten days, we'll consider you, is not fair to all of those other people who perhaps missed their window of opportunity because they knew that the process didn't allow for that and they were not going to be able to .process it and get it through before the adoption of the plan. I mean, so there are -- that's why I still have those same reservations about the policy, and I'm trying to think that through. But. I still have the same reservations. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, let me OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 127 .make this in the form of a motion and see .if there's a consensus to go along with the policy. We all understand what it is. We may not fully understand all the implications, but certainly between now and February 5th we'll have all that information. I'd like to suggest as a matter of policy that for.any applications, any complete applications that are filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, February 4th, that the Commission will consider a policy whereby those applications will be considered under the old .comprehensive plan. Any zoning issues that would be relevant would certainly be considered by the Commission, that's Planned Unit Developments and that's provisional uses. And that if anybody files an application in reliance on this potential policy, which the Commission may decide not to proceed wiLh, that if there's an application fee filed in reliance on this general discussion of a potential policy, that the fees would be refunded if the Commission does not adopt this policy on February 5th. The cut-off wo]lld be 5:00 p.m. on February 4th, 1991. I'll make that in the form of a motion. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Coq~missioner Shanaban, do you have a problem with that motion? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I'm waiting to hear a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 '23 2~ it, SO -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: 128 Well, we can't vote on COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: terms of whether there's a consensus. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I didn't think we were supposed to vote on it. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: cannot vote on the motion. There's a motion that has been made or there's a suggestion that has been made. there's a consensus of this Board tonight of at least three votes, then the staff will take this as a Well, I think we can in Well, we cannot -- we ..... . , recommendation to bring it back to us on February the If 5th; however, it's my. understanding that on February the 5th, that if this to be completed, it's going to take four votes; is that correct? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. MR. LEE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That was go].ng to be my question, Madam Chairman. If we pass this policy, final adoption requires four votes? MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: So, I'll ask Commissioner Shanaban. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: No. OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: No. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Yelps? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: No. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Hasse? Myself, yes. 129 Commissioner Saunders? Three yeses on this end, so that's five to two. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: counsel. You're at the Board of County Commissioners. They've got seven, we've got five. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: All right. Commissioner Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Another issue relating to the Golden Gate Master Plan, redevelopment. How is that addressed in the Golden Gate Master Plan? Specifically, I have in mind 951. There's got to be some commercial uses along 951 that are deemed inconsistent with the plan. How are we going to treat redevelopment and reconstruction? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Don't we have designated areas along 9517 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I'm thinking of the truck stop, for example, on 951, out that way. MR. BLANCHARD: The Go]den Gate Master Plan Because you're on the city OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 130 specifically identifies the areas of the Growth Management Plan that it will supersede. It will not supersede the redevelopment policy. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So 5.9 will apply here as well? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: All right. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Then may I have a motion to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I would so move, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, before you do that, let me -- just another thought. I understand the concern for new app].J. cations. What about applications that are already on file prior to tonight? And that's -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'll I can understand that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's only one, and make a motion that we at least consider that one OFFICIAL c. OURT REPORTERS, COIJ:TER COtINTY, NAPT,ES, FL q3962 that's already on file. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER HASSE: file. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: one, but the same policy -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: file, I can understand. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: form of a motion. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: opportunity to revisit that, yes. 131 Yes. There's more than one on Maybe there's more than If it's already on I'll make that in the I'll second that. And again we have the Yes. MR. CUYLER: Again, that would be for direction of staff we would bring back. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HASSE: How did that work out? Did you go outside, Mr. Cuyler? Excuse me. MR. CUYLER: I was gettio~ ready to walk out. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Just wondering. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: There's enough of consent on this Board for staff to work on that and bring that back to us on February the 5th. MR. LEE: Does that include commercial fezones to PUD and provisional uses? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO[.LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 132 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If it's already on .. file. .i~..~,~i.i ..... CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: If it's already on ; :..,:,.file. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: done, okay? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: pipeline. MR. LEE: use or a rezone. And it's already been Already in the That would include any provisional CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Okay. Then I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No' response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimofsly. The next item is the Immokalee Master Plan. Okay, Michelle. MS. EDWARDS: Good evening, I'm Michelle Edwards with the Growth ?]arming Staff. I'm here today to present to you the Immokalee Master Plan. As you all are aware, the staff and technical advisory committee has been meeting for the past two OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPbE,q, FL 33962 133 .'..years, andi'd. like to take some time just to mention all the representatives on the technical advisory committee and thank them for all the efforts that they've made: Curtis Blocker; Jerry Bosworth; Dave Ensing; William Gaines; Lieutenant Wayne Graham; Wesley Harrington, Derthus Howard; Maureen Kelliher; David Land, who was the chairperson, the chairman of the committee; Everett Luthanan; Chuck Multee; John Price; James Williams; and John Wichcus (all phonetic). .. The master plan was returned from the Department of Community Affairs with minor changes. I'm going to be going over the, for the most part, the staff ... report that was submitted to the Planning Commission and the cover memo that was submitted along with that staff report, just so you can follow me. The first recommendation that was identified by .the Department of' Community Affairs was that the master plan's goals, objectives and policies did not specify . which ones would be, would supersede those in the Growth Management Plan. What we've done is identified those objectives, policies and goals in the master plan that will supersede those in the Growth Management Plan, put a statement after each policy and identify those specific goals, objectives or policies that would be superseded. That OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 134 can be found on, starting on page ten. Oh, not page ten. Excuse me. Page five of the staff report. I'm not going to go over each individual one. The second recommendation that was made from DCA was to include a policy in the master plan that specified all the different land ,inc d~signations that appeared on.our Future Land Use Map for Immokalee. We've added Policy 2.1.1 to address that rocommendation, and that.can be found on page eight of the staff report. We've identified all the land designations which are low residential, mixed residential and high residential; all the commercial designations, which include the commercial district, the neighborhood centers, the commerce center, the commercial development within PUD's and commercial under criteria; and all the industrial designation, which include industrial and the commerce center industrial district. The third recommendation submitted from DCA addressed figure eight within the support document of the master plan. This figure addresses xeric (phonetic) scrub vegetation. DCA's comment was the xeric scrub vegetation around the Immokalee airport was not identified on the map. They also included that remnant scrub vegetation located in Section 26, Township 46, Range 28 was not also identified on the map. OFFICTAI, COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33962 135 We've since revised the map to identify the xeric scrub vegetation at the airport property, but the remnant scrub, the remnant scrub vegetation within Section 26, Township 46, Range 28 is outside of the scope of the master plan, so that was not depicted on the map. The map is second to the last page within the staff report, figure eight. These were -- DCA also made a recommendation for staff to revise the wild life section of the support document to address the various species habitats that the Game and Fresh Water Commission commented when they submitted their comments to DCA. They -- this inc]tides gophertls tortoises, Florida scrub jays, Audobon charactera (phonetic) and burrow]ng owls. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission asked us to include those within the wild life section and we've done so and specified whether or not they're threatened species, endangered species. This can be found on page nine of the staff report. We've also went ahead to add some language expressing the Game and Fresh Water Fish concerns about these species. These were basically all of DCA's comments. There were some additional changes that were made at the Planning Commission meeting. The first one was to add a new Policy 1.9, 2.1.9, which addresses those properties OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLL. IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 granted. 136 which have submitted an exemption application, exception application or vested rights application that were We honor it with this policy. There was also a recommendation made at the Planning Commission to add some additional language that spoke to those properties that submitted applications but were not yet reviewed or granted. And we'd also honor those, granting of that, of applications. The next addition -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about Policy 2.1.107 MS. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's what I was going to speak to next. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Oh, sorry. MS. EDWARDS: The next addition was just that, Policy 2.1.10. This policy basically establishes the Immokalee rezoning process. It says that within nix months of adoption of the Immokalee Master Plan staff will have looked at those properties that have been determined inconsistent with the master plan and we would have rezoned them to an appropriate zoning district that's consistent with the approved master plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was looking at the policy, that particular policy as 'it. re]al:es to the discussion that we've just had on the Golden Gate Master Plan. And in Immokalee, it says that final adoption of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 137 .the Golden Gate or the. Immokalee Master Plan, .those development orders shall be issued for those properties that are inconsistent with the ]and uses and designations. right? So that's without exception; is that MS. EDWARDS: Right. And that was our intent and that was prior to discussion that the Board had about redevelopment and everything else. And I think we're probably going to have to discuss that a little bit further tonight because I've gotten conflicting interpretations. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you talking about Policy 5.9 now? MS. EDWARDS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Yeah, but we don't have anybody in Immokalee that's opposed to churches. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You don't? MS. EDWARDS: But the question about redevelopment and whether or not we're going to permit it on those improved properties would not be permitted if we were to proceed as presented within those, the Planning Commission documents because as you see on page seven, there's a statement that says that's going to be added or was recommended to be added to the intrc)ducl. ion and the overview section of the master plan that says OFFICTAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 138 ._Policy 5.9~in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan shall not apply to Immokalee. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Which page? MS. EDWARDS: Page seven of your staff report. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was looking in this binder and it's not in that binder. Mine goes from 5 to 21. MS. EDWARDS: Of the master plan -- I was referring to the staff report that was submitted to the Planning Commission. Of the master plan, it would be Roman numeral I, Introduction. MR. LAVERTY: Commissioner, it is in your notebook. It's about the fifth or sixth page. MS. EDWARDS: And Roman numeral II, Overview section. Bill? places. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Page seven, isn't it, MR. LAVERTY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you can't miss it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's actually in both Easy for you to say. MS. EDWARDS: Staff would like to look into that further and report back to you at the 5th with this particular situation, if that's possible. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, just for OFFICIAI, COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 139 clarification then, back on page seven, you've got language here that says Policy 5.9 will not apply to Immokalee. MS. EDWARDS: Right:, COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You're saying that some additional consideration may be given to that provision? MS. EDWARDS: Right. And we'd like to get back on the 5th to discuss that further, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Did the Planning -- I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm just trying to understand the procedure. The Planning Commission, did they add that language? MS. EDWARDS: That was something that staff was adding in response to DCA's comments about superseding. The next area that we addressed was to add a Policy 1 -- I mean, 2.1.1 -- oh, 2.1.11, which -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Which page? MS. EDWARDS: -- is on page 11 of your staff .report. And that policy is just supporting the central business district which was presented to you, I believe, on the 15th. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes, that's correct. MS. EDWARDS: Staff also recommended to the Planning Commission and which was approved to add language for commercial under criteria which was OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER C. OI~NT',', NAPI,E,':, l?r, 33062. 140 .inadvertently left out of the document that was sent up to DCA. There was also a recommendation to add a new Policy 2.1.8 to -- or amend that Policy 2.1.8 to reflect the actual boundaries of the redevelopment areas south of . .Immokalee. I Just want to mention that there was a mistake even presented to the Planning Commission and the correct changes are on your memorandum or cover memo on the second page. Planning Commission recommended two changes to the Future Land Use Map for Immokalee. The first change was for the environmental area in the south half or the environmentally sensitive overlay within the south half of Section 2, Township 47, Range 29, which is this area in here. Planning Commission recommended to remove that, and staff doesn't have an objection to that. The second change was to redesignate the area bounded by Delaware, Fifth Street, Eustis Avenue and Ninth Street, which is this area, to redesignate that from mixed residential to high residential. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: What's your units going to be in the high residential? MS. EDWARDS: The mixed residential is six units per acre, maximum, and the high residential is eight units per acre, maximum. So it's just a matter of '.,, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33q62 . . 10 11 12 14 15 6 -:m__ 17 141 two units The reason it was designated mixed residential to begin with,. we were directed by our technical advisory committee to look at the BR zoning areas and possibly expand that area, and they wanted to maintain low residential within that south Immokalee area; however, we'd like to point out that the -- that particular area is currently zoned RMF-16. }{all of that property is developed with high density residential. I think the density on it is ten or something. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Density -- go ahead. I'm sorry. MS. EDWARDS: But it's the Immoka]ee Apartments, and it wouldn't be inconsistent with that adjoining property. And the property just to the east of that is also designated high residential and zoned RMF-6. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Okay. MS. EDWARDS: That's the extent o[ staff's changes, but I'd like to give a copy of a letter that was received from one of the citizens in the area, Robert Davenport, objecting to the mixed residential designatinn on the south half or south of Lake Trafford Road, which is in this area right here. His letter states -- his letter states that the densities in that area are much higher than the mixed OFFICTA[, COI~RT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COI.~NTY, NAPL['~[:, Pt. 33q62 142 residential category which permits 6 units per acre, and he recommend~ th~lt we nilh~r ~:harlge the d~s.[gnation to allow for higher density or allow the existing development to stay at the existing density that it's currently, which is 12 units per acre. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I see ~n a memo here that was written to you from Marjorie that she's saying that in the mobile home subdivisions and the mobile home residential is going to be part of that, the non-conforming uses and since we decided that we were vesting all non-conforming uses that that wouldn't affect Robert. MS. EDWARDS: But I think if the action that you took for redevelopment -- ~s that what you're speaking for; is that going to be addressed in Policy 5.9? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Well, my only concern is that it's an existing mobile home park. There is two of them there, an existing mobile home park, and they be allowed to move their trailers in and out. MS. EDWARDS: Right. And I think that's why we wanted to relook at that addition for the language that Policy 5.9 would not apply to Tmmokalee and get back the B¢~ard on the 5th. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: A~ long as you come up OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL · " 33962 ..with that type of to continue to operate their mobile home parks. don't have a problem with it. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. staff's comments. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: of the Commission? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: speaker? speakers. speakers. 143 a recommendation where they'll be able Then I That's the extent of Are there any questions No thank you. We only have one MR. LAVERTY: No, we have four registered CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: We have four registered MR. LAVERTY: They snuck up on us. The first speaker is Jay Whidden. Following Mr. Whidden will be Charles Smith. MR. WHIDDEN: My name is Jay. I'm from Immokalee. I'm representing Tara Park. I have some -- a few letters I can pass out to you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Just hand them to Bill there and he'll see that we get them. Okay. Jay, let me tell you what we were just discussing. Staff is going to relook at this and they're going to bring their recommendations back to us on the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fin 33962 .'.3.9 :20 23 24. 144 5th of February when we're going to make the fina] decision on this. And what we're going to do or hopefully what staff's going to recommend is that the mobile home park zoning that is there is going to continue so that you'll be able to move your mobile homes in and out the way that you've been doing. MR. WHIDDEN: That would be great for us because that's what we're looking for. We don't want to expand. We don't want to get any bigger. We just want to keep what we've got. Under the current -- the way it's set up in the county right now, each lot according to Collier County Code Enforcement, each lot has to be 45 foot by 90 feet, and that would allow about a 24 by 60 foot double wide trailer. And we only have one of them, and we're not taking in any more of them because they take up too much space and makes it look too packed, packed in. And under the six units per acre, it comes out to about 5,000 and something square feet, which is like 60 feet by 90 feet. So you've almost made the lots bigger, and it doesn't seem quite right. And eight units, it kind of cuts St d¢,wn a little b~l: more, but it. just doesn't seem quite right, the way it comes out. .?':And which -- what we were worried about, our : OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES FL 33962 ::.;: :: , 12 .13 14 16 145 biggest worry was which one takes, has higher authority; the density or the zoning? Because the way Robert was putting it to us and the way we were seeing it, eventually six months down the line this has happened to us that you go up to apply for a permit and they say, well, you're over your density. They shoot you down. Then you start losing your units that way. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Michelle, I guess that what I would expect y'all to bring back would be that the number of units that they now have in their mobile home park would be the number of units that they would continue to have in there. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. Provided it's -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I'm sorry? MS. EDWARDS: Provided that it's consistent with the zoning district. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I have a little bit of a concern.here. I'm not quite sure what we're looking at here. Are we looking at a mobile home park or are we looking at an RV park? What you're anticipating in doing is putting more in. Are you putting more RV's in or not? .MR. WHIDDEN: No RV's. We're a mobile home park. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: And all he's doing is .OFFICIAl_, COURT REPORTERS, COl,bIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 9 10 24 146 replacing. COMMISSIONER }{ASSE: You're n~,t talking trailers then, you're talking mobile home. MR. WHIPDEN: Mobile home. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Anchored there and have straight, solid hook-ins to sewer, and water and everything? MR. WHIDDEN: Correct, sir. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Because I only see there's five temporary sites in there. MR. CREWS: My name's Jimmy Crews. I'm the owner of Tara. COMMISSIONER HASSE: If you might, and I just want to make sure we're not running an RV park there. MR. CREWS: Our RV designation was taken away from us about four years ago, and I think it was about six months ago we received a letter from the county stating that they were going to give us back some RV units. And we've been up in the air about this thing forever. And they were taken away from us except for what was existing. They told us when they moved out we couldn't replace them. We got a letter from the county stating that if we wanted to reinstate some of our RV spaces, then we collid to it. And we said, hey, we're not OFFICIAl: COURT REPORTERS, COIfi!TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, Pl, 11962 147 3 going~to do that. I've got a letter in the office stating that if anyone -- I didn't bring a copy of it, but it's true because Robert got the same letter. We don't care about the RV's. If we've got five or six spaces, and if that's eventually phased out, then we'll count it as a loss. What we're concerned about is the mobile homes that are permitted, put in with the pad that remain there for years and y~ars and years. We want to keep those because that's our business. COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's all I wanted to 16 m.. ..... 19.. ~ 2O. know. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: This says you're authorized for 91, 91 mobile home park authorized spaces and 5 RV temporaries. MR. WHIDDEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That's your current .operating permit. Now, do I understand correctly what you would like staff to come back with is a recommendation to vest these numbers? MS. EDWARDS: Existing -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Is that what you ..23. 24 ~ 25 understood and agreed to? MS. EDWARDS: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We really don't have an OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 - , :1.1. 12 issue here; is that correct? MR. CREWS: Yes, we do. 148 Because when this was first started -- some people may say no. I disagree. When this was first started, we were told months and months ago that hey, you're a mobile home park. You're existing. you. Forget about it. It's not goJng to affect We were satisfied. Robert Davenport in the mobile home park next to us was out of town. He had a vacant spot and he rented it. He -- his secretary sent the folks down there to pull a permit to put a mobile home on that vacant space and they were denied. They were told their park is 18 currently over density. Now, this stuff hasn't even been voted on and approved and they're already getting that kind of answer from the county zonin0 office up there. That makes us think hey, everybody's telling us one thing but what's written down, you know? It's easy for things to get confused, and we were completely satisfied until this question was raised. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think Commissioner Goodnight said you had 91 units there and that's what we're looking to continue there. So, that should not be a problem. MR. CREWS: We'll be tickled, okay? Thank you. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER CO~INTY, NAPLES, FI. 33962 .4 11 15 17 :'25 .... CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Yes, there is. And following Charles Smith will be Steve Ball. MR. SMITH: My name is Charles Smith. vice-president of Immokalee Habitat for Humanity. 149 Bill, is there another Charles Smith. I am This is going to be in reference to the new Policy 2.1.10 and the implementation of that policy. On January 3 of this year, I appeared before the County Planning Commission in Immokalee during their hearing on the Immokalee Master Plan and stated that based on our original 1979 development plan, Habitat for Humanity had built 9 out of 12 home sites on parcel which is north of Lake Trafford Road. But since that time, the district had been rezoned to urban agricultural, which calls for one unit in five acres. We needed to develop the three remaining homes requiring an RSF-3 zoning for 10,000 square feet lots. When the Collier County growth planning initiates rezoning under the master plan, under this new policy, we would like them to rezone our parcel to permit us to build the last three units. And that would fall under Policy 2.1.10 and the implementation of it. The Planning Commission that day voted to recommend. this to you as an upzoning exception to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fl_. 33962 150 3 9 21 .23 24 '!:2§' .master plan to be made at the time the county does that rezoning.. This item isn't in the Growth Plan Amendment because it.isn't an amendment, it's a growth plan. But I hope you do give your approval to that process so that we can get the rest of that job done. Michelle Edwards is familiar with it as is Frank Thomas from the Planning Commission. Secondly, I have a quick question. I read of your decision ~n the newsp;tp¢~r that 1[ l:h~ maf~l~r plan required a different lot size and a commercial building existed on that land on a previous zoning and the building burned, it could be replaced in kind on that · . . same lot even though the density requirement. was now different. I hope that would apply to residences. We did build quite a development of 13 homes out there on 7,000 foot lots. Under the master plan, that would now require 10,000 foot lots. We're worried about. a home owner being burned out and being unable to get a permit to replace his home because he was in violation of the master plan. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: exempt from that. MR. SMITH: It was exempted? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Well, I missed something. Thank Single family homes was OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIFR COUNTY, NAPEES, FL 33962 .3 11 :'" . 14 15 .16 20 22 23 you very much. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: questions? Thomas. If you have any questions,. I'm here. Are there any (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Steve Ball, followed by Fred 151 MR. BALL: Good evening. I'm here to support the Planning Commission's recommendations on -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Would you give your name, please, Steve? MR. BALL: I'm Steve Ball. Excuse me. On the master plan. I do have a questJ. on for the staff regarding Policy 5.9. As I understand, this is regarding vesting of improved property; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: Um-hum. MR. BALL: And we've essentially vested improved property throughout the entire county with exception of Imrnokalee? And that's what we're discussing right'now; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: Right. MR. BALL: Arid now we're talking about maybe exempting mobile homes as well, and you mentioned single family homes exempt. That means the only thing in the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPbES, 33962 ..... 15 16 17 18 20 .21 22 24 25 152 whole county~that's not exempt is mu]ti-family development -- MS. EDWARDS: I think that -- MR. BALL: -- and commercial development in Immokalee. And I would suggest that if we're going to have that approach and that kind of direction throughout the whole county, it's very appropriate to have it in Immokalee too and that language be removed. ~MS. EDWARDS: The way I understood is we were going to look at all uses, not just mobile homes; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HASSE: That's jllst in the Immokalee.area, though. MS. EDWARDS: Yeah. MR. BALL: I would suggest that it's appropriate to have the same exemption standards for improved properties in Immokalee as you've addressed it in the remainder of the county. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. LAVERTY: Fred Thomas. MR. THOMAS: My name is Fred Thomas, and I'm just a plain citizen today. As it relates to this question about the 5-J, what is it? MS. EDWARDS: 5.9. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 153 MR. THOMAS: 5.9. There's two problems we have Jn Immokalee. One section where we want to change the zoning and do some cleaning up and some other section, the rest of Immokalee we want to allow to let the existing situation stand. And that's why staff has got to go back and look at how this language that would exempt us from 5.9, which would allow with the change that y'all made when you did the vesting of developed properties would have protected those folks. I think if we take that language out and let 5.9 apply to Immokalee throughout, the area that we want to change .the zoning on is also within the area that staff is supposed to look at redevelopment for. And unless we fJ. nd some funds to redevelop that area, I'm talking about the area roughly bounded by Main Street on the north, First Street on the east, maybe over to Ninth Street on the west and maybe Doak Avenue on the south, that area in there where we want to go and do some work, that's also consistent with the boundary of where we're supposed to do the redevelopment emphasis. And we're going to be able to go in there and do what we have to do then anyhow. So, if we leave thJ. s language out and -- that says Policy 9 or 5.9 Future Land Use Element shall not OFFICIAI, COURT REPORTERS, C~T,I~IER COI~NTY, NAPt,E.q, F[, 33962 154 apply to Immokalee, just leave that out so that 5.9 does apply to Immokalee, we protect all those other ~nterests that we already want to protect anyhow, do you understand? ~And we can deal with the area that we want to rezone or downzone when it comes time to do the redevelopment plan, which we're going to have to do some point anyhow. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: When you say "we," who's "we"? MR. THOMAS: Okay. In -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There are individual property owners who are here, and -- MR. THOMAS: But staff was instructed in the Immoka]ee Master Plan in that particular area to look at redevelopment efforts, so we know there's going to have to be some ass~st.~rice ~[)p]ied t.r~ ~¢~m~? w~y ~r [a~shlr)n t~ help redevelop that area, okay? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You're talking about the Housing Authority? MR. THOMAS: Housing Authority might get involved in it. COMMISSIONER VOI,PE: Se~, all I'm trying to understand, Mr. Thomas, just ~s that -- you've got individual property owners who are there and so they OFFTC. TAT, COURT REPORTERS, COl.T.TFR COlINTY, NAPI.ES, fl. 33962 2 6 18 19 20 155 would have .the.right if 5.9 were to apply to them to rebuild whatever it is that they've got. And I'm not sure that's what you'd like to -- MR. THOMAS: No, that's true. Unless the county or when the county decides to put in redevelopment plan for the area and mark the area up for some sort of major urban renewal or redevelopment. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So when you say "we," you're talking about "we, the county"? MR. THOMAS: We, the county. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We, the county. Got it. MR. THOMAS: That's the instruction you gave .them to come up with some, a plan for the, in the master plan. CHAIRPERSON GOODNTGIIT: l[~ there any further discussion? Michelle? MS. EDWARDS: I'd just like to point out the area in, the south Immokalee area that we've recommended to change from MR to HR, that's zoned RMF-16, I just wanted to clarify that a rezoning of that property would still be required because the RMF-16 zoning district is inconsistent with the master plan. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Fred? MR. THOMAS: Going back to the habitat thing, I wanted to make sure we got that clear on the habitat OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO]J,TER COI;NT¥, NAPLES, Fl, ~3962 3 8 .%/ 12 13 ..:15 -. 16 2O 21 ..23 24 -~..,.: 25 156 because when it came before the Planning Commission, it took a little bit for us to really grab hold to it. They are saying -- right now, the staff automatically downzones everything and you have to pay to upzone. What we're recommending that when we get ready to downzone things in I~mokalee, that we upzone that parcel so that they can build those ash tree (phonetic) units at the same time so there's not an extra cost to habitat. I want to make sure that's understood. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We understand that? MS. EDWARDS: Yeah, I understand that. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion? MR. BALL: I just had one comment on the redevelopment issue. I think if the community supported redevelopment,' that would be great, but there still needs to be that support for those kinds of efforts in that these property owners should not be penalized in the interim with regard to the inability to rebuild improved property at this time. And I'd like yot~ to consider that in your review of the policy. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't think anybody, even Mr. Thomas wasn't st~ggest]ng that. MR. THOMAS: I'm saying we should strike the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 language. mike. 157 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: You need to use the MR. THOMAS: If they strike the language that they were recommending, then there would be redevelopment as they go along in accordance with the last -- MR. BALL: I see. MR. THOMAS: You understand what I'm saying? Okay. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: discussion? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: directions? Okay. Is there any further Then staff has their May I have a motion then to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So move. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion. Dc~ I have a second? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRPERSON: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER (:0lINTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 '1 2 10 11 22. 23. 24 25 (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: unanimously. Thank you, Michelle. on this thing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: petition CP-90-2. · MR. LEE: 158 Motion carries You've done a great job That was very good. The next item is public Commissioners, this is item CP-90-2. As discussed with the chairman, there's no objection to this from DCA. Unless there's any further questions, I don't know if the Commissioners would entertain any discussion or rather just move on to an item that bad objections. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion from the Commission? COMMISSIONER HASSE: On all four? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there a speaker? MR. LAVERTY: No, there are none registered for this item. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll move that we close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion. May I have a second? COMMISSIONER SI{ANAHAN: Second. OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLbIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, Fb 33962 14 .22, 23 . 9.4 159 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Petition CP-90-2. All in favor signify by say "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. The next item is CP-90-3. MS. SOTO: Good evening. My name's Elly Soto. I'm with the Growth Planning Department. I'm going to make my remarks very brief. I'm simply going to tell you that this proposed amendment is to the Future [,and Use Element text, specifically to allow the conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning at a maximum density o[ e~ght dwelling units per acre, and specifically on Marco Island. DCA had some concerns. Mostly they focused their concerns on five different areas: The suitability of the land uses on the existing lands on Marco; traffic circulation on on off the island; hurricane evacuation; water quality and quantity; and intergovernmental coordination. I'm not going to bother tonight to go through OFFICTAb COURT REPORTERS, COL. bIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962. 3 7 ..9 12 21 24 160 .those because they -- each of those have been addressed in the Planning Commission staff Report of which you have a copy in front of you, unless you have specific questions, obviously. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on January the 10th and reversed their earlier support of the amendment and recommended that the amendment be forwarded to you with a recommendation of denial; however, staff still supports the -- COMMISSIONER VOI,PE: What was the reason? Why don't you explain to us what the reason was for the reversal so we have an understanding? MS. SOTO: The Planning Commission simply felt that they would much rather prefer the commercial zoning as opposed to the residential zoning of those parcels that would be affected. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: These parcels are consistent with the newly adopted Growth Management Plan? MS. SOTO: No. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And so how would they allow those commercial properties to remain? MS. SOTO: Well, there's about 47 acres that's currently subject to conversion. Forty-one of those current time in order to keep their zoning. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 .3 4 ..5 6 .7 8 10 11 _ .12 ..13 14 16 18 19 · 20 22 :23 24 25 161 So they're looking at -- if each one of those were to be approved and the current zoning stay as commercial, then we'd only be looking actually at six acres of conversion of commercial' to residential. But that's making an assumption. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is it that they didn't think that because of the coastal high hazard area that they wanted the increase in numbers of dwelling units in that area, or was it they just favored commercial development over residential development? MS. SOTO: I'd have to be honest with you and say that they favored commercial. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I expect you to be honest with us. I don't expect anything but that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And likely there was also some concern about density as I understand it from -- one.of the CCPC members told me specifically that his concern was the density. COMMISSIONER VOI.PE: Density. MS. SOTO: The eight dwelling units per acre was some concern, too. COMMISSIONER VOI,PE: How does this tie into what we previously had approved for a certain number of -- that was affordable housing, wasn't it, dwelling units enclosed by hazard areas? That involved conversion OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 .7 lO 11 14 .15 162 .of commercial. MS. SOTO: No, that was a separate issue. .That's allowing residential to come in at 12 dwelling units per acre for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But part of the policy considerations that were d~scussed at that time was the conflict tha,t, the apparent conflict between trying to direct the population away from the coastal high hazard area and then allowing conversion of commercial property to put more dwelling units into the coastal high hazard area. So it's related in my own mind, but -- MS. SOTO: Yes, that's true and it is a dilemma that staff wrestled with a number of times even before we came to you back in July. And we justified it as being a better good for the overall community to allow the affordable housing units, a limited number of affordable housing units. COMMISSIONER VOI, PE: How do you justify your recommendation here then? MS. SOTO: Well, this is such a small number of .acres that we're dealing with. We've gone through the analysis of hurricane evacuation, of traffic, added traffic and the emergency manager. Management department has said that based on the assumption that we've made, possible conversion, would be a minimal effect. And then OFFICIAb COURT REPORTERS, c. OI.LTER COUNTY, NAPI.ES, FI, 33962 6 ..10 11 163 with the road improvements beginning this year on 951, transportation didn't seem to be a problem either. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So are we really looking at then not an additional 144 plus or minus dwelling units? You're looking at just s~x acres that could b~ converted? MS. SOTO: Well, that's assuming that the compatibility exceptions are granted. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, isn't that the assumption that you've made? MS. SOTO: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I mean, otherwise -- that explains your position. I'm just -- MS. SOTO: Yes. Well, actually, we didn't use the six acres. We assumed 20 for the sake of discussion simply.because, you know, we did make some assumptions that 41 acres would not all get approved at the current zoning level. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If all 41 acres did not get approved, would your recommendation still be the same? MS. SOTO: I think it would, yes. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Are there any other (No response.) questions? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO~,LIER CO[~NTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 14 17 18 19 ~o .24 164 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Are there any speakers? MR. LAVERTY: Alan Reynolds. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Alan? MR. REYNOLDS: Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Alan Reynolds, with Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll& Peek, and we are representing this petition. At the pleasure of the Board, I could go into some detail about the nature of this request and the history it's been through and even describe the project specific that we're talking about. And T will really leave that to your discretion. I think that our position, number one, is that we would agree with the staff's assessment. We support their recommendation to you. This property is presently zoned commercial. We are in for a request for a compatibility exception on the property. We think that frankly the ]and use on this property as commercial is very appropriate. It is a C-1 commercial zoning present]y, and we certainly think it. could be developed in that fashion because of the nature of its location. My client happens to own the property that represents about 80 percent of the property that would be affected by this particular amendment; however, having OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CO[.,T,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33962 .3 11 12 :'' .. 21 22 25 .,:. ....said that, the alternative that we're looking to pursue right now is to provide a type of housing that frankly is, is not in abundance on Marco Island and that is the moderate density transitional type of use between traditional.single family platted lots and the higher density multi-family. I've put up on the board the site plan for our particular project, which comes out at a density of just under six units per acre. It's a villa type prr, jec! with . a controlled access, common architectural theme, common signage, landscaping, water management. And this, we feel, is a preferable alternative to the commercial use .that we presently have. There has been a lot of analysis that's gone into the application. As Elly mentioned, the staff and we have worked very closely to address the DCA's, you know, comments. .It was supported by the Planning Commission and the Board when it was transmitted tip I:o . the State. And frankly, we were somewhat surprised at the Planning Commission's thoughts with respect to their, you know, change in position. They did have a concern of both what kind of a density and impact this would have as well a9 expressing the desire that Marco Island needs additional commercial ].and uses and would like to retain OFFTCTAI, C. OURT REPORTERS, C. OI.I,TER COUNTY, NAPLES° FI, 33962. 6 11 24 166 as many as possible. I could address both of those in some detail. I would say that in terms of the residential density as Elly mentioned, the relative impact of this amendment as proposed is rather small. The numbers of units that we're talking about in our project, which again represents the majority of the land that would be eligible, we're talking about a project with a total of 104 units.on roughly 18 and a half acres. So, it's a -- it's not a very significant impact. All of the impacts have been addressed, and quite frankly, as compared to the commercial land use, the such things as traffic generation, our proposal if this amendment was accepted is an order of magnitude reduction of almost one-fifth of the traffic impacted commercial land use as a for instance. So we think there are numerous benefits that would be derived by having this amendment approved and our being able to then go forward and bring a Planned Unit Development back to the Board for consideration for a conversion. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do you have a compatibility exception presently pending? MR. REYNOLDS: We have an application in at the present time primarily because not knowing the outcome of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI, 33962 13 :~'~ .~. 'L ......~. ' ~-, 16 .17 18 ~..~ '. i 21 ..25 167 this amendment we felt it was prudent to make sure we had protected ourselves with the under].ying zoning. So, there is an amendment pending. It will be a couple of months, I think, before staff has the opportunity to get into the review of that. The -- what I'd like to suggest maybe in a way of moving a little bit closer towards the concern that the Planning Commission identified is when we started out with this amendment, and it has gone through some modifications as we've gone through the process, originally it applied to the entire urban fringe area. We then limited it to Marco Island. We also at the time we started this didn't know what the actual yield would be for our particular site .plan, but it's fairly typical that in a villa type project like this you have a density somewhere in the vicinity of six to eight units per acre. So we structured our amendment to look at what we considered to be the greatest impact scenario, which was a total of eight. Since then, having done the detailed site planning, our density is coming out at just under six units per acre for this property. We would be more than happy, if the Board thought it was appropriate, to further reduce the bonus which even further minimized any additional density so OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAPI,F.S, FI. 33062 2 3 6 9 12 15 22 24 25 168 that the cap of total density would be six units per acre. That winds up being a bonlls of only approximately 2 to 3 tinits per acre for cc~nver[:tng c¢~mmercia], and that's compared to 16 units per acre in the urban area. So, it would, I think, recognize that there are some, certainly some unique things to consider because of its location on Marco Island in the urban fringe. It would substantially reduce the already small potential impact in .the amendment and I think it would be in the spirit of certainly what the Planning Commission, I think, was trying to say. So, if it was the pleasure of the Board and to suggest that we do that, we would certainly be amenable to that and obviously we would be happy if you'd endorse the staff's recommendation as is. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Discussion? Mike? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You recognize that that's not an entitlement, that would be a cap and so this has not yet been through the process; is that correct? I mean, someone -- MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Someone could approve it at.three units an acre or four units an acre. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. We understand that. We have gone as far as we felt we could go with the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI.,I.,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, F[, 33962 -..8 9 13 169 design of the project pending the outcome of this amendment. We have gone to the point of assessing the site and putting together the master plan and even doing some architectural and some landscape design for the site. We've done all the water management, but we have not yet filed an application. And obviously we understand that, you know, that the zoning issues will have to be considered during the zoning process. This merely allows us to get our application filed and to undergo the review. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Discussion? Commissioner Shanahah? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: As far as I'm concerned, I think that to satisfy me and to satisfy the CCPC members and others that a total cap of six units per acre would absolutely be essential as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Hasse? COMMISSIONER HASSE: I concur with that. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Vo]pe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just a point. Until such time as we actually have had this application go through the compatibility exception, how do we know he's got commercial property to convert to residential? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, 33962 lO 16 ¸21 22 ,25 .MR. REYNOLDS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: do we know that:? MS. SOTO: think I could -- Just wait a second. We really don't. We have to wait 170 tIow · until we go through the process of the exceptions. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So in this instance, it seems to me that we've got -- whether you're entitled to that conversion or not, you have to first get a favorable determination under your compatibility exception; Js that the staff's interpretation? MR. REYNOLDS: If I may, I had a different understanding, but maybe Bob will clarify that. MR. BLANCHARD: Our interpretation is that if this conversion is accepted by the Board, that they could go ahead and make that application right. l]ow. Until such time as the -- as we act on the compatibility exception, they have the existing commercial zoning. They can't develop it unless they develop it consistent with the plan, which would be three to four units per acre. But the fact is that that commercial zoning is still on the ground. You're right in that until the exception is granted, assuming that it is granted and the commercial is retained, they can't deve].op it commercially. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll concur with ? '"' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 · ' .6 171 Commissioner. Shanahan and make a motion that we close the public hearing. .. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. .CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Elly, the directions to you from this Board is that to put a cap on six units per .acre. MS. SOTO: Staff could support that, yes. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Then I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. Next item is CP-90-4. All right, Ron. Go ahead w~th CP-90-4. MR. LEE: Petition CP-90-4, Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll& Peek representing Power Corporation. They're requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to redesignate 144 acres from urban residential to industrial at the intersection of 951 and 1-75. This was transmitted by the Board to DCA. DCA has reviewed it and they've had numerous objections; however, they can be categorized into three areas: The OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 172 first one is a public facility availability analysis; secondly, the impact on hurricane evacuation; and third, justification for new industrial land. I'd like to briefly address each one of their concerns. The petitioner ]]as provided an analysis of public facility avai].abiJiiy for all public facilities and they have demonstrated capacity. They also provided an explanation of concurrency management which would require adequate level of service for all public facilities prior to development. Secondly, on hurricane evacuation by amending the map and replacing urban residential by an industrial designation, will actually have a positive impact on hurricane evacuation. Thirdly, on justification for new industrial land, the petitioner has provided adequate just'ification .for adding industrial land to staff's satisfaction at that location. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: MR. LEE: We feel it's very appropriate for industrial land uses given the access to 1-75 and the size of the parcel. Staff concludes that all of DCA's objections have been adequately addressed and recommends the amendment be forwarded with recommendation and Can you say that again? approval. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,?ER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 8 12 13 15 ~:D 19 .~. c~, 20 21 ]73 .CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Okay. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Shanahah? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: No. I accept staff's recommendation. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any registered speakers? MR. LAVERTY: Alan Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS: ,Just for the record, Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, only to answer questions you might have. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: No questions. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying "Aye." (A ch¢)rus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. Next item is CP-90-5. MS. SOTO: I'm still Elly Soto. This J~l a propo~ed amendment. to t. ho Future ],aDd OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 12 13 14 15 174 ._Use Element_textand Conservation and Coastal Management Element text allowing for the clarification of permitted uses within theurban designated area. We're specifically referencing water related and water dependent uses. Wp're additionally adding siting criteria within Policy 11.1.4 that, too, in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. DCA reviewed this and had no objections. Planning Commission heard this amendment on January 10th and voted to recommend approval with the exclusion of hotels and motels as accessory uses and the use of Planned Unit Development techniques. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any speakers? Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: I'd like to speak to it. Two issues: ._.Number one, the Planned Unit Development techniques, I think the Planning Commission in its infinite wisdom overlooked Policy ].].3.12 of ~,ur Coastal Conservation Management Element which says, require the use of Planned Unit Development provision in the zoning ordinance for new developments or redevelopments proposed to take place within areas identified as coastal barrier system. One of the things we were trying to do is we had a little glitch between our Future Land Use Element OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI.,I,TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, F[, 33962 .8 9 10 11 ..12 175 and our Coastal Conservation Management Element and we were trying to bring those into alignment. And our Coastal Conservation Element said we must require the use of PUD systems. And so what I think they did, I did not call this to their attention because it took me by surprise that they were making changes on something they a].ready approved previously with no discussion. So I think we need to put the PUD language back in there to be consistent with our Coastal Conservation Element. Secondly, with regard to hotels and motels, you know, it's not of terrible importance, but I think it is appropriate where you have a large marina type facility to allow the flexibility. You're not approving anything now, to allow the flexibility for someone to ask for those kinds of uses as accessory uses to the, you know, to the yacht facilities or the marina facilities. You're not allowing those as primary use to this language. You're simply saying those are an appropriate accessory use to a yacht club or a large marina faci. lJty. As I say, that -- the staff supports that, I certainly do. It's not of any importance to the client for whom I propose this, but I think it's a matter of public policy it would be good. But the other one I think we do have to put back in there to be consistent OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 176 with the Coastal Management Element. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Shanahah? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODMIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: No. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Discussion? No. Commissioner Hasse? Commissioner Volpe? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'd just like to hear staff's comments with respect to Mr. Varnadoe's recommendation about putting back in the PUD development techniques. MS. SOTO: Staff would support that; feels it is necessary. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: have a second? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion. May I Second the motion. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing with the instructions to have staff put back in Planned Unit Developments and hotel/motels. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Unit Development. My intent was just Planned I was not ~ntending to interpret the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, C~Li.IER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, T~L 33962 5 6 lO 13 14 .15 .16 ~'~ '0 19 23 24 . ]77 direction~that's -- I was thinking just Planned Unit Development, going along wit.]] t:h~ rncr)mmendnl. ir)rl of the Planning Commission as to the hotels and motels. MS. SOTO: Staff would still support hotels and motels as an accessory use with the understanding that at the time of rezoning permitting process they would be reviewed by the Board at that time. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have a problem with a ]totel being an accessory use to a marina. It seems like it should be the other way around. I mean, not accessory use to be a 400 unit hotel, and that's -- I'm not in support of that rise and it doesn't seem to be particularly important to this project, so I don't think we ought to add it. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Then -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's not like an accessory use. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: what we're looking for for the next meeting, aren't you? MS. SOTO: Yes. You're looking, as 1 understand it, that we were to inc]!lde just Planned Unit Development. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the staff knows Right. Thank you. Do we have a motion and OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAP~,E.q, PT, 33962 2 _3 .. 4 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 178 a second .to .close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Yes. voted. hearing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. BLANCHARD: Planning Staff. We've already We have? We a]r~dy closed th~ CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: We already voted. The next is Policy B, B Policy. Bob Blanchard from the Growth The next item on your agenda is the staff initiated policies. Elly and I are going to handle the only two that had any objections as they were submitted to the State. The one I want to address is Policy 5.1. And policy 5.1 is the policy in the plan as it's currently written that allows for projects that are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan to make changes to their development orders and proceed with development. The existing language, staff feels, is inconsistent with Policy 3.1.K as it was amended in the settlement agreement, which is, as you all know, states that no development orders can be issued inconsistent with the plan, unless a compatibility exception is issued or positive determination of vested rights is made. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 12 15 16 21 .25 179 The proposed amendment woul~ continue to permit certain changes to existing development orders, but only when the development order has already been found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan or when it has been found to be consistent with the plan to zoning re-evaluation process; either by granting of a compatibility exception or an exemption that does not have a timeline associated with commencement of development. In addition, it's recommended that any permitted change to development order should constitute a significant reduction in density intensity so that any changes are at least going in the direction of technical compliance with the Growth Management Plan. DCA had two objectJcms to this policy. First one was simply a reference citation for zoning re-evaluation, and that's been taken care of by also referencing the ordinance number and the date of adoption. The second objection that they had is that if you recall and look at the handout that Barbara just gave you, from the original language, as it was sent to the DCA, which was -- everything in that language except what's in the bold type is as it was sent to DCA; that we used the phrase "meaningful development" and "meaningful OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COIJIER COUNTY, 33962 14 25 180 benefits," and they objected that there was no criteria to determine what "meaningful" really meant. And when I presented this to the Planning Commission, I gave them basically two options: One was a semantics change where we simply change the term "meaningful" to "significant" simply because Jt implies ~ something different in my mind an(] also according to Webster if you look it up, and also change "meaningful benefits" to something that clearly benefits the public or property other than the subject property. That was the first option. And I felt we co,lid mak~ the case with DCA that because that language required the Board to make an individual finding on each development order appli¢:ation, each petition, that that should satisfy their concerns because those findings would be made on the record. The second option that I presented to the Planning Commission was to provide some specific criteria. And if you look at the language that was passed out, in the subsection number three, you'll find that we went back to the original staff proposed language, which we did th~ definition of "significant" as meaning a significant .... significant reduction" would be a reduction in density or intensity equal to or greater than 20 percent. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI_.LIER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 2 .7 12 14 CD .19 23 24 25 181 The language that you have in front of you, I need to point out two additional items: First of all, there's in addition to making that change for the citation and also a specific definition for "significant reduction" is that I have recommended leaving in the phrase "other significant benefits to the county," implying that there is the option for the Board to make that if there is a significant benefit, significant public benefit, that this Board could find that that change to that petition could be approved even without that reduction in density or intensity. So it's a trade off, public benefit versus that real significant reduction. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You still don't have the standards, though. MR. BLANCHARD: There is no standard for that. It would require a finding, that's true. It's difficult to come up with concrete standards for public benefit, as you're well aware. It would require, again, a finding by the staff that would be supported by the Board. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But do you think DCA would accept that? I guess that's the question they objected to the first time because yol~ didn't have standards. MR. BLANCHARD: I still feel that that argument is there that on a case by case basis that if the Board OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI. 33962 lb 2 5 6 .'.7 '8 10 12 182 is making a finding that that analysis is being gone through with the criteria that's appropriate for that individual case. It's similar to when the Board makes an argument for Compatibility w.it.h the provisional use or things like that. We run the risk obviously of still having that same comment come back from them, but I think it's just as viable. The second change that I wanted to point out that I'm suggesting is one that we've had some discussion on in that would allow changes to Planned Unit Developments that have been determined to be improved under zoning re-evaluations. PUD's are approved with a maximum level density or maximum density or level of intensity. If those have gone through the process and zoning re-evaluation and have been found to be improved, they're then considered consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And it's that maximum level of development that's considered consistent. In fact, you very often find that PUD's develop at some lesser level. What I'm suggesting here ~s that any changes within that upper ceiling should be permitted under policy 5.1. ....:25 ........... CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Discussion? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COIJ,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fb 33962 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1! 12 .14 16 17 18 20 , 23 24 25 183 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I think it makes sense. I'd like to see -- accept staff's recommendation and staff's language. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm going to be liberal', Mr. Blanchard. Don't get carried away now. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Flexibility, Mike. I think we need that flexibility. MR. BLANCHARD: After Policy 5.9 the other day, I was bruised significantly. I do need to make one item clear is that additional paragraph was not considered by the Planning That is a change since the Planning Commission. Commission. speakers? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Have we got some MR. LAVERTY: Tony Pires. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Tony Pires? MR. PIRES: I was waiting for the audience to thin out. I'll be brief. Anthony Pires, Jr. Just some brief comments and maybe some questions of staff. The way I -- maybe I'm reading this too narrowly or it's too tightly, but it there's a current PUD, for example, that doesn't qualify for an exemption or has not yet received a determination of whether or not it qualifies for an exempt-- an exception, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, CObLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 and they want to change that development order, that PUD, to add say additional units for adult congregate living facilities or Affordable Housing Density Bonus, if you're allowed to get additional density, then that could not occur under the language as proposed to 5.1.K. MR. BLANCHARD: Until you have an exception that's been granted; that's coi'~ect. MR. PIRES: In other words, while it's process, until there's a determination, until the property's actually rezoned, by the Board pursuant to the re-evaluation process, assuming an exception is not granted, they could not come in and apply for a change to that PUD to get the adult congregate living facility units for Affordable Housing Density. MR. BLANCHARD: You could make that application only if it's consistent wJ. th the Growth Management Plan. MR. PIRES: If the application is? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. Nothing precludes you from making an application to make an existing proposal consistent with the new plan. MR. PIRE$: Okay. It's just that it seems the an existing development order, if it meets all the criteria, shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. OFFICIAl, COURT REPORTERS, COI,I.TER COlINT¥, NAPI,E~, FT, 33962 I! 185 I Just wanted to make sure it did not exclude other types of applications that don't meet this criteria but are consistent with the plan. MR. BI,ANCHARD: plan, you'.re fine. MR. PIRES: If you're consistent with the The application. MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. MR. PIRES: Just a point of clarification. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You know, that's inconsistent, that interpretation is inconsistent wi. th the interpretation that we did with the conversion of commercial property. That's -- that interpretation is inconsistent; that you cannot fi].e an application; that unless it's consistent with the plan that he couldn't develop his PUD. MR. BLANCHARD: On the surface, I think I would agree with you. But in fact what you're doing through that amendment that Elly presented is that if the Board passes on that, you are making that provision consistent with the plan. I mean, that's your option to say you're making that -- you're making the plan fit in that case. So, that's accurate right now, but after the 5th, depending on the action of the Board, then I would beg to differ with you. (Commissioner Saunders left the board room.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COl,bIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 5 6 8 . 9 10 11 · 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 ~.3 , ~.5 186 CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: MR. LAVERTY: MR. PURSE: Any more speakers? This gentleman, Mr. Purse. For the record, my name is Jeff Purse, engineer with Evers, Neal & Purse and I'm here representing Manatee Shopping Center. That was an approved STP number 9048 that during the STP process of go].ng through that we started in January, we came in with a commercial portion and a hotel/motel site. And during the STP process, in the -- when we received our preliminary approval for site development plan, we were told that we had to pull the hotel/motel site out of it and reapply at a later date for provisional use, for the hotel/motel, in order for the STP to continue, because we could not file an STP while a provisional use was ~n effect. So we pulled the hotel out, added an office building with the understanding that we would come back and apply for a provisional use for the hotel/motel. We got our STP approved. We then went to file for provisional use and then were told, well, you have to go for compatibility exemption. We then went for compatibility exemption and then was denied a compatibility exemption because of the interpretation of as definition of a lot; that our particular parcel being 20 acres in size, having a road OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER CO~NTY, NAPI,ES, FL 33962 3 4 .~5 6 8 ~10 11 187 bisecting it so we had actually 13 acres on one side and 17 acres on the other, it was interpreted to be one acre. So what it did was that we then could not go back and put our hotel back on the site, so the owner that was going to develop the hotel site was left with an office building that he didn't want. So then we discovered that -- the owner discovered that the -- now that 5.1 was going to be changed to where there would be no -- as we understand it, there would be no changes to an STP after February 5tb, that as applied to orlo I:bat we used to, get vesting. And what has happened is that we reapplied in December to get an STP in the process, to try to make the February 5th deadline. And in that process, we put in a commercial area. And as we were, had already submitted the preliminary, the owner came back and said, well, I have the people that are developing the other commercial parcel want to commercial this, so it's just to develop the southern portion to make it one compatible project So, I went back to Growth Management and said, well, now I have to start -- if I come back in and I start all over again, am I still up to the February 5th date? And they said that I was. So what's happened is that this particular OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,I,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ¸11 12 13 .14 16 188 project has been caught in a position where we're trying to build something for the area that is less intense than was originally approved. But in that process, the -- we have even redefined to make it even less intense than what we just got approval here just. a c¢~up]e weeks ag~ for the preliminary level. And what I would like to ask the Board that they consider is that this particil]ar language be added in the sense that we made our January 10th construction. We're under construction and we're working our way down the project, and the project must continue as one project and construction must continue all the way down. What we would like to do is to pull our STP that we have in file now and be able to let it continue and get approva] as long as we apply or reapply for it: before February 5th. I hope I've made myself clear. If not, I've confused the issue. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What is it going to allow you to do? Are you going to build a hotel, motel, an office building or just commercial? MR. PURSE: Commercial. We want -- commercial, but we want commercial -- we came in for commercial, but we now want to go and make it now as all one unit. Now time's run out and I can't resubmit it again. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only problem -- I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, C. OIJ,TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, PI. 33962 2 .3 6 12 .13 14 .15 ..18 19 20 21 ~ .: 23 ¸24 189 tried to follow what you said. I t. rJed as best I could, but you said something about you rea].]y want to make it a less intensity use. It sounds to me as though that's the conclusion. I mean, it really probably isn't, but -- MR. PURSE: It's ]ess intense in the sense of traffic and green space is where it's less intense. MR. BLANCHARD: I don't have a comment on this. I haven't heard of this before. I didn't follow the description. I'm familiar with the project, but not about everything that this gentleman -- CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Would you review thai: and bring it back to us on the 5th? MR. BLANCHARD: I can look -- I'll be glad to look at it if he wants to give me a call on Friday and we can go over it with the people that are working zoning re-evaluation. I will make one comment, though, is that I feel very strong on the restriction that this not apply to STP exemptions. Those are the exemptions that STP building permit, final plat, those are the exemptions that. have a timeline on construction. Those are the exemptions that the onslaught that was alluded to in the month or two prior to zoning re-evaluation. People were kicking through the system to get something in there to preserve their zoning. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER ..OINT% NAPLES FL 33962 C ~' ', , 2 .3 4 .5 6 8 lO 11 12 i3 14 15 22 190 In many cases what we saw was in STP that people fully expected to be able to come back and make more marketable. And that is the only reason they got their exemption in the first place was to have something on the books. And as we went through discussion three or four months ago when we first had this discussion on this policy, I feel very strongly those exemptions for STP's and we timeline it for commencement of construction should, that exemption needs to be kept in here that those should not be allowed to make changes simply to make them more marketable because you're allowing projects to become more marketable that are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. t¢) do. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. BLANCHARD: We don't want to do. In my opinion, we do not want COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: to this gentleman to review -- about it? MR. BLANCHARD: calls me on Friday. it again. But I think we owe it yo~l don't know anything I will take the time if he COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And then we'll look at MR. PURSE: Mr. Weeks has been handling the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,TER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .3 ~9 10 .11 "~ ~ '~ 12 .15 ~ 16 · 18 '1.9 . 20 .22, j, project. with you. 191 MR. BLANCHARD: David and T will both sit down MR. PURSE: And we hav~ been gotno -- that the -- during the STP process to get th~ interpretation if we were less intense took five weeks to get back to us so we could even reapply for the final, so -- MR. BLANCHARD: Okay. Instead of calling me on Friday, you come down and see me on Friday. MR. PURSE: Okay. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We're expecting to get some sort of a response and recommendation from the staff on this particular project by the 5th, so -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: That's what I'd like. MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, sir. We'll have it by the 5th, that'll be necessary. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any further discussion? COMM[~fIT¢~NER ~IIANAIIAM: ,1~1~1 Cltll,'kl¥. On density rating system, the DCA had no objections to that · amendment and you just did some lanGuaGe clarification, is that what I understand? MR. BLANCHARD: There was no comments on density rating systems. I believe that was the one that dealt with the interconnection policy and -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLTER COUNTY, NAPLES, Fl', 39~62 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 .-9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 · 21 .23 24 .25 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: affordable housing units -- MR. BLANCHARD: Oh, that one. 192 No, no, that's the 600 Sorry. COMMISSIONER SHANARAN: -- within the urban coastal fringe. MS. SOTO: That's correct. DCA had no comments, and what we've done here is just try to c]ari~y where we'd l~ke to see those 600 affordable housing units. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: then to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: second to close the public hearing. signify by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: unanimously. Any further discussion? NO. May I have a motion I make a motion we close Second? SecoPal. I have a motion and a All those in favor Opposed? Motion carries OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLT,IER COIINTY, NAPT,ES, FI, 33962 ¸.1 3 4 6 - 7 9 10 19. 193 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Maybe we should note that Commissioner Saunders is not present. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: All right. The next item is Future Land Use Map. Bill? Oh, Ron? MR. LEE: We had three amendments to the Future Land Use Map transmitted by the Board. DCA had no objections to any of the plan amend -- on map amendments. No discussion. Any discussion? Move to close the Motion; second? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: public hearing. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the pllb]ic hearing. All in favc)r sigl]~fy by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. Next item is the Traffic Circulation Element. MR. PERRY: Madam Chairman, for the record, Jeff Perry from the G~owth Planning Department. The Traffic Circulation Element submitted by OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLTER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18. .19 20 21 22 .23 24 25 194 staff was submitted to -- transmitted to DCA, came back with no objections or comments. Planning Commission voted unanimously 5/0 to recommend their approval. And unless you have any other comments, I have nothing more to add. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: discussion? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: viewpoint. motion? close the Is there any No discussion from my CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Okay. May I have a COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: public hearin9. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Second? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a I make a motion that we second to close the public hearing. by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. Next item is public facilities. Come on guys, now, we're on a roll. MR. LOWDEN: For the record, Commissioners, my All in favor signify OFFICIAl., COURT REPORTERS, COIJ,IER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 I1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 '24 25 195 name is Robert Lowden with the Water Management Department. We have sort of an interesting situation here ~with our water management sub-element. We submitted some modifications to it. DCA had no objections, comments whatsoever to our modification. They did choose, however, to file an objection to a portion of our plan which we did not amend, and so we have been in discussions even as of this afternoon with DCA concerning this. I think our County Attorney would probably like to address the issue more directly as to what our plan of attack is at this point. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, Robert is quite correct. This involves some technical issues concerning level of service standards and the applicability of certain rules and regulations that apply to DER and also to water management distr~ct. It's technical in nature and I think DCA understands the county's position and I think they also understand ours better after today. As a matter of fact, we have to send up some additional documentation to them. So the point being that this is t.n the process of being worked out. They're aware of the February 5th deadline OFFTCTAI, COURT REPORTERS, COTJI,TER COUNTY, NAPLES, FI! 33962 ., 196 and we hope we'll have it ironed out by that time. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: close the hearing. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Very good. Move to Then we'll continue this item, or do I need to close the public hearing on that? MS. STUDENT: I think you need to close the public hearing with the understanding that we are working out these technical problems with the Department of .Community Affairs and will have a final recommendation at the final. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, you have a motion and a second and certainly we would expect that second to include the technical changes and have them ready for our review on the 5th. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. Next item is Recreation and Open Space. MR. LAVERTY: Madam Chairman, we received no objections or recommendations or cnmments from DCA All in favor signify by OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COT.,I,TER COUNTY, NAPI,ES, FI, 33962 2 3 4 .5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .... 2.6 17 .... :.18 19 197 regarding the Recreation and Open Space Element. The open space amendment included amending the map series to take note of the annexation to City of Naples property and the lowering of the boat ramps standard pursuant to the Board adopting the ]988 boat ramp study. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Does this relate anything to your concern about the Naples -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Interl. ocal agreement between the City of Naples and the County of Collier. MR. LAVERTY: To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the status of that is. I know at th]~ point in time we're expecting a letter back from the Department of Community Affairs regarding, including our counting Naples Park as a county park and including the De]-Nor Wiggins State Park area and the Regional Park land. We're -- the last thing that I heard regarding this item is we're expecting a letter at the end of th]s week or the end of next week. At the same time, we were expecting a letter from them prior to Christmas, too, so we don't r~ally krl~w btll w,~ ,~r'~ ~xp~,¢~l. lng n¢,m~, correspondence. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, if you can follow up OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 198 1 2 3 .4 5 6 8 9 10 .11 12 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 .... 23 24 25 on that. We talked about, it today at the joint meeting at the City of Naples that had to do only with the interlocal agreement as it relates to the City of Naples facilities. But we also talked at one of our strategic planning sessions about the state lands and whether through some sort of a lease arrangement of those state lands we could begin to take credit for those throuoh this element of our Growth Management Plan. Is that something then you're saying you're pursuing that has been pursued? MR. LAVERTY: Yes, it is. And you can expect to see that reflected ~rl the third update of the Capital Improvement Element. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Have you considered the Seminole State Park in all these things in there, also? MR. LAVERTY: No, sir. The direction from the Board, I believe, to Mr. O'Donne]l (phonetic) at the last presentation of the Capital Improvement Element was to look at the beach, at the beach park to include those in the regional park, park land. What we could end up having happen is if we would include such areas as Seminole State Park as a regional park, et cetera, we would -- could possibly end up with a surplus of regional park land, which I don't think would necessarily be a problem other than the fact OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPI.ES, FI, 33962 2 9 lO 13 2O 25 199 that it could affect how we're collecting ~the regional park impact fee. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Here's a memo that was sent to us by Mr. Litsinger that identifies these issues, and maybe I can get you a copy of ~t. It talks about initiating a process that we view all level of service standards in the plan with particular attention paid to the regional park level of service standard and amendment plan and so on. MR. LAVERTY: Yes, sir. That's under the same subject, yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And it's dated September 21st. You're saying we don't have a response yet. MR. [,AVERTY: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Maybe we ought to pursue that. MR. LAVERTY: We have been pursuing it. I know before Mr. O'Donnell left that he had been on the telephone with the people up in DCA and it's just a matter of their workload and them being able to get to it and get it out, get it through their different levels up there and get it signed off. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I move OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI.I,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .10 11 i' ' 22 25 we close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: 200 Second. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: second to close the public hearing. by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: (No response.) I have a motion and a All in favor signify Opposed? CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. The next element is housing. MR. LAVERTY: Madam Chairman, the Housing Element received no objections. The one policy that is included or being added to the Housing Element was -- is being pursued at the direction of the Board and that's regarding and doing a study on -- to determine the appropriateness of providing additional acreage [or affordable housing within the urban coastal fringe area. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: After we get the census After we get the census data, Is there any further data. MR. LAVERTY: that is correct. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: discussion? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: we c].ose the public hearing. Madam Chairman, I move OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIF, R COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 8 9 10 . 11 12 13 14 :.15 16 17 18 .19 20 ................. 21.. 22 23 201 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Second. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying"Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. Next item is Intergovernmental Coordination. MR. LAVERTY: Madam Chairman, we received one objection regarding the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. That was as a result of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission not being l~sl:ed as a coor'dinatJng entity for the Natural Resources Department. That -- stair has made that change, added them as a coordinating entity, and that should address the objection that DCA registered with the county. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: discussion? COMMISSIONER VOI,PE: Is there any further I just have one last question. There was some discussion earlier on about including schools and maybe jails as an appendix to our Growth Management Plan, schools. MR. LAVERTY: The School Board Capital OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .5 12 15, 20 ¸.21 202 Improvement Plan is addressed in the Capital Improvement Element. I don't really recall their discussion about jails in terms of intergovernmental coordination. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that new, though, that schools are added as an appendix to our CIE element of our Growth Management? MR. LAVERTY: No, that's been in there since we adopted the original plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Is there any further discussion? Then I'll ca]] for the closing. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." (A chorus of "Ayes.") CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. This meeting is adjourned. I appreciate -- I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, I just would like to note that the next meeting is scheduled for February 5th in this room at 5:05 p.m. That will be the final adoption hearing on the Growth Plan Amendments. (Proceedings concluded at 9:30 p.m.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COI,LIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 ~-~ 17 ::~..~ '.~.:.:, 9.1 .. 23 2~ ~. .,.. 25 203 STATE OF FLORIDA. ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Christina J. Reynoldson, Deputy Official Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the f~regoing proceedings were taken before me~ at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregning computer-assisted transcription, consisting of pages numbered 2 through 202, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 4th day of February, 1991. ~ , .....:",~ o :,- ~!,:... Notary Pubic State of Florida'~a.~:..~r~ejj: ,.."? -..' 3..% ..... ': ...... ~ ..' My commission expire.~.:'. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962