Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/05/1991 SORIGINAL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING RE: 1990 Growth Management Plan Amendments for adoption February 5, 1991 6:20 p.m. Third Floor Boardroom Collier County Courthouse Naples, Florida 33962 Reported by: Jeffrey W. Marquardt Deputy Official Court Reporter Notary Public State of Florida at Large TELE: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Carrothers Reporting Service, Inc. 20th Judicial Circuit - Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 813-774-8126 FAX: 813-774-6022 APPEARANCES Anne Goodnight: Burr 5. Saunders: Richard Shanahan: Michael J. Volpe: Max A. Hasse, Jr.: Board Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner ~:ALSO PRESENT: Ken Cuyler: Ron Lee: Frank Brutt: Bill Laverty: Nell Dorrill County Attorney Long Range Planning Comm. Development Growth Management Planner County Manager AUDIENCE SPEAKERS: Steve Barnes Neno J. Spagna George F. Keller Herbert V. Cambridge Dan Brundage Jim Nite Mathias L. Tari Donald Segretto Frederick J. Voss Kim Kobza Jimmie Crews Bruce Anderson Jeff Purse Buryl McClurg Don Pickworth Elly Soto OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 6 9 lO 14 16 17 3 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll call the meeting back to order. We have a new stenographer tonight and he's not familiar with all of our voices and faces; so, when you stand up to speak, if you will please identify yourselves so that we can make sure that the record gets correct. I appreciate it. MR. LAVERTY: Good evening, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name Bill Laverty; I'm the Growth Management Planner. Tonight's public hearing is the second hearing to consider the 1990 Growth Management Plan amendments for adoption. Tonight's public hearing has been advertised pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes. Collier County invited the Department of Community Affairs to participate in this public hearing. Miss Sandra Stennett from the Department is here tonight. Miss Stennett. (Miss Stennett stands for recognition) MR. LAVERTY: She'll be able to answer questions and make some clarifications if having such question or clarification would be needed from the Department. Tonight I would like to propose one amendment to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 7 lO 14 15 17 20 the agenda. That would be an outstanding issue that was remaining from the last public hearing regarding water management. We had some discussions with the Department of Community Affairs. This particular amendment will dovetail into the Capital Improvement Element amendment, and that's why we would like to take this one first. COMMISSIONER HASSE: This is where? MR. LAVERTY: It's water management. MR. WILEY: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Robert Wiley; I'm with the Water Management Department staff. The subject of discussion tonight concerns the one objection -- two objections that we've received on the level service policies and the drainage water management, which is a portion of the public facilities element. The objections we've received from D.C.A., as we reported to you in the first public hearing, were to portions of the plan, which we did not amend. And so, we got direction from you at the last meeting to continue discussions with you to try to get it resolved so that we could come to some form of an agreement and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 *3 7 12 13 16 17 avoid any potential conflicts in the future. We made numerous telephone calls to the D.C.A. and we then received a facsimile from them and at their direction they are recommending some wording that we have incorporated within to amend our policy. We had not intended to amend it; but subject to the wording that they recommended, it, in our opinion, is saying the same thing we've previously said. They just feel that the new wording that we would have in there where we refer to specific ordinances, Ordinance 90-10, Ordinance 74-50, they feel that that is a more positive way of saying how we will handle future developments -- future private developments. We do not have any disagreements with this wording. We feel that it's the very same thing. And so, at this time, we would like to recommend that a new wording for that policy be put into the adopted plan; and I think you have the wording before you there. If you want, I can read it for you if you need it read into the record. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Why don't you, for the record. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 7 14 15 16 17 MR. WILEY: For the record, the D.C.A. has recommended and staff is concurring that the new Policy, 1.2.2-A read, "Future" -- quote, "private," end of quote, developments, water quantity and quality standards as specified in Collier County Ordinance 74-50 and Ordinance 90-10. And then, also subject to this to be consistent within our Growth Management Plan, there would need to be a change in Policy 1.1.5 in the Capital Improvement Element. And also, further on it's Policy 10.1.2 in the Conservation Coastal Management Element. These two policies in the Capital Improvement Element and the Conservation Coastal Element are merely repeats of what was said in the drainage water management element. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any discussion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of getting this language approved, do you need a motion to approve the language? MR. LAVERTY: Yes, sir, that would be appropriate. '- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'll make OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 4 7 11 1:2 13 15 19 2o 21 a motion to approve the language that was read into the record by our staff. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We have a motion and a second to approve the language that has been read into the record. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses; CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: May I ask the staff a question? On the drainage, we have been deferring actions on the Storm Water Drainage Master Plan and implementation of that plan throughout the storm water utility. There is some discussion about our C.I.E. element as relates to our Storm Water Drainage Master Plan. Is there anything that we should be made aware of that -- in terms of timing of any actions that we're taking? Do you understand my -- I guess you don't understand my question. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ' 5 14 15 18 19 MR. WILEY: As far as the timing of the completion of Capital Improvement Projects to meet the requirements of the C.I.E., is that your question? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yes. I mean there's a statement here that, "It's also important to note that the water management C.I.E. projects are not deficiencies related to the adopted level of service but are those projects that need to be untaken to be improved." And then there's a statement here that the Board is -- one of the projects identified as being deleted is the countywide master drainage plan and basing plans. Are we deleting -- MR. WILEY: No. Let me explain that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's all I'm asking. MR. WILEY: Okay. That is in response to a draft letter, of which was sent to us. We have, through the C.I.E., I think -- and Mr. Litsinger will explain it a little bit farther -- but we did not delete that Master Plan project, we completed that. As a result of completing the Master Plan, we then dropped it from the scheduled pro~ect to be completed; but the D.C.A did not pick that up. And so, that's where they were OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 8 9 12 13 16 17 .:: ¸20 21 fearing that we had dropped the project. We did not. We have advanced through that, and are continuing on to make progress. You-all have adopted the Master Plan; that's what you adopted August 22nd. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. MR. WILEY: But D.C.A. didn't see that we had completed it. That's why we didn't list it. That's why they're questioning our intent. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What is in our C.I.E. element, then, for or Storm Water Drainage Master Plan? MR. WILEY: For the Master Plan, itself, within the C.I.E., what we are saying now is we are beginning to implement it. We are doing the basic planning. We have also picked up the specific projects, which were identified in the implementation program of the Master Plan; and those are the new projects that are now listed in the C.I.E. They are not the list which we used to have. When the Master Plan was approved, we then were given direction by the Board to totally rewrite the C.I.E. to incorporate the first five years of the implementation -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 14 15 16 19 2 2 I0 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, what's the dollar amount, then, for those projects in the C.I.E. element for the next five years for drainage? I really can't answer that right off MR. WILEY: the top. MR. LAVERTY: MR. WILEY: I think it was about 18,000,000. It was a reduction. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: 18,000,0007 MR. WILEY: I don't think, sir. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: discussion? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is there any further Mr. Laverty, I don't know whether that's an appropriate subject for discussion this evening; but we are going to be talking about a C.I.E. element, and $18,000,000 for our drainage project seems to me to be on the high side based upon some of the other numbers that I've seen for the five- year period, which was, I think, to my recollection,~ was $8,000,000. So, I don't know where the $18,000,000 comes from. We're trying to balance that C.I.E. element, and to put in these numbers concerns me unless they relate OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 : 12 :~! 13 14 15 16 19 2O 11 to something; and the last figure that I saw for the five-year period for the drainage projects was $8,000,000. MR. LAVERTY: To be honest with you, Commissioner, I'm not really up to speed on the actual projects that have been submitted in the Capital Improvement Element by Water Management. From what I can recall of the Capital Improvement Element public hearings, was that we reduced the overall need by $30,000,000 to end up with a total, whatever it may be. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioners, Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director, for the record. That's a correct assessment by Mr. Laverty. The original C.I.E. update that was presented to you had approximately $44,000,000 or $45,000,000 worth of drainage projects, which was revised as a result of the Drainage Master Plan having been completed prior to adoption of the C.I.E. and was ultimately reduced down to $18,000,000 over the five-year period of the C.I.E., with much of the large-scale capital construction in later years that you will see as we move further out. So, yes, the C.I.E. that you will be adopting as OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 13 14 15 17 18 19 12 an amendment tonight does reflect the decisions and the findings of the Master Plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's fine. And I just raised the question that the number that I had previously focused on was $8,000,000 when we heard from Mr. Bolt and we heard from Mr. Forenz concerning what projects would have to be done. Because, as we are going through our Storm Water Drainage Master Plan, we are looking at a 20-year program, and the cost over a period of 20 years, looking at a worst case scenario, and then we looked at the five-year period within our C.I.E. element, and again, when we are talking about this in a different context, the amount that we are talking about was $8,000,000. And I'm just concerned about, you know, we've got to balance that C.I.E. Element of your Growth Management Plan. So, just that number, and when we approved the $18,000,000. MR. WILEY: Okay. The $8,000,000 figure which you speak, that is the figure which was the number recommended by the Master Plan consultant for the total Water Management Program per year when you included all OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ?:' 2 3 5 7 9 12 13¸ 16 19 20 21 13 capital, all operation, all managements. He was saying by the end of the five-year time frame, we would need to be able to have approximately $8,000,000 worth of total effort from the Department each year. That was the $8,000,000 figure, as best I can remember. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Thank you. Next item. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger again. This item is your Capital Improvement Element update. At the first public hearing on the 23rd, the Board recommended -- excuse me -- the staff recommended to the Board that you adopt the second annual C.I.E. update as a previously unreviewed amendment. In the meantime, in addition to the 11th hour negotiation with D.C.A. on the water management issues which Mr. Riley -- excuse me -- Robert Wiley addressed, we've also been in contact with the D.C.A. on an informal basis trying to address some concerns that they had raised in an informal review, since they had not previously reviewed this with the submission package. We have addressed those concerns. We feel, adequately in order for them to find this C.I.E. in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 10 19 2O 14 compliance as an amendment, the staff is recommending that you adopt the second annual C.I.E. update as a Growth Management Plan amendment tonight with the indicated changes in the drainage levels of service. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do we actually have that C.I.E. element in this package? MR. LAVERTY: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I didn't think so. MR. LAVERTY: No. You each had your own individual elements in your office and at the public hearing last time, and I guess it was not communicated to Miss Felson that you needed them tonight. MR. OLIFF: Any other questions while Mr. Volpe is out? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CCPC recommended approval. MR. OLIFF: Well, CCPC had reservations about some of the concepts related to funding and projects in general within the C.I.E. in terms of the general economic environment and recommended that, in the future, that you review some of these policies specifically related to level of service standards, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 8 9 11 - 13 : 14 15 2O 21 15 revenues and so forth. COMMISSIONER HASSE: say to do anything now? MR. OLIFF: They didn't make any specific recommendations at this time. By and large, they didn't CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You mentioned the drainage. Is there anything specifically that you want to call to our attention about that amendment? MR. OLIFF: The -- I believe it was pointed out to you that Mr. Wiley read into the record the exact language that we want to change in the C.I.E., which would be on page C.I.E. 6, I believe, which we handed out copies of that to you on the County Surface Water Management Systems under 1.1.5 Policy, 3-A-1 and 3-A-2. We can read that into the record again, if you would like. MR. VOLPE: No, that's not necessary. He was reading that as it relates to the policies that are set forth in the Capital Improvement Element. MR. OLIFF: The bottom line is: We're recommending that you adopt the C.I.E. identical to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 15 18 19 2O 16 one you adopted by ordinance previously with the one change related to drainage at this time. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Are you referring to any particular page in the white book? MR. OLIFF: In the C.I.E. element? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. MR. OLIFF: That would be page C.I.E. 6, I believe, under Goals and Objectives. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I think we ought to have two more books up here, because I -- MR. OLIFF: Mr. Lavetry gave you a copy of the page change, I believe. At the top it says, "County Surface Water Management System." COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And that only relates to private developments. MR. OLIFF: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any further discussion? And may I have a motion to approve the Capital Improvement Element as it has been amended. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So moved, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Shanaban made OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 15 16 19 17 the motion and Commissioner Hasse seconded the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (One no) sorry. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. I'm COMMISSIONER HASSE: Who was it that said no? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I did. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion passes 4 to 1, with Commissioner Volpe voting against the motion. The next item is the Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. LEE: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Ron Lee of Long Range Planning. The item before you is the Golden Gate Master Plan; it is up for adoption. The plan was reviewed by the BCC on January 23rd. All changes to the plan were preliminarily approved and are highlighted in the staff report. We have also -- although, we have one outstanding issue to be resolved; and that's how to treat properties that are in transition from the existing plan to the Golden Gate Master Plan. OFFICIAL COURT R__EP~ORT_ERS, COLL_IE~R COUNTY~ NA~PL_E~, FL 33962 ~-' 13 17 18 19 18 Per Board direction, staff has developed a new policy, which is outlined on page 3 of your staff report; and this is the only outstanding issue and it's up for consideration. At that last meeting, the direction was to include a policy that would treat all approved projects and applications under the existing plan. Staff analysis has indicated that there are no outstanding applications. There are three approved projects that would be affected by this. And, basically, what this policy allows is that any project approved based on the existing countywide plan to be continued to be reviewed for subsequent development orders based upon the existing countywide plan. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What page? MR. LEE: On page 3 of the staff report. That's the new policy that was added. Where do you read this, now? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Under the blue tab? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to suggest that we talk about the policy concerning OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 15 16 19 2O 19 dealing with petitions that are filed prior to a certain date. And I think that's what you were getting at, Mr. Lee, when you mentioned that? MR. LEE: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: correct7 MR. LEE: That issue; is that There are no outstanding applications. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that the -- what I'd like to do is -- I believe that we've considered a couple of applications. You did a provisional use, I believe, this morning, that fit under -- MR. LEE: That's an approved project. There are no outstanding rezone applications. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No provisional uses, no developments, nothing -- MR. LEE: Everything's been approved. we changed the language a little bit, and make it more compatible for D.C.A., perhaps. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We didn't have that rush avalanche that we expected. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~<i Does that also include the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church? Did they ever That's why OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 20 apply? MR. LEE: applied, to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: No. They never came forward and I have a question, then. What does that mean about the gas station there on Golden Gate Parkway? MR. LEE: The way the policy is written, it includes provisional uses and rezone applications approved; but to my knowledge, that gas station has received its building permits and it can continue. COMMISSIONER HASSE: They have received? MR. LEE: To my knowledge they have. I understand the petitioner is here this evening. He can address that further. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a letter from the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church concerning appearing at this meeting. Is there anybody here from that church? Madam Chairman, I'd like to ask a representative of the church a question if I could. MR. BARNES: I am Steve Barnes, I reside at 366 Henley Drive. I am representing the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 6 7 10 ) 13 16 17 18 2O 21 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did you make your -- make an application for planning unit development? Have you not filed that? MR. BARNES: No, sir. And the reason was: After that last meeting we went to, we felt after your vote that that was denied unless you had it filed as of that last meeting. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. BARNES: I think we -- do you want to discuss that letter? Is that what we're -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I'm not sure what the -- what you want us to do with it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, would that indicate we could use that letter as -- MR. BARNES: I've not seen that letter, no. And based upon the direction we received from the Board last week, was any application that was filed prior to January 23rd would be considered; and they have not filed an application by that date. MR. BARNES: Well, when you had that meeting, that was the 23rd. We couldn't have filed something that night, is the problem. 243 , OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 6 7 9 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 22 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, the point is -- and I don't know if there's anything we can do about it or not -- but the point is we were discussing a policy; and the commission had decided, tentatively, that that would be the cutoff, but the Commission is still an open issue. And, you know, we have one -- it's not a -- it's not finally resolved until this Board votes tonight. So, theoretically, if a petition had been filed in the interim, then we could, you know, consider that. The question becomes whether we can consider a petition by the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church that cannot be filed until tomorrow, and I don't know if we can. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Why couldn't we? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we can, I mean perhaps -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Maybe our attorney can give us some direction. MR. CUYLER: I think you've been as liberal as you can possibly be on this issue. You need to draw the line at some reasonable point; and I think the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 lO 12 13 15 16 ].9 20 2'I 23 reasonable point is what staff is suggesting to you, to say that anyone that comes in tomorrow and files an application, I hate the line to be drawn at a church but, you know, my recommendation is to follow the staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, we have been discussing this for several weeks on this, so -- MR. CUYLER: I know that, but the discussion was "at least applications," if not "approvals," and that is, as far as a policy decision, I mean that is a very -- you know, it tends to be a very liberal policy decision. You can take the point that, you know, approvals or even forward to that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: yourself. MR. CUYLER: Yes. Ken, would you identify Ken Cuyler, County Attorney. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me just ask the Board, is it the desire of the Board to find a way to permit the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church to file a plan unit and development on its site? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. As long as it doesn't destroy our Golden Gate Master Plan, I would suggest OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: When can you file your application, Mr. Barnes? MR. BARNES: We can -- you know, we can obviously file it. It's -- I guess it's ready to go right now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can you file it tomorrow morning? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Spagna. MR. BARNES: Can I clear the air? I think that's what we're trying to do in here right now. The letter is very specific on what the Church is desirous of the County Commissioners to do, and there are three points in that letter. One: We didn't come in last night to try and get something done. We have to use a P.U.D. zoning on that piece of ground to meet our Presbyterian approval's financing because it's such a large project, which I think most of you have seen the plans. So, we're going to have to use a PUD for it. We have -- and you've been given copies of it, a memo from your legal staff, dated in October. That's how long we've been at this, stating that we are in compliance with the existing plan; we are out of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 5 14 15 16 17 19 20 25 compliance with what's getting ready to pass tonight. We asked the staff if we need to file or not. Give us an answer, which one are we going to be looked at. And the answer would be, "You will be looked at under the new one." Therefore, you're in compliance. So, that's -- you know, we are going to go to the County Commissioners and ask them, "Which one are you going go to on?" and it took us until the 23rd meeting or the 22nd, whenever it was, to get before you; and here we are. And, basically, what we're asking you to do is to -- you know, we're not vacillating, we're just trying to get a "yes" or "no" concrete answer that's for sure. We were told that it would -- all applications would be looked at under the old plan. Different projects are being approved now under the new plan. Mr. Volpe's is, "Well, what do you do with people who have been told not to file?" Here we are. We're simply asking you-all to allow us to be grandfathered in, allow us to file a completed PUD request, and pay the fees for it. COMMISSIONER MASSE: How long would that take? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 9 :.: '.: 11 ' ' 12 13 14 18 19 21 26 MR. BARNES: We can have that filed by the end of the week and have the fees paid. Today is Tuesday. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's why I suggested to you after the meeting on the 22nd or 23rd that you file your application. I remember specifically suggesting that to you so we wouldn't have to deal with, "How do we handle this?" COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: That was my understanding. I'm shocked, to be perfectly honest. MR. BARNES: We took the vote as being three to two against them, too; so -- MR. CUYLER: I think the Board clearly indicated the issue was going to be open and the final decision was going to be made tonight and Commissioner Saunders specifically said, "If you want to file an application, file it." Commissioner Hasse, you just said, "I don't mind doing this if it doesn't foul up the plan." In my opinion, you're compromising the plan if you go to some date in the future and allow PUD applications to be filed. There's just no way to handle that. MR. HASSE: Does that include provisional uses? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 11 16 17 19 2O 27 MR. CUYLER: That includes provisional uses. I mean when you talk about grandfathering, there's some- thing that is grandfathered in. It's not discussions. There is something, some development order that's grandfathered in that, at the very least it's an application. But if you say, "Everything in the next week," then you're just compromising the plan. cannot recommend it that you do, and I strongly recommend that you don't. MR. MASSE Supposing we were to continue the Golden Gate Master Plan for a week. MR. LAVERTY: time -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner, we don't have that Bill, identify yourself. I just MR. LAVERTY: For the record, Bill Laverty, Growth Management Planner. We have 60 days to adopt this plan. Monday of this next week is the 60th day. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we miss the deadline, I think there's also, what, a 45-day period in which we have to -- I mean there are other time periods. The hammer doesn't fall if we miss the adoption deadline, don't believe. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 MR. LAVERTY: I don't know what would transpire if we miss the adoption deadline, but we have to transmit the plan within five days after adoption. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: As I understood the policies that was discussed at the last Board meeting, we had a couple of policies. There wasn't official taken, since we couldn't take any action at that ti~e. I thought that there was a policy that was being discussed that there were -- if there was an applica- tion that hadn't been filed, that those were the applications that -- under that policy that was being discussed would be considered; and one of them we heard this morning. MR. LAVERTY: That was the last of them. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And I think you had identified that there were actually, like, three that were in the process of differing stages. One of other ones I guess we're going to hear from happens to be the service station in Golden Gate. So, I just -- I guess I'm just confused by where we are right now; and I think we all want to try to help. I've always felt that there was a way that if it's a good project, that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 11 14 15 16 19 2O 29 there is an ability to amend the Growth Management Plan in an orderly fashion at a later point in time. A lot of people have put in a lot of time and effort on this particular plan; and I'm concerned about fairness, yes. Those that were turned away -- you were one that was turned away by the staff. There were others that we turned away; that we told them that if they didn't -- if they submitted their application, they were going to be looked at under the new plan. And it was another church and I just think, you know, I want to try to be as fair as I can to all of the people and I thought that the Dolicy that was being discussed was kind of a middle-ground compromise that sort of did it. But to try to extend the adoption date of the -- of the Golden Gate Master Plan to accommodate one particular petitioner really does -- and I'm hearing our County Attorney saying that it may create some problems with the plan if he's recommending against it. So, that's where I am in this issue. COMMISSIONER HASSE: What would be the Presbyterian Church's way of maneuvering through this problem? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 16 18 2O 21 22 30 MR. CUYLER: Could you repeat that, please? Commissioner Hasse, repeat that question. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Church be considered now? trouble concentrating. How could the Presbyterian Mr. Oliff, I'm having MR. CUYLER: COMMISSIONER HASSE: Church be considered now? Repeat that question. How can the Presbyterian How can they be considered now? Just a second. MR. CUYLER: guess -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: This is Ken Cuyler speaking, the County Attorney. MR. CUYLER: One of the problems with this specific project or application is: Everything else you've dealt with is approved. You're not going to be talking about approving this item for probably six months if it's a P.U.D. So, you've got one project that's completely out there by itself; and you're not talking about approving in the next two weeks or trying to work something in so it could be approved quickly. You are talking about at least five to six to seven months if it's going to be a P.U.D., or maybe a month. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 6 7 ~0 12 ~3 14 15 ~6 17 ~8 19 9.0 21 31 It could be shorter than that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Could he do that now in the face of the Golden Gate Master Plan? MR. CUYLER: As you'll recall from some of the conversations, when you approve things, the Board, on occasion, said a petitioner would ask, you know, if we file an application, are we going to be looked at under the old plan or the new plan? And the Board, on occasion -- you know, every time that I recall it coming up, said you're going t~ be looked at under the new plan. $o, you know, if you want to take the risk if you can get in quick enough and get approved, then fine. If you can't, then you're not going to make it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, I'd like to find a way to do it. I mean just today we approved the church for provisional use. I'm asking. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. It seems to me we have three choices. One is that we can delay the adoption of the Golden Gate Master Plan for one week to accommodate the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church. The other is that we can adopt the plan tonight, and you will just have to come through the process with a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 32 comprehensive land use plan change in order to have your development considered. Or the third, Mr. Cuyler, the third is that we adopt the comprehensive plan tonight; but we have -- we adopt the policy that's says that if anybody applies for a land use within 24 hours of the adoption of the plan, then we'll consider them under the old plan. The problem with that is that I don't think there's anybody else out there that's going to do it, but is that a viable alternative? We have a one-day grace period for petitioners to apply. MR. CUYLER: I just don't know what your basis is for doing something like that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, aren't we later on this evening -- we're going to be considering some amendments to our adopted Growth Management Plan, not Golden Gate. We're talking about the future land use map of Growth Management Plan. We are going to be hearing, for a second time, the petition of Wilson Miller having to do with a 144-acre parcel on 951. That's going to be -- that's a proposed amendment to our Growth Management Plan. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 6 7 10 11 14 15 16 18 19 20 22 ). 33 I'm Just -- there is a process in response to Commissioner Hasse' question. Isn't there a process, whereas a part of the P.U.D. application in an orderly way this petitioner or any other petitioner can seek simultaneously with the rezoning amendment to our -- there isn't? Okay. MR. CUYLER: Not normally. DRI's, yes. It's normally the plan -- normally, the comp plan amendment has to follow the cycle. There's a couple of exceptions, but not the normal P.U.D. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, what would be the response to Presbyterian Church? Come forward with what? MR. CUYLER: I guess the initial question that you have to answer is: Are you willing to go beyond tonight in order to try to find some accommodation, not only for this project, but any other project that comes through the door? If the answer to that is yes, then there are some things that you can do; and I can't tell you that there might not be some challenge to doing that. But when you're talking about this with this particular project, you're talking about a different OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 · 5 13 14 17 18 19 2O 21 34 situation than any of the other ones that have been in front of you either at the last public hearing two weeks ago or recently because all those others have actually received an approval. They've g6tten in front of you and said, "Here's our situation. You,re approved," and we are talking, here, about only an application. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm sorry, Mr. Cuyler, I don't -- MR. CUYLER: If you're saying -- if there's a consensus on the Board that there is some way that you're going to work this in and you understand there may be risks, then, you know, I can talk to staff for a few minutes; and then we can try to address that if you're going to try to accommodate this one single project. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If we don't do something this evening for this particular applicant, does that mean forever and a day that we would not be able to consider a plan amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan to accommodate a redesignation of this particular 20-acre parcel under the future land use map of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5>'. 10 11 15 18 19 2O 35 Golden Gate Master Plan? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Let me tie on to what Mike's saying, because Mike and I and several of the others commissioners have asked several times or have stated several times that we feel like that the Master Plan, the way that it is is fine; but that we need to go in there and massage it a little bit because we've already seen some problems to it. So, I mean we've got to have a process that we're going to be able to amend this Master Plan, especially to take care of some of the problems that we've already seen. Now, how are we going to go about doing this? We can do it every six months; right? MR. CUYLER: amendment cycle. proposes or -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: You can do it as part of your It's things you propose or staff So, they have some recourses, what we're trying to get at? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: to find. MR. CUYLER: True. That's what we're trying OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 14 17 18 36 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: They have resource in the future that can allow them to come before this body to get a provisional use by amendment. MR. CUYLER: The answer to that is yes. Now, whether that suits their purposes or not, I don't know; but yes, they do have access to the amendment. COMMISSIONER VOSPE: The other thing we discussed is the, I think in considering some of the provisional uses, some of the -- not only churches but other provisional uses, we've talked about perhaps revisiting the issue of the appropriateness of provisional uses on four-lane divide highways, which would be in the category of major north-south or east-west arterials. And that's where I'm coming from, that, you know, it sounds like if you don't do something in the next 24 hours, that we -- you know, that we've somehow fore- closed the opportunity to approach this in an orderly fashion. I don't think we have, and that's where I was looking for some direction from the County Attorney's Office. MR. CUYLER: There is a cycle that is on the application processes right now. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 19 37 MR. LEE: The application, the 1991 amendment cycle -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: What's your name? MR. LEE: Ron Lee, Long Range Planning Staff. The 1991 amendment cycle application filing date ended the fourth Friday in January; so, the deadline has passed for our '91 cycle. But I guess what I was going to suggest as an 'alternative is to extend the application date for these people to do an amendment; but that amendment would have to take the form of a language or a mad change specific to that site, and then we would consider that next year as an amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: petitioner, I think there's been some discussion -- maybe no specific direction to the staff -- that we were asking the staff or talking about giving some direction to the staff that on this whole issue about provisional uses that the staff look at whether there may be a reason for going back into the Golden Gate Master Plan, having hearings to get public input again Well, beyond this particular OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 13 14 15 '16 17 18 '19 20 21 38 to see if maybe, now that the issue has been a little bit more focused, that there may be an approach. That maybe he doesn't have to get into the cycle; maybe we, as a Board and our staff, can initiate that process to see if there's some reason to do it over the entire area. MR. LEE: Throughout our entire process, that idea of allowing provisional uses along our major arterials was discussed; but then we came up with the same situation that we have along Golden Gate Parkway, which we were trying to avoid all along. So, you got major arterial Santa Barbara, Golden Gate Parkway and 951; and you'd end up with the same thing as you have on Golden Gate Parkway, which we were trying to avoid. And then, the other part of our thought process was: Those lots are 660 feet deep, which would provide adequate buffer from those major arterials. So, we felt comfortable with our position on recommending residential land uses along those major corridors. I don't know of any specific criteria you can put in the language to say you could allow provisional uses along arterials without opening up the door for all those OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 39 other arterials such as 951 and Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER MASSE: Are you telling me, Ron Lee, that there never is a time, forever more, that we cannot grant anything that's some sort of a problem with the Growth Management Plan or the Golden Gate Master Plan? We're stuck forever more with this? MR. LEE: Could you repeat the question? COMMISSIONER MASSE: That's what I'm asking. MR. OLIFF: Tom Oliff, for the record. I think you're faced with three options. The first option is: Either you're going to find a way to try and approve this church by some sort of an exception or time gap tonight, or else they're going to be in the cycle under your direction that staff go back and do something in terms of either a map change or something specific in this next cycle, which is basically -- it started in February. Or else, you're telling us to go back and start looking at this entire provisional use concept in the Golden Gate Master Plan. The first option is one where they get some sort of remedy under this amendment cycle. The second one is basically one that takes roughly one year for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 5 9 lO 13 14 15 16 18 4O approval. The second one is one where you're going to have some study time ahead of the actual amendment cycle, and it's going to be better than a year. So, you're look at probably 14 to 16 months for that option. So, those are really only the three options that you've got; and you just need to decide which of those routes you want us to go. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Plus the thing -- do you have time, Mr. Spagna? MR. SPAGNA: Do I have time for what? COMMISSIONER HASSE: You know what I said. MR. SPAGNA: For the record, I'm Neno Spagna, N-e-n-o S-p-a-g-n-a; and what I wanted to do is just give you some information on the timing of this thing. Now, all the work, except the Water Management requirement and possibly some of the engineering, has been completed; but I do have a problem in getting it all printed up and submitted. However, I think a reasonable length of time might be something in the neighborhood of a couple of weeks. Now, the other point I wanted to make was that I don't look at this as an ordinary situation like all of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 41 the rest of them. I mean we have a paper trail along this that goes back -- well, you heard the date of October, and very possibly even earlier than that. This has been discussed with the staff; it has been discussed, I believe, with possibly some of the commissioners, I don't remember now. But there -- the reason why we did not meet that deadline was simply because we felt like, based on your policy, that you adopted my consensus at your last meeting or whatever you want to call it. We just felt that we would have to come in and get some further instructions. So, I feel that we could get it in within a fairly reasonable time, allowing for printing and doing the Water Management aspects of it. The other point that I want to make -- and I do understand there's a provision in the comp plan and this happened to be verified -- that minor amendments can be made to the comp plan at the same time that a petition such as this would be approved by the Board. If that were the case, well, I think at that time that you could amend the future land use map to reflect that this would be -- could be used as a site for a church. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 7 8 9 10 42 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Cuyler? MR. BLANCHARD: Mr. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Did you hear that, I can answer that, Yes. MR. BLANCHARD: The States Statute -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Identify yourself, please. MR. BLANCHARD: Sorry. Bob Blanchard, I'm the Growth Planning Director. There are a number of -- there are basically two different ways to amend the Growth Management Plan. The first one is the regular cycle. We're allowed, as you are all aware, two times a year as a maximum. This Board has chosen to just do that one time a year, leaving the option of the second cycle open for the Board's discretion for use. The state legislation does provide for small area amendments, also. In conjunction with the DRI, as we did with the Halstat proposal, they amended the Growth Management Plan at the same time. As an emergency and also for cumulative small area amendments, that's extremely restrictive and I would have to look up the acreage. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 lo 14 15 18 19 2O 21 43 It's either five or fifteen cumulative over the entire year. So, it's only to deal with extremely small areas. I think that's what Dr. Spagna was relating to. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess the question is: Can we, tonight, designate that site as an appropriate site for a church as part of the adoption of the Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. BLANCHARD: The problem I have with that, Commissioner, is that we're not a site -- we don't have a site specific designation on the map. I think that that would be difficult to do without having some kind of language for the application. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Do you have a site specific that you can give them right now? MR. BLANCHARD: Well, my point is, Commissioners, that there are no site specific designations. The Golden Gate Master Plan is similar to the Growth Management Plan, in that it -- the map you see is generalized. I think Mr. Oliff has adequately and accurately explained the options that are available. We have the Growth Management Plan cycle. If this Board would like to direct us to take OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 44 their application, we can include it in this cycle, which will be heard sometime early next year. The exact date, you know, depends on when we submit. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Mr. Oliff. MR. OLIFF: To sort of give you your suboption -- in terms if the first one, if you want to accommodate now, the cleanest way that I can possibly recommend to you is that you continue the Golden Gate Master Plan hearing until Monday or Tuesday of next week and Give them that window; and that's the window that they've Got to prepare an application. And in that way, we would be able to say in the plan that we would accept those projects who had made application prior to adoption of the new Golden Gate Master Plan; and I think there's some rationale for that as well. Then can you'say that, you know, you reviewed everything they've got applied into the old plan. Under the old plan, you're applying everything after the adoption of the new plan under the new plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You should see the expression of the person from D.C.A.'s face, and she's used to this. This is -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 20 45 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: My question, Ron, would be that -- I understand about provisional uses and I agree with provisional uses on the main arteries and everything that -- as what we've been discussing, but could we not take churches and put them in P.U.D.'s and have a certain number of acreages on there so that they could be classified under P.U.D.'s? Because the majority of the property in the Gate and in the Estate is two and a half acres unless it's in some of the plotted areas. It's right there around. And so, what we're looking at is the State's property; and if they've got anywhere from seven to ten acres that could be allocated in a P.U.D. for a church, then I -- you know, that was where my thinking was coming, because that could go in the neighborhood that it wouldn't put that much impact on the surrounding neighbors. MR. LEE: I guess that could be the portion that's used, but there has to be some language in there that states, "Churches shall be allowed within the Estates as a P.U.D.," and outline some additional -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, what I'm talking about OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 7 8 9 10 11 46 now is amending the plan; and that's going through this type of amendment and adding the amount of acreage and everything that they would have to put in there. COMMISSIONER HASSE: A dual lane highway and all this thing included in that. I don't know what I'm doing to you, but -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sometimes you just have to ignore the advice of counsel and make motions; and I'm going to make one in reference to this, regardless of the consequences. I think we have all expressed a desire that the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church be permitted to build a church on the site that it is planning on filing a planning development on. There's been no objection to it from anybody. It's something that's been in the works for a long, long time, based on the fact that they have been in the process of working with staff for a number of months, based on the fact that in October they were told that it was unlikely that they could be considered under the currently existing conference of plan; and therefore, they were deterred from filing based on the fact that they have been to the two public hearings OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 · .22 47 that we've had on the Golden Gate Master Plan. I want to make a motion that we make one exception to the applicability of the Golden Gate Master Plan, and that will be to the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church for the south 150 feet of Tract 117 and Tract 118, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. And that's based purely on the fact that all of us have heard their arguments and they have been before the County for a number of months on this particular application. I'll make that in the form of a motion. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: second. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second it. I have a motion and the I have a question. At the risk of being criticized, I'd like to suggest we table that motion until we've heard from the public as it relates to the Golden Gate Master Plan, which, I think, is appropriate. We can table that motion until we've heard from the public. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any problem delaying the motion for a few minutes until we see if there are any registered speakers. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 § 6 '7 9 12 13 15 22 ~, ...,.: ~: · 48 COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: second. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It remains intact, though. We've got a motion and a Before we do that, Ron, do you have something to add to the discussion, as far as the motion is concerned? MR. LEE: I still want some clarification. that be a map change? What form would this take? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll leave the detail work to our capable staff. I'm not sure if that's going to be a map change. You understand what the policyis? And I don't know how you accomplish that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: the first speaker. MR. SPAGNA: All right. If you'll call Would Madam Chairman, I also signed up to speak on this same subject -- in a general sense -- and I would like to, with the permission of the Board, to go ahead and make that short presentation; and then I You may. Thank you. Which church are you talking will be through with it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. SPAGNA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HASSE: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 § 6 7 10 11 14 15 16 · 19 2O 49 about? MR. SPAGNA: This church is, in general, in the Estates area; and I would like for you to get the original. I would like to give you a copy of the letter and then I would like to read it and I will not have any verbal comments unless I am asked to answer any questions. This is addressed to you, Mrs. Goodnight, and the members of the Board of County Commissioners. This is with reference to the churches of the provisional use in the Golden Gate area Master Plan. "Dear Mrs. Goodnight: In my opinion, the conditions for the location of churches and other" -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You're not going to read this letter to us, are you, the whole letter? I mean can read the letter. toady. are. wants. I've been read to all day long MR. SPAGNA: All right. Whatever your wishes COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I mean whatever the Board I'm taking the time to read your letter. MR. SPAGNA: All right. ! OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 21 50 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Again, I'm -- is this proposal related to churches generally as a provisional use within the Golden Gate Estates area? MR. SPAGNA: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And it relates specifically to perhaps considering an amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan to make -- MR. SPAGNA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- a special -- not a special, but to focus on the ability to locate churches in neighborhoods? MR. SPAGNA: That's correct. MR. BLANCHARD: Madam Chairman, could the staff get a copy of that? COMMISSIONER HASSE: I think it would be good. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any questions of Mr. Spagna? COMMISSIONER HASSE: You've read this, have you, Mr. Lee? MR. LEE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Do you see something with this that indicates just churches can be considered? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 51 MR. LEE: The way I understand that's set up is that churches would be allowed anywhere within the Estates. Is that correct, Mr. Spagna? MR. LEE: It's staff's opinion that's circumventing the whole -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: No, I can't -- MK. LEE: -- circumventing the approach that we have taken in this Master Plan, is to locate these churches in certain areas with a certain amount of predictability. And what that language does is allows them anywhere within the Estates, and I don't think that's what staff would support. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: As long as there's four and a half acres. And I concur with you. I like the idea of P.U.D.'s with a certain amount of acreage and then provisional being allowed for churches and then provisional uses being allowed under the criteria that we've allowed currently in the Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. LEE: But there's no way of controlling the location of these churches, and that was one of the stronger vocal points of all our workshops and public hearings. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 52 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But there would be a way of controlling the P.U.D.'s if we had a certain amount of acreage that we had to be placed on there. MR. LEE: A certain amount would be allocated for churches. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Mr. Lee, is there some way this can be done? Or, perhaps as Mr. Saunders had suggested, to continue this for a week. I think you suggested that, didn't you, Mr. Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: suggested -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: No, no, not at all. I The reason I say that, I'm willing to vote on it right now; but I was wondering if there could be a safer way of doing it without breaking up the Golden Gate Master Plan. I want to know what we can do. MR. LEE: You can continue -- how far can we continue the hearing, Bill? MR. LAVERTY: No later than Monday, next week. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Now, what can you do about that? Can you work for a change and get something done OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 ].3 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 53 in regard to this, Mr. Spagna? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: second on the floor. COMMISSIONER HASSE: information on that point. Well, we have a motion and a Well, this was just CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And we've decided that we would wait until after we heard the registered speakers to decide how we were going to vote on this. So, you know, I can't -- Mr. Shanahah. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: No. My only concern is that if we change the lanGuaGe and delay and allow a single petition to come in at this point in time, I think we jeopardize their chances of getting any kind of approval from D.C.A. I think we're encouraGinG them, not necessarily falsely, but it just doesn't appear -- it would seem to me there ought to be a better way. And the better way might be the next cycle, to put them into the cycle right now; and that at least they've got a chance. I don't think they've got a chance in the other format. MR. SPAGNA: I want to clear one matter up. This has nothing to do with the churches that I represent. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 § 14 17 18 19 21 54 This is a general -- COMMISSIONER SHANANAN: this. I'm talking not about We're talking -- I was talking, again, about the Presbyterian Church. MR. SPAGNA: with any church. COMMISSIONER SHANANAN: with it. COMMISSIONER NASSE: this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: please. MR. DORRILL: MR. KELLER: No, I do not want to connect this I'm not connecting it And I don't want to consider Call your next speaker, The next speaker is George Keller. George Keller. I was a member of the committee that set up this plan. We worked very hard. We were seven years in getting a plan for Golden Gate Estates. And, you know, it really bothers me that we've been having public hearings for over a year and there's been a whole year that's transpired since the time we finished our work and the staff took over and made this, finalized this. And all of a sudden, here we've got a problem in the last minute. And, you know, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 **. 8 10 11 15 16 2O 55 we've turned down a whole bunch of people that wanted to go and make changes in this plan. And, you know, it isn't there, actually, to tell those people that had property that they wanted them to have commercial on and other things and discourage them and finalize this plan and then, after the last minute, have changes made that's probably going to disrupt this plan. Now, if you want to get good citizens to work on your advisory boards, you're going to have to go and at least consider the work that they put into the thing and consider -- and especially if staff agrees with them, that we shouldn't be changing these things at the last minute. Now, we have provision that this can be changed; it can be amended. And so, anybody that comes in up to today, let's forget about changing our present plan and let them go through the amendment process. There is no emergency on it. This church or any other church. I don't think one single person is going to go to hell because this church isn't going to be erected next month. And let's be honest about it. So -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Can you guarantee that, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 9.2 56 Mr. Keller? MR. KELLER: I was raised a Presbyterian, I was raised a Presbyterian. It's a very good faith, very good faith. But the point is this: I don't care if there's a church or if somebody comes in here, what about somebody coming in and wanting a change in commercial? They have just as much right as the church. And, you know, let's just pass this plan right tonight; and then we'll amend it later. COMMISSIONER HASSE: you're saying. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: George, I concur with what Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: The next speaker is Herbert Cambridge, and following Mr. Cambridge will be Dan Brundage. MR. CAMBRIDGE: My name is Herbert Cambridge, and I live at 6475 Golden Gate Parkway. We can appreciate how hard people worked on this planning committee, and we've got a good document. And just as Commissioner Goodnight said, we have to embellish these things from time to time and massage them a little bit; and I think that's what you're struggling to do now. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 ? 9 lO 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 57 There is a little bit of precedent for amending these plans. If you might recall, we had a deal like this in the city of Naples where the City of Naples had set aside a portion of land for affordable housing; and Naples Daily News needed to expand. And so, therefore, they applied to the City Council to amend the plan; and there was quite a bit of opposition to it, but it was amended. It went to the Division of Community Affairs, and they massaged it a little bit and turned it down. It went back and the Community Affairs people approved it and the Naples Daily News is presently expanding. So, these comprehensive plans can be amended from time to time; and I've had that experience. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That was for affordable housing, wasn't it, Mr. Cambridge? MR. CAMBRIDGE: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And that was the whole concept, not just any particular petition that you were looking at? That's the distinction I made in my mind. MR. CAMBRIDGE: Well, what I'm saying is it had passed; and the Community Affairs Division hadn't f79 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 6 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 58 approved the amendment to let the Naples Daily News build it. I don't have any problem with them building it. I'm ~ust saying that it did happen; and I guess the City can violate the law as well as anybody else, but evidently they got away with it. One of the legal problems I see here -- and I'm not a full-fledged attorney -- but I've talked to several. It's very difficult for citizens to obey two policies at the same time. Now, we know if you say you've got to buy a 29-cent stamp and have it in the mail -- you know, if Sunday is the deadline, you can kind of deal with that. But if people don't know whether to apply to do this and they're waiting around and say -- well, really, I got the impression that we were trying to -- you know, which thing to abide by. So, I think once you have two policies hanging out there, one does not officially pass until you vote on it here tonight. I can't see how that can really be -- whether you cut it off or not, there's some legal ramifications with that, I think, after whether or not the people knew what to do. Because you were going by the present policy, and then you got one written in the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 10 11 12 59 comprehensive plan, which really doesn't become official until you vote. What are people going to do? So, it's like trying to serve two masters at the same time. I guess I really wanted to address you in terms of a point of information, and then ask a question. I'd like to know if there is any vested rights for those who have built property, built buildings on the Golden Gate Parkway or anywhere else. And I know of a church who because they didn't have enough money to build a whole complex -- everybody is not as wealthy as some of these people who put up these DRI's and P.U.D's -- and they plan to have -- they've got a hundred-and-some kids that want to go to Sunday school and they want to build some Sunday school rooms. So, I was wondering, what would be the effect of this particular plan on those people who have been cleared? They are not trying to add any additional land, they got the land. What would be the status if they came in and said, "All right. We're ready to build our three Sunday school rooms" or "a dining room" or "fellowship hall"? What would that status of such a OFFICIAL.COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 6O request be under this plan? MR. LEE: They would be able to expand within the confines of their approved site plan, as long as they did not need an additional development order. MR. CAMBRIDGE: That's right. They won't need that, I'm pretty sure. COMMISSIONER HASSE: "Approved site plan," you don't mean -- in other words, can they change their building plans? MR. LEE: Well, what I mean within the confines of the boundaries of that approved provisional use, you can expand your uses within the boundaries. COMMISSIONER HASSE: In other words, the church can expand any size it wants on the land. MR. LEE: You can't acquire any more land; but within that -- say he's got two and a half acres approved, he can build anywhere within that two and a half acres. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You still have parking requirements, setbacks, all of those requirements. MR. LEE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: But that always wasn't that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 7 14 15 16 19 2O 61 way, was it? MR. LEE: I believe so, yes. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Unless they have brought in a site development plan that showed where all of the -- where all of the buildings were going to be and we approved that with the understanding that this was all that was going to be on that site development plan. There has been some provisional users that we did that way. COMMISSIONER HASSE: If a provisional use was granted to a church, any church, hypothetical, that structure was built according to a plan, and then they decided they wanted to add onto that building, what happens? MR. LEE: I believe they have to amend the site development plan and -- but they could expand within that site. COMMISSIONER HASSE: But it would have to be granted permission by the Board. MR. LEE: address that? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I believe so. Mr. Brutt, can did you We are talking about OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 7 8 ~ 9 10 :"~ ' 11 12 13 14 16 17 18' 19 20 62 Policy 5.9, that's the policy we are talking about. MR. CUYLER: There's two different situations, one of which is where you have a provisional use on a certain parcel of property and it's not tied to a site plan. You will recall, a lot of the recent provisional uses you've approved you actually tied it to a building footprint on a site plan. I think that the answer is probably the same in both cases. And that is, they can -- they would be allowed under the comprehensive plan to expand; but in one case, they would have to come back to the Board of County Commissioners for a new provisional use because that is the stipulation that they place on them. I just spoke to Mr. Blanchard and, apparently, both of those could be allowed. They wouldn't necessarily be allowed if they came back to you, but you would have the ability to approve that if you so desired. COMMISSIONER HASSE: It could be allowed, but it would have to be applied for. MR. CUYLER: In those cases where you put a stipulation, their provisional use. There's a few out OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY; NAPLES, FL 33962 6 lo. 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 63 there that aren't like that, but all the ones recently you put that stipulation. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Let's do a case in fact. We have granted, quite a time ago, to the Grace Bible School Church to build a church on their piece of land. They have built that. We just recently gave them permission to extend and enlarge the piece of land. Do you recall that? It's only a couple of weeks ago. MR. CUYLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Now, on their plans that they've presented to us, they had a couple of other out buildings or attached buildings, possibly, so they wanted to put a church school in. Would that be approved, or is that approved as it is? MR. CUYLER: That is an approved provisional use. They can get building permits for that. If they wanted to come in and get a new building that you had not seen before, they would have to come back to you and say, "Your stipulation says we have to come back to you if you want to expand our buildings, and we are back." COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, wouldn't that be expanding their buildings? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES. FL 33962 5 6 7 9 10 · : 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 ~.1 64 MR. CUYLER: Not if it's within the site plan that you have already approved as part of their provisional use. COMMISSIONER HASSE: No, it's not a site plan that has been approved. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Part of the stipulation with that one was that if they did any more than what they were showing us, that they would have to bring it back in. MR. CAMBRIDGE: so, I don't know. MR. CUYLER: Ours was approved in 1980; and You'd have to look back at that. It very well may not have that stipulation. And in that case, they could expand to the boundaries of their property without any provisional use. MR. OLIFF: there would be a comprehensive plan restriction on either case, and I think there is not. The question here is whether or not Is there something else And I have a question for the Is it the policy of CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: that -- MR. CAMBRIDGE: Department of Community Affairs. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 · 21 · .-~ 22* 65 Community Affairs to approve all amendments to the comprehensive plan, once it's be submitted and approved? MS. STENNETT: I'm Sandra Stennett with the Department of Community Affairs. D.C.A. has to review the proposed plan; and if it meets the minimum criteria 9J5, it can be approved. MR. CUYLER: Or disapproved. MS. STENNETT: It can be found inconsistent or not inconsistent, but it has to meet the minimum requirement of 9J5. MR. CAMBRIDGE: What I'm assuming is that, from time to time, from what I've heard here, that we might be amending our plan within the cycles or whatever. My question is: Will you review that and pass on it one way or the other? MS. STENNETT: We will review whatever the County has submitted to the D.C.A. MR. CAMBRIDGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Is Dan Brundage, followed by Jim Nite. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 66 MR. BRUNDAGE: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Dan Brundage. I reside at 2695 66th Street Southwest in Naples, Florida; and I'm here to speak on behalf of Grace Bible Church, which was just mentioned previously. I am basically asking the same question Mr. Herb Cambridge asked, and that is: We have a church, an existing church building on a previously zoned provisional use five-acre tract of land that we would like to add a new educational building to that I'm sure was not reviewed as part of the provisional use back in 1979 or 1980 when a provisional use for the church was granted to the five-acre parcel. Our basic question is: Will we be vested and will we be allowed to build -- or hold building permits to construct the additional facilities? I understand that I'll have to file a building -- you know, we'll have to file for a building permit for a development order. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The way I understand it, Dan, in the provisional use that we just gave you, you would not be able to -- you will not be allowed to do anything except what you were authorized to do. However, in the other provisional use where the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 18 ].9 20 21 67 building is, you will be allowed to expand to the property boundaries that you have, according to setbacks and buildings. What? MR. LEE: It has been our interpretation of Policy 5.9 that if expansion is related to the original provisional use, it would be okay; but they have to apply for a new provisional use that would not be consistent with the Golden Gate Master Plan and would not be approved. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But they can expand -- they can expand their property without asking for a new provisional use. MR. LEE: If it's permitted under the original provisional use that was granted. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: ¥eah. And there's only been two or three of the provisional uses that we have approved by the site development plan. MR. DORRILL: Ron, you need to answer -- sort of in this specific case -- is that school is going to be required to come in and get a new provisional use. If it's going to be required to get a new provisional use, then that's sort of the question. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 6 7 9 lO 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 21 68 MR. BRUNDAGE: And let me clarify one thing, too. We're not asking for a school. It would be a Sunday school facility. Not educational or primary through high school type of a school; okay? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: What he's asking for, Ron, is to expand the church on the original provisional use. MR. LEE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That will be fine. However, on the second provisional use that was just done, it was site specific; and you can only place the things on there that this Board gave you permission to do unless you come back in for an additional provisional use -- MR. BRUNDAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: -- which would be inconsistent with the Golden Gate plan as it now is. MR. BRUNDAGE: I think we're squared away. MR. CUYLER: I think what Ron was trying to plan, as long as your school is part of the church and not a separate provisional use. For example, there would be some things you could arguably add that wouldn't be under a church provisional use. Then you would run OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 5 7 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 69 into a problem, but it sounds as though that's -- MR. BRUNDAGE: It certainly should be able to be attached to the sanctuary. When it gets all said and done, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the one building and the other. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I can agree with that analysis, Mr. Brundage; but my legal training requires me to ask this question: We're talking about an approval of a provisional use for a sanctuary, for a place of worship. Now we're talking about an educational facility or we're talking about a gymnasium or we're talking about other uses related to the sanctuary use. Is that the same provisional use? MR. LEE: That's an interpretation that has to be made, as those uses are related to the provisional use that was granted. MR. BRUNDAGE: We already have existing on the site certain educational spaces associated with the -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just want to make sure that's clear so you don't walk away with some impression and find out later on there's an issue there. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 70 MR. CUYLER: I believe that it has been interpreted that way by the County. I'm not sure, but that's a zoning question that you have to handle at the time. There may be portions of it they can and some they can't, like a gymnasium or something like that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The First Baptist Church came in for their provisional use. The first was for the sanctuary, and then they -- you know, they didn't come back for a provisional use for the gymnasium because that's part of the Sunday school rooms. But in the middle there is a gymnasium and everything, so -- MR. CUYLER: be the one. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I recall some situation. That may I mean it was considered to be part of the original provisional use, since it was a church-related. MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. Just one other item while you're taking public input. As a resident of Golden Gate and as a member of the Christian community, I would highly support the motion that you have on the floor that you're considering tonight for the Presbyterian Church. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 :2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 2:2 71 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Jim Nite. MR. NITE: My name is Jim Nite, I reside at 4400 19th Place Southwest and I had the same question Danny did but I also just want to say that I support the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church in their efforts, also. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: be Don $egretto. MR. TARI: My name is Mathias Tari, I live here Mat Tari. Following Mr. Tari will in Golden Gate Estates. The last time I was here before you Commissioners, I had asked you to make a decision on some matters I brought. It was not brought down. Tonight I brought a little document that I would like to read before you, asking you not to make a decision at this time on the rezoning of the Estates as shown -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you saying not to adopt the Golden Gate Master Plan? MR. TARI: I'm saying not to vote on it tonight, to delay it; and I'll give you the reasons why. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I need to advise you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 72 that Mr. Tari's filed suit against the County; and it has been going on for sometime, it is still in litigation. I assume that the things that he's going to be discussing are part of the allegations in litigation. I would ask you and advise you not to participate in any dialogue. I'll leave it to your discretion whether you want to hear anything he has to say. MR. TARI: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Should we hear Mr. Tari? MR. CUYLER: That's up to you. He can put what he wants in the record, but I would recommend that you not get into a dialogue and talk about the issues. I mean I can't stop you from listening to him if -- you know, if he wants to talk. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think we ought to hear this gentleman. Just make your statement as to why -- MR. TARI: That's all I would like to do. Recent newspaper articles have shown the approval of the State of Florida for the comprehensive use plan that Collier County has submitted. It appears that Collier County feels that they have been given a carte blanche permit OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 l 73 to rezone the agricultural Estates district of Collier County. A recent communication from the State of Florida, through their resources, Planning and Management Division, have indicated that their approval of Collier County's land use plan is very broad and liberally interpreted. All legal aspects of this plan fall under the total responsibility of Collier County. They stated that they have not -- they are not in a position to give legal advice to the County or to interpret the legality of their land use problems. Let one bring to your attention the fact that there is a writ of certiorari before a Federal Court in Tampa, Florida, in regards to the perpetuity of the land use in the agricultural Estates district of Collier County. It would be unwise to try and rezone this area while there's a pending decision in the Federal Court in regard to the use of the land. It would be totally unethical and irresponsible for the County Commissioners, especially those that are officers of the Court, to even consider voting on this matter in regards to any rezoning of the land. It would be very unfair to insight the public as to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 74 rezoning that is being contemplated because a Federal Judge has jurisdiction over this decision. I'm sure that our local Bar Association would also not be in favor of these proceedings nor sanctions of such unethical behavior. The law frowns upon circumventing, as is being attempted by Collier County. Collier County Zoning Director Bazinski, in his deposition in December, 1990 -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I didn't realize you were going to read the whole letter. I thought this was just a statement as to why we shouldn't -- MR. TARI: Well, there's only a little bit more. Let me have my whole five minutes, okay, please? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Continue. MR. TARI: Strongly stressed that the state approval of Collier County's comprehensive plans are loosely interpreted and are only directed as guidelines to make up zoning and planning by the local governing body. Consequently, a great injustice would be done if the rezoning effort were continued in the agricultural Estates district by Collier County officials. The rights of prior owners of the commercial, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 l0 11 12 13 l§ 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 75 residential, and multi-family land masses that were incorporated into the Estates area were taken away without compensation; and cannot be given to another individual as your rezoning plan shows today. The vested rights of the prior owners places it in a position of perpetuity and denies your right to rezone. The total rezoning in 1974 created the environmentally protected Estates district was a one-shot deal. I'm sure that you realize that the agricultural Estates district was similar to our present P.U.D. program and encompassed single-family, multi-family, and commercial tracts of land in what is now known as "Estates" prior to 1974. The zoning was then changed under specialty law under two studies for environmental reasons. The study done by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommended that the land be returned to its original status under a cost plan basis. The other recommendation was to return it to two and a quarter acre parcels of agricultural land. The County chose the latter plan. May I strongly stress that you commissioners are putting the cart before the horse by even considering a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 76 zoning change before the necessity of a court ruling to clarify the status of the use of the land. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Donald Segretto. Following Mr. Segretto will be Frederick J. Voss. MR. SEGRETTO: Don Segretto, 4138 Golden Gate Park -- 29th Avenue. Gentlemen, I only have one question to ask; and I would like to direct it to this gentleman here, if you don't mind. I don't remember hearing your name. The Planning Director? Yeah. It appears to me that you are going to zone this land in commercial in various areas, approximately five or six areas, in the Estate. Am I not right on this, commercially? MR. LAVERTY: Sir, if you have any questions regarding zoning, I would defer to anybody on our Long Range Planning staff. They're much more able to answer those questions, rather than I. MR. SEGRETTO: The reason why I'm trying to -- what I'm trying to come to is the fact, what are you zoning this land for? To commercial from what? From industrial? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · 19 20 21 22 77 MR. CUYLER: That's part of the record. This constitutes the dialogue that I advised the Board not to get into. Mr. Segretto is not a plaintiff in this suit, but he's -- MR. SEGRETTO: So, consequently, if I'm not a plaintiff in the suit, I've got the same rights as any other individual here. MR. CUYLER: That's up to the Board to decide. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Segretto, why don't you direct your comments to the Chair, make your statement on the record, and if you have a question, you can ask the appropriate member of your staff to answer it. If not, we'll give direction. MR. SEGRETTO: Fine. COMMISSIONER MASSE: One moment, Mr. Segretto. Didn't our attorney say that we weren't carrying on any conversation with somebody who's under litigation? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Segretto is not a plaintiff in the litigation. He's associated, I believe, with the plaintiff; and -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I can answer your question, Mr. Segretto. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962.. § 6 $ 9 '10 14 :].6 17 18 19 2O 9-1 : ::~'.':!: :'.":'. 2 2 78 MR. SEGRETTO: I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: This Board, in this Master Plan, is not r,zoning any property in the Golden Gate or Golden Gate Estates area. The only thing that we have done is that we have said that there are certain areas in here that has the possibility of going through the rezone process of upgrading their property from residential to commercial, and that's the extent of what the plan says. There are several criteria that we have laid out that they will have to meet; but such as the Golden Gate Parkway commercial area, we have said that for them to upgrade their residential area to commercial that they will have to go through some kind of development code to where that all -- everything that's in that area will be of the same architectural designs. There will only be so many curb cuts and different things like this. The commercial areas that could happen in the Estates area has exactly the same type of criteria. They can be a total of five acres, they have to be on main roadways at intersections; and there is a circle OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 9 , 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 79 that could be drawn there that there is a possibility that that could be in there. There also has to be five-mile radius -- MR. LEE: Five-mile distance. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: -- five-mile distance between one commercial area and the other, and there's only a certain number of commercial criteria -- businesses that could be set in that area. But, we have not given anybody permission to rezone. We have only said that this is an area that this Board and staff can look at for the possibility of rezoning, but it will have to go through the standard process. MR. $EGRETTO: I understand that. But in the Estates, it would be rezoned to commercial from what? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Residential. MR. SEGRETTO: In 1974, this land, from what I understood -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: yOU · I'm not going to argue with You asked a question and I told you the answer and that's the answer. MR. SEGRETTO: I'm not saying you should argue. I'm just not going to make a statement. In 1974, you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 ~:.~ - § 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~ 22 8O people made the land -- the County, as I say -- made the land agricultural, not residential, and in no way was it ever changed and this is what is in court for this man. Now, how could you say from residential to this? How could you say the Master Plan saying that you are eventually going to rezone from residential when the land is agricultural and had been placed there by the County perpetuity? And I direct this question to -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: comments to the Chair. MR. SEGRETTO: I direct it to you. You need to direct your Would you kindly ask this young lady that's the State -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, to answer your question, I'll answer your question. I don't think that we need to direct it to D.C.A. I think that the Courts are going to have to tell Collier County and the State of Florida that we have no right to go in and fezone property. MR. SEGRETTO: And that is exactly what Mr. Tari was trying to tell you and it is in front of Judge Kovotchovich and you should at least give the Court a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~9 20 21 22 chance and the respect due them. This has been placed there. This thing should hold until Judge Kovotchovich makes her decision. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Until there is a restraining order on county and state government to say that we can no longer go in and rezone property, then we will continue in the same manner of business as is what we have been operating. Thank you. MR. SEGRETTO: Yeah. But you're in mediation, and you are supposed to be going into mediation on Thursday with good faith. This is not showing good faith. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Segretto, just so I understand, you just basically -- you're making the same recommendation as Mat Tari that the Board not adopt the plan tonight? MR. SEGRETTO: MR. DORRILL: MR. SEGRETTO: Similar. Similar. Correct? Okay. I mean let's face it. The land is agricultural -- it was placed there -- and you're saying different things. There's a situation here that's not clear, and it's being placed in Federal OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 § 7 9 10 11 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 82 Court. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, this is the subject of litigation. My advice to the Board is don't discuss it. Have Mr. Segretto sit down. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Unless you have anything new to add, then would you please sit down so that we can go to our next speaker because we've still got a lengthy agenda tonight. MR. SEGRETTO: I just felt that I should bring this to your attention. May I ask just one question, please? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Yes, sir. MR. SEGRETTO: Who will be the commissioner that will be at the mediation on Thursday? That's all I want to know. Can I respectfully get an answer? MR. CUYLER: That's not a question. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It won't be me. MR. CUYLER: That's not a question for tonight. Mr. Tari's attorney can contact me if he's interested in anything dealing with the case. MR. SEGRETTO: Mr. Tari's attorney, counselor, is taking care of Mr. Tari. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9.2 83 ~Ro CU¥~ER: don't we just -- MR. SEGRETTO: just asked a question. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then you've got nothing -- well, why Wait a minute, wait a minute. If you've got a legal question, we have got a legal staff to take care of it. MR. SEGRETTO: The fact remains, I'd like to make a note to the County Attorney that Tari is no longer a tenant in common with his wife; and she has given me the power of attorney. So, consequently, I just asked this question respectfully. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: That has nothing to do with tonight's hearing. The only thing that you've asked us to do is to not approve the Golden Gate Master Plan. We have accepted your comments. And now if you will sit down, please, so that the next speaker can stand up. The next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Fred Voss. Following Mr. Voss will be the last speaker, Kim Kobza. MR. VOSS: I'm Frederick Voss, for the record. 605 Bougalnvillea Road in Naples. I just want to point out one thing. When land gets zoned commercial, the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 84 price of that land goes up. If you only permit special churches to be built in commercial modes, you may preclude churches from building at all. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have not done that. MR. VOSS: I said if the plans requires that. Yeah, but the plan doesn't require MR. SAUNDERS: Go ahead. MR. VOSS: that. That was my point. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Next speaker. MR. KOBZA: Kim Kobza. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. I'll be very, very brief with you. My name's Kim Kobza. For the purposes of the court stenographer, that's spelled K-o-b-z-a. I'm representing Mr. Ashley. The Board has spent a lot of time on the issue regarding Policy 1.8. I believe that the language which was developed is very good language, and I would recommend its adoption. And Mr. Ashley, for purposes of the record, has, in fact, pulled building permits on the project and is proceeding with construction, although we still feel that this policy is very a important policy to adopt. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 '19 2O 21 22 85 I would like to thank the Board for all the time that it spent, thank the staff for the time that they have spent; and, hopefully, this project will be -- and I'll assure you this project will be everything that it's been represented to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. If there's no other registered speakers, then I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. We now have a motion on the floor. Mr. Lee, is there something you are wanting to add? MR. LEE: No. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: second on the floor. We have a motion and a Commissioners Saunders, would you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 § 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 86 repeat your motion, please. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was afraid you were going to ask that. The intent of the motion is to permit the County to consider an application by the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church for consideration of a planning unit development on their property. I don't have the legal description of the property in front of me; but the reason for that one exception is simply that they have been in the process of filing an application for many, many months. The site is the south 150 feet of Tract 117 and Tract 118, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. They've been in the process for many, many months. They were advised in October by our staff not to file an application because it would not be considered on the -- under the new comprehensive plan. And because of that, they did not file an application. This is the only petitioner that has been here at both public hearings and has presented its arguments why it should be accepted from the new comprehensive plan. So, I'd like to make a motion that they be considered under the old comprehensive plan for a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 lO 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 87 planning unit development on that site. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I renew my second. I have a motion by Commissioner Saunders and a second by Commissioner Masse. Is there any discussion? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I'll call for the question. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (Some ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: tWO. The motion fails three to COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: For a policy like that you need four votes? MR. CUYLER: We're dealing with a four-vote requirement to pass the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: This is not the motion to pass the plan, this is just a motion to amend the plan. I'm sure it's still a four-vote, but you were saying -- MR. CUYLER: Yes. It deals with a requirement that requires four votes. So -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 88 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: pleasure of the Board? COMMISSIONER HASSE: All right. Then what's the I might suggest to the Presbyterian Church, reapply to all the staff in a period of six months or thereabouts. Is that it? Will that be through the amendment MR. LEE: process? COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: direction to our staff: Yes. I think we can give some That what we have discussed is that Mr. Oliff, with our people on Growth Management, had given us what alternatives are available to address the concerns of the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church, some of the concerns that have been identified by Mr. Spagna. So, I'd like to suggest that for consideration that we give some direction to the staff to review the issue of the placement of provisional uses on -- particularly, I'm thinking in terms of Commissioner Goodnight's mention with certain criteria having to do with P.U.D. applications, having to do with minimum member of acres, and also locating and siting these OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 89 types of provisional uses, perhaps along four-lane or six-lane divided highways. I realize what you've said, that you have previously considered it; but I think as a part of the process, maybe some things may come out. Maybe there are more people who are interested in this, and we'll hear that discussion again. So, whatever we need to do, and I need some help from the County Attorney or someone in terms of the direction to our staff, to consider the amendment process. That's what I'm trying to get to. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, my problem is that this Golden Gate plan is a good plan; and I think we should look forward to adhering to it with the regular application for a variance from the plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, there was a suggestion we could extend the application date so that this particular group could get into this cycle. I believe that's all I have. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: It is an alternative. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, let me just make a comment for Commissioner Shanaban and 311 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPSES, FL 33962 I 2 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 90 Commissioner Volpe. I think all of us have agreed that this provisional use or planning unit development on that site is going to be approved through a comprehensive land use plan change. We're willing to expedite the process and let them get into this application cycle. And if we're -- we're saying this -- now, we're admitting that we're going to approve the plan change to permit this church. Why don't we just go ahead and permit them to file their application under the existing comprehensive plan. I mean what we're doing is we're saying we're going to approve this, but it's going to take you a year to do it. It's kind of a useless act, and I realize the reason -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I've tried to explain. Again, I thought our County Attorney had recommended and advised us against doing anything otherwise, No. 1. No. 2 is: I'm asking that we look at the big picture, and not do it site specific for this particular location. This may, in fact, be a very appropriate location for a church of provisional use because there may be some other areas within the Golden Gate Estates OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 91 where there would be certain established criteria as to how we would review applications in the future. We've heard Mr. Voss try to address the issue that we, through this process, somehow excluded churches from certain areas of our community. That certainly is not the intent that we were after. We have -- Mr. spagna has a suggestion; so, I am just suggesting you mentioned something about notice in the past. I think that this particular application, as it comes up in the context of the Golden Gate Master Plan, really hasn't been discussed. So, I'm trying to -- the reason why I am asking the staff to give us an overview of the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, particularly as it relates to perhaps churches and other provisional uses. That's all. MR. LEE: Can I provide some clarification on the amendment process on the extension of the deadline? If it is applied by the petitioner for site specific, that deadline has passed. However, staff can initiate that; and they and we would not be subject to that deadline. So, that would be -- there would be a direction from OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 § ? 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 92 the Board for staff to pursue that; and it would not be initiated by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I would so move that motion. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: And would I second it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to direct staff to amend the plan as -- COMMISSIONER MASSE: Is that what you're doing, amending the plan? MR. LEE: No, just -- it's going to be a review of the siting criteria for provisional uses; and if there are any subsequent amendments, would be included in the next cycle. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But the motion is to instruct staff to begin the process to actually amend the plan to where that this church can be added to it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, we have a motion. Before we proceed with the second on that -- COMMISSIONER MASSE: We have a second. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER HASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Obvlously, I would support that motion; but I still think that we are OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 93 requiring this particular church to wait a year to do something that we know we're going to approve. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I don't know if we are. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Lee, if you go through this amendment cycle, and then the Golden Gate Presbyterian Church files a planned unit development, what is the earliest, you think, that they could get a plan unit development approved, just knowing that they filed pursuant to procedure? MR. LEE: The plan would be approved as amended, probably a year from now at this time; and then you have to file a P.U.D. after that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The point is that we're delaying this one organization a year, and we all know that we're going to approve it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. I have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? The motion carries OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9.1 22 94 unanimously. All right. Gentlemen, I need a motion on the Golden Gate Master Plan. MR. DOREILL: Miss Chairman, there were two comments that were made by the public that I think were requested to the Board to consider. The first one was the letter by Neno Spagna referring to churches as a total exemption from the provisional use. of. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: MR. DOREILL: That was just taken care The second one was not adopting the plan. I was just going to go on record to summarize the staff and public comments. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the Golden Gate plan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to approve the Golden Gate Master Plan that's been submitted with the amendment that's been added to it in the last two public hearings. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 95 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Something else, Mr. Lee? MR. LEE: That's it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Lee. The next item is the Immokalee Master Plan. (Brief recess) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Okay. Are we ready, Michelle? MS. EDWARDS: For the record, I'm Michelle Edwards with the Growth Planning Department staff. I'm here today to present the Immokalee Master Plan. This is the second time the Board's hearing the Master Plan. It was first heard on January 23rd. At that meeting, I presented all the changes that were recommended as in response to the Department of Community Affairs' review of the plan. I also identified all the changes that were recommended by staff and our technical advisory committee, as well as the Collier County Planning Commission. At that meeting, the Board did not make any final OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 19 21 22 decisions; nor did they provide any direction with one exception, and that was for the application for Policy 5.9, which pertains to improved properties that are inconsistent with the proposed Master Plan. What we're questioning is how those properties will be addressed during the Immokalee rezone process at the time -- or at the time of redevelopment. The Board recently made an interpretation to Policy 5.9, which allowed improved properties to be rebuilt. However, staff feels that there needs to be some clarification on whether improved properties that are inconsistent with their zoning district would also be allowed to be rebuilt. Staff has identified, throughout this Immokalee Master Plan process, many incidents in Immokalee where they are nonconforming uses, uses that are not consistent with their existing zoning district. In fact, there were policies that were recommended out of the Immokalee land use study that was conducted before the Immokalee Master Plan process in 1988. There were policies that directed staff to try to clean up some of the nonconforming uses that existed in Immokalee. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 97 COMMISSIONER HASSE: Ms. Edwards, wasn't that the purpose of that, to upgrade an area? MS. EDWARDS: Exactly. There was a memo that was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners -- or written by Bob Blanchard, the Growth Planning Director, for clarification of the recent interpretation for 5.9. We're concerned with, as I addressed before, whether or not nonconforming uses would be allowed to be rebuilt. An example would be: There are situations in Immokalee right now where a mobile home park, for instance, is permitted, for example, 30 units within the zoning district. However, that mobile home park may have 40 units on it. What we're asking is whether the policy was intended to allow the additional ten units to be replaced, even though they're nonconforming with their zoning district. They wouldn't be permitted with their zoning district. Currently, the zoning has recommendations in the ordinance that addresses nonconforming uses. If a nonconforming unit -- conforming unit on a mobile home park were removed from the park, that unit would not be able to be replaced. ., ,.319 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 98 Another example would be an instance where there is a residentially zoned property with an existing nonconformlng commercial building on it. Staff needs clarification to whether or not the intent of the interpretation would allow that commercial establishment to rebuild within a residentially zoned property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Ms. Edwards, is this unique -- this interpretation of 5.9, is it unique to Immokalee; or is it really as an interpretation? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, countywide. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MS. EDWARDS: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Countywide? Are you going to ask us to make that interpretation this evening? MS. EDWARDS: Yeah. We need clarification on that interpretation. You have, in the past, made an interpretation for 5.9; and I would like to refer to the memo that Bob Blanchard wrote, which is attached to your staff report tonight. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that this report? Yes. Attachment 1. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 99 MS. EDWARDS: It's dated January 22nd. And in that memo, Bob asked for clarification to your recent interpretation for Policy 5.9; and I am, again, asking for that clarification. Because we feel if we allow nonconforming uses to be rebuilt, then the whole intent of the Master Plan is going to be defeated in some sense because all those uses would be permitted over and over again. MR. CUYLER: Excuse me, Michelle. Let he give you an example, just to make sure you're clear on what Michelle is asking you. If you have a residential building on a commercially zoned piece of property, and say you're talking about two or three years ago you had a nonconforming use on that zoning -- in other words, you had a residential use on commercial zoning -- if that residential house burned down, you could not rebuild it under your rezoning ordinance because it was nonconforming. As part of 5.9, recently, you indicated that the Board was willing to recognize a vesting of both the zoning and the use. And the question has now become -- is: Did you mean to say that that residential house, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 100 if it, for example, burns down, and then two years ago, under the Zoning Ordinance then and under the Zoning Ordinance now, could not rebuild residential because it's not in conformance with the zoning that it now kept it? In other words, they have additional rights as to what they had two years ago. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's real hypothetical, because you're saying, you know, commercial property is more available than residential property. MR. CUYLER: Well, we can reverse it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I know, and that's what I'm going to do. And so, on Golden Gate Parkway, there are two nonconforming uses that come to mind specifically: The Naples Skatery is a nonconforming use and that long building that's the Don Carter Bowling Alley. Those are nonconforming uses. So, the question now is: If those uses, which are a commercial-type use were destroyed, could they be rebuilt; or would that have to go back to an estate- type zoning? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think that really puts it OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL'33962 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 101 in the context that's real. MR. CUYLER: And prior to your discussions of investing that you had a month or so, six week or whatever it was ago, that it could not have been rebuilt; it would have had to have built in conformance with the zoning district. And the question is: Have you given some additional rights, or did you intend to give some additional rights through the comprehensive have plan process that that property owner did not even have under the current zoning ordinance? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That was not my intent. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I didn't intend to, I can assure you that. The only way we can upgrade an area that we wanted to and have a good planning for our county is to listen to what the plans are and adhere to them; and you'll never get there otherwise, never. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that what you're recommending, Mr. Blanchard? MR. BLANCHARD: Bob Blanchard from the Growth Planning Staff. recommendation. Board did. This memorandum didn't really make a It was my interpretation of what the Specific language of the motion, I've OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 7 10 14 1§ 17 19 2O ' 22 102 outlined the three points to that. One of the points was that you vested the existing use. The question that never was discussed that day because of my error, basically, was the question about those uses that aren't only inconsistent with the plan, but they're nonconforming with the existing zoning ordinance, also. so, your examples are valid examples. There's also some other areas where we have commercial development on residentially zoned property, which if they were destroyed, the zoning ordinance doesn't permit to redevelop. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't think we intended to address that issue. I mean it's an important issue, and maybe it was an oversight on everyone's part. I think we were looking at existing and, you know, uses that were continuing and we didn't want the change in the future land use map to somehow prevent these people from redeveloping their property in the event of a voluntary or involuntary destruction. MR. BLANCHARD: I can change this interpretation on this memo to only address it in terms of the Growth Management Plan. If I clarify it that way, it should OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 3.03 be adequate. $o, that the zoning ordinance regulations on nonconformancy still stand. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And I think that's probably what Mr. Thomas was concerned about. Because in the redevelopment in Immokalee, in particular, he was concerned that we may end up with all this inconsistent zoning because you have got instances, presumably in Immokalee, that where you've got perhaps more prevalent nonconforming uses than we do in perhaps other parts of the county. So, that's how I see it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: My thoughts were more to rezone the property to be consistent with what was there than it was to change than it was to grandfather them in or to make them to where that if they were destroyed, they couldn't rebuild. MS. EDWARDS: Well, there's a policy in the Master Plan right now where we are going to look at residential properties, predominantly in mobile homes, because there are a lot of mobile home developments that aren't zoned mobile home -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, my understanding on that was that we were going to have two types. We were OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 § 7 9 ~0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 104 going to have a mobile home rental part, to where that area would be designated as a rental park; and then we were going to have the mobile home subdivision where they can own the property and have mobile homes there. MS. EDWARDS: Right. And we do have that now; but we're going to go further in Immokalee, and county staff is actually going to initiate rezoning properties that are developing predominantly as subdivision -- mobile home subdivisions or mobile home rental parks. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, with this revision that you're talking about, how is it going to affect Tara Park or Davenport Mobile Home Park or some of the rental trailer parks -- MS. EDWARDS: It would allow them to replace a unit if it's consistent with their zoning district, which I believe Tara Park is and all the other parks that were coming in. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Those are the ones we discussed the last time; and that we had agreed at that time, I thought, that we would allow them to build back to what their former zoning -- MS. EDWARDS: Existing zoning allows them, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FD 33962 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 105 exactly. We're not going to be rezoning those parks at all. In fact, tonight I am going to go over those properties that will be affected by the County Initiator Rezone for the Immokalee Master Plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Those nonconforming uses, though, that would not be covered under this discussion by Policy 5.9, still have the same rights that they have under the existing zoning ordinance. So, they can -- you know, they can improve their properties and they can expand if it's not more than 50 percent, and all those others things; is that correct? MR. DORRILb: They maintain their current nonconforming status. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the same rights they have under the Ordinances. MR. CUYLER: Correct, they have the same rights that may not include expansion if they are a nonconforming structure; but they do have the same rights that they had before. MR. DORRIL5: The whole point was: We didn't think that the Board intended to make all nonconforming uses conforming. Basically, that's what that action, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4. 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 106 in its liberal interpretation, would have done. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We did not intend it to be that liberal. MR. DORRILL: I don't think you did, and we just want to -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I think everybody said they didn't. MS. EDWARDS: Since it's the consensus of the Board that nonconforming uses weren't intended to be vested, staff was Going to recommend alternative lanGuaGe; so, we're not Going to do that. There is one other change that staff would like to add to Policy 2.1.8, which addresses the South Immokalee redevelopment area. We'd like to add a provision in there that would allow us to actually rezone some of those improved properties, if we find it appropriate to do so, as a part of the redevelopment efforts for that South Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Allow the Board to do that, is that what you're sayinG? MS. EDWARDS: Or staff to initiate rezoning as a part of the redevelopment area -- or redevelopment OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 § 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 21 22 107 efforts for South Immokalee. area? COMMISSIONER HASSE: MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HASSE: the Board, does it not? MS. EDWARDS: Right. Does that mean upgrading an Exactly. But that has to come back to What we're planning on doing is conducting a study for the area that's identified within policy 2.1.8 and coming up with different incentive programs, or whatever, for redevelopment of that area. We also wanted to add in there the option of rezoning properties in there, if we deem fit as a part of redevelopment efforts. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. Where would that be? I mean I've got so much paper here, I'm trying to find 2.2.8. MS. EDWARDS: It's in the memorandum that was sent to you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm there, but I just can't Page No. 3 of the staff report, find 2.2.8. MR. LAVERTY: under your orange tab in your notebook. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 § 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 108 MS. EDWARDS: Just to identify the area for you, it would be the area -- this is Main Street right here; and it would encompass all this area within this where I'm pointing at right now. area. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's our redevelopment The only question I have, Ms. Edwards, is that the way that this policy is written, it says that the Growth Planning Department will take the steps to encourage redevelopment; and that these efforts will include upgrading the substandard structures, reviewing land use patterns, rezoning inconsistent plan use and provision of sidewalks. So, the process is the staff is going to be reviewing this area; and then coming back to make certain recommendations? MS. EDWARDS: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Michelle? MS. EDWARDS: What else have you got, The next item that I would like to discuss, Attachment 2 to your memorandum, which basically identifies all the different programs that you are committing to under the Immokalee Master Plan; 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 109 and it identifies mostly those projects that are scheduled for completion in January 1st, '92 and January 1st, '93. And then, the last item that I'd like to go over is Attachment 3, which is the map in your enclosed memo. It looks like this. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: These policies that you've got a time commitment on, these are all policies that previously have been reviewed and approved by the Board? MS. EDWARDS: Right. At our submittal hearing, we went over each item and they were massaged a little bit and the Board approved all the commitments that are identified within Attachment 2. Actually, there is one item that was left off, Attachment 2, and that was the encouragement of redevelopment in the South Immokalee area; and I've got the corrected version of Attachment 2 for you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Ms. Edwards, one of the policies to consider: Waiver of all impact fees for developers of low to very low income housing. Don't we already have that policy? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 110 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Well, we've also got a policy creating mandatory garbage pickup. MS. EDWARDS: Those are just reinforcement, yes. Some of them in there we may already have. They might already be in effect, but they are just reinforcements. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, we've got some measurables that we've already achieved. That's terrific. I feel very good about that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: We're not going to have that done, Mike, until January 1st of 1992. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We already have it done. And I will remind the Board, I've already told you of the nu~ber of people that are participating in our recycling program. I'm real impressed. MS. EDWARDS: The last item, as I said, identifies those areas that will be affected by the Immokalee Rezone Process; and they include the RMF-16 property, which is located in the South Immokalee area that's off of Eustis, Delaware, and Ninth, and it cuts that block in half, actually. It is adjacent to the Immokalee Apartments. Some commercial zoning off New OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 111 Market Road, some RSF-5 zoning off of Immokalee Drive. And there's some C-3, commercial zoning, off Lake Trafford Road north of Lake Trafford and just west of Carson Road. The other area that's identified is the habitat property that we discussed at the last meeting; and it was recommended that staff include that property as an actual upzone, as opposed to downzoning because they are currently developed and there's three vacant lots that they'd like to further subdivide -- or one vacant lot. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Allow them to develop those additional properties? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. And that's all I have. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Madam Chairman, I don't know if there are any registered speakers. MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, I've got one registered speaker, Jimmie Crews; and Jay Whidden is available for any questions you might have, as well. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Jim. MR. CREWS: I just want to commend everybody for the fine job they have done. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 112 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Jim, give your name. MR. CREWS: Jim Crews, Immokalee, Tara Park. And, I think everything is fantastic. The garbage pickup mandatory, we're behind it 100 percent. We've imposed it in our park. The recycling, I couldn't believe it took off like it did. They put those green buckets up there, and people started using them. It was incredible. And I'd just like to reaffirm that in the language that they gave you, it puts on their units that are in noncompliance or illegal use, as it's stated, which is true. I agree with that 100 percent. In our park, recently we had a problem where there was a school bus on a lot; okay? And the inspector came by and said, "Move it," and we wanted it moved. At the time, we needed to rent the lot; now we don't. Lots are a big problem; there's none available to put used mobile homes on, but the owner of bus refused to move it and we were talking with the county inspector and. we said, "Well, we'll give him six months; and then we'll just move it off," but somebody reported it; and they wanted it moved. The owner of bus -- school bus in a mobile home OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 § 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 1§ 16 17 19 20 21 22 113 park on a lot, he came to the County and got a copy for that school bus what, about seven years ago, and was permitted. An inspector came out, took a look at it, looked at the tie-downs, looked at the electrical hookup, sewer hookup, just like any other mobile home, and inspected it. Okay. What we're doing is we're not looking at three or four years of problems, we're looking at problems that have gone on forever. We've got some units with the travel trailers that I mentioned last time; that we were told the only place, legally, in Immokalee to put travel trailers, as I understand it, is bake Trafford at this time. Now, you can drive around and find bunches of them, okay; and I'd like to see that cleaned up. And if that means we lose five of them, fine, we'll lose five of them. Again, I'd just llke to reaffirm -- and I think it's the position of this Board -- what we want to keep is our business. That's what we rely on for our bread and butter that feeds our family and that keeps us in business and supplies the mobile homes. What we want to keep are the mobile home lots that are currently OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 114 there that have pads that have been inspected units that are authorized. And I just wanted to reaffirm that and thank you for listening to us and thank you for your support. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to add something? MR. WHIDDEN: Yes, ma'am. My name is Jay Whidden. What Jimmie had said that had the pads under the old existing County rules, each lot has to be 45 foot by 89 foot; and under the new -- under the M.R., even high density, that would bring it out to about 60 feet wide by about 90 feet long. And every one of our lots out there, as we had had a plat map done on it, does conform to the old existing ways of being 45 foot by 90 foot; and we would like to, like I said, reaffirm what he said. every one of them. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you, Jim. Do you need We'd like to keep those, Is there going to be a I have a great feeling that problem with that, Michelle? MS. EDWARDS: No. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I see that the citizens are trying to improve the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 115 entire image of the area. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: there another speaker? That's great. All right. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner Goodnight and fellow Commissioners, I had not intended to speak tonight. I did not know that there was going to be this back-door interpretation Policy 5.9 to be discussed tonight; and I asked that, the very question that you're supposedly addressing for the first time tonight when Policy 5.9 was discussed ad nauseum earlier in January. I came up here on behalf of George Shepherd & Sons, who have nonconforming uses at the intersection of Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road; and at that time, Commissioner Volpe was talking about vesting just the uses and not the existing zoning. And I asked the question: "Where does that leave my client?" because he does, in fact, have nonconforming uses under the existing zoning; and I was told that day at the hearing that he would be allowed to rebuild. MR. CUYLER: I think this will be the only county in the state, if not the country, that passes the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL _~3962 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 8 l0 ll 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 116 comprehensive plan amendment and not only 'doesn't rezone property -- or doesn't rezone Mr. Anderson's particular piece of property, but vests its zoning; and then gives him more rights than he had under the zoning ordinance to begin with. MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's well-established that where there is a conflict between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, that the comprehensive plan controls. You know, I don't have a big problem with this is a policy decision that you can make or not. But my client was here that day, I asked the question; and he and I both thought we got a certain answer. And if I hadn't been paying close attention tonight, this all would have come and gone; and he nor I would never have known about it until, God forbid, his building burned down. COMMISSIONER HASSE: system. MR. ANDERSON: So, maybe you might want to postpone this and give everybody that, you know, spoke at the hearing on 5.9 an opportunity to review and speak on this at another time. The answer was the sprinkler OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 ~0 11 12 13 14 15 ~6 18 19 20 21 22 117 MR. VOLPE: I think we just had a unanimous vote, Mr. Anderson, by five of us, with respect to the interpretation of 5.9. MR. ANDERSON: comment; but -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, that was before public I'm sorry? MR. ANDERSON: That was before there was an opportunity for public comment. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I thought it was part of the public hearing process. MR. ANDERSON: Nobody had been called from the public to speak. The staff was making their presentation. I went out in the hallway to see what it was. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Weren't you here? MR. ANDERSON: I was here, but staff was making the presentation. You usually have staff make a presentation. Then you call for public comment. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I don't think we had a motion on that. I think that what I heard was that there was four of the commissioners that were here saying that the way that we interpreted what we gave -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 118 instructed staff to do before was that nonconformlng uses would be continued to be the same as what they were under the present zoning. Is that not what took place? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I mean all I -- I mean there wasn't a motion or anything. I think that what took place was that four of the commissioners said that the way that when we discussed 5.9 was that our understand- ings was, and if staff took the interpretation that as if they were giving it to us, that that was not our intentions. Our intentions were that if there was existing buildings that were on nonconforming, then if something happened to them, they would have to become conforming. MR. ANDERSON: different from what I was told in the public hearing a few weeks ago, when I specifically mentioned "nonconforming uses." MR. CUYLER: I don't know that anyone understood it was nonconforming as to zoning because everyone within that conversation was discussing nonconforming Well, it's just that that is quite OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 119 as to the comments. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Now, maybe what we might need to do is maybe we need to just take this one item as that's concerning 5.9 and how it's being interpreted and maybe move it over to a commissioners' meeting and then take public comment on the thing. But, you know, as far as I'm concerned, you know, my intentions have and always has been that for nonconforming use that when they were no longer there, that they would then become conforming because one of my biggest problems in Immokalee was on 29, the Immokalee Tire. It was nonconforming under the present zoning. And it was my intentions and after staff saw it and Michelle was over there, we realized that this should be in conforming zoning; and that was exactly what we did to a lot of the area that was there. Because when it was rezoned in 1982, there was a lot of the places that became nonconforming; and it was never my intentions that something become that was now nonconforming, according to zoning, would become conforming just because of 5.9. So, I mean I don't have a problem, if that's what the commissioners wish OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 § 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 120 to do. MS. EDWARDS: I would like to add: If we don't decide upon that tonight, it's going to affect the Immokalee Master Plan. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But wouldn't it affect the entire -- MS. EDWARDS: It will affect the entire county, but we need to make a decision tonight to meet our requirements for D.C.A. for the Immokalee Master Plan. MR. CUYLER: If it hasn't affected on what they need to do with regard to the Immokalee Plan, yes, it will affect the county as a whole; but the reason it needs to be done is because of the Immokalee Plan. COMMISSIONER MASSE: Clear this up for me, Miss Edwards. If you were telling me that a nonconforming use burns down, as Mr. Anderson had said, it has to be replaced with a conforming use. Am I correct? MS. EDWARDS: Exactly. That was under -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: I just want to make sure I got this straight. You don't agree with that? MR. ANDERSON: I understand the policy rationale OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 121 for it. My complaint is, is I am hearing something different tonight than I heard several weeks ago. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are you accusing us of vacillating? MR ANDERSON: No, no, never. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, can we get a recommendation from Mr. Blanchard? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think we've been through this. I think Mr. -- I mean we've been here since, you know, 9:00 o'clock this morning. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Anderson. I understand you feel that there's something -- Mr. Blanchard said he had not addressed the issue. He came back to us. He said he wants some interpretation, what was intended by the Board. We all spoke. You know, that was what my intention was. That you wouldn't make a nonconfgrming use a conforming use. And I thought the other thing was that when we scheduled a full-day meeting, we weren't going to have 5:00 o'clock meetings. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: What's supposed to be a full-day meeting? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 122 MR. BLANCHARD: Bob Blanchard from the Growth Planning Department. The way that I understood what the Board did tonight is that we will interpret Policy 5.9 as vesting the plan designation, the existing zoning designation, and the uses on the property, provided they are compatible with the zoning district. We will not vest those properties -- those uses that are nonconforming with the zoning ordinance. In other words, if you have residential development on a commercially zoned property or a commercial development on a residentially zoned property, regardless of the plan designation, that if that use was destroyed for any reason, that it would have to become consistent with the zoning designation. It can still remain inconsistent with the planning. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Bob, we did change the zoning and plantation to where that it would be conforming. MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. believe me. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: ME. DOERILL: Plantation's taken care of, All right. We can move on. That's all your OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 l0 11 12 13 14 l§ 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 123 public speakers. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All right. May I have a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to close the public hearing. saying aye. (Chorus of ayes} CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. What's the pleasure of the Board? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: The pleasure of the Board, Madam Chairman, is to make a motion to approve the Immokalee Master Plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So moved, Madam Chairman. Seconded. I have a motion and a second All in favor, Signify by I'll second it. I have a motion and a second to approve the Immokalee Master Plan as it has been amended. Is there any discussion? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I'll call for the question. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 29. 124 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. The record needs to reflect that there's only four commissioners. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I have a question. Supposing one of us disagreed with anything on this land use. It doesn't go because Commissioner Saunders is not here? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't know if Commissioners Saunders has left. I was going suggest that we've got a couple of petitions here; and I guess we have to extend to the petitioners whether they would like to have them heard this evening, but only if Commissioner Saunders has left. I honestly don't know if he's left or he's just excused himself for the moment. MR. LAVERTY: I think he has. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: This is the second hearing, and I think most everything has been worked out. So, I don't think there should be a problem with it. Do you have a problem? We need a break?' OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 125 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: hurt anything. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (Short break) A short break wouldn't Until 8:00 o'clock. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll call the meeting back to order. The next item is Public Petition CP-90-2. George Varnadoe. Since George isn't here and Bruce doesn't have anything to say, is there something you need to add? Bob has a question. MR. BLANCHARD: Nope. Just if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: This is the second public hearing. It was -- are there any additions that we added to this first -- second and first public hearing? MR. LEE: No. Nothing has been changed since it Are there any questions of Then, may I have a motion to was originally submitted. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: the Commission? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So moved. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 126 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we approve Petition No. CP-90-2. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Seconded. I have a motion and a second to approve CP-90-2. call for the question. aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: unanimously. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is that you, Mr. Lee? Is there any discussion? I'll All in favor, signify by saying Opposed? The motion carries The next item is CP-90-3. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 19. 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 127 MR. LEE: We just -- at this first hearing, there was one change initiated by the Board; and that's outlined on the first page of the staff report where we reduced the density from eight to six. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion? Are there any speakers? I have a motion. May I have a second to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: All in favor, signify by Opposed? Motion carries. COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we approve Petition No. CP-90-3 with the cap on density to six units per acre. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: second. Is there any discussion? MR. DEE: No. Seconded. I have a motion and a Mr. Lee. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 ll 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 29. 128 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion and second to approve Petition CP-90-3, subject to the stipulations that have been submitted. CP-90-3, all in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes} CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion carries unanimously. The next item is CP-90-4. Mr. Lee. MR. LEE: There's been no changes since the Board preliminarily approved it at the 23rd meeting. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion of the Board? Are there any speakers? May I have a motion to close the public meeting. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to close the public hearing. signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: unanimously. So moved. Second the motion. I have a motion and a second All those in favor, Opposed? The motion carries May I have a motion, please. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 16 18 19 2O 21 129 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the Petition CP-90-4. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to approve Petition CP-90-4. Then I'll call for the question. by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) Is there any discussion? All in favor, signify Opposed? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. I have Petition No. CP-90-5. Mr. Lee? MR. LEE: At the last meeting, the Board directed staff to remove hotels and motels as an accessory use to marinas; and that language is shown on page 2 of the staff report. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is there any discussion? Are there any speakers? May I have a motion, then, to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Motion. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 130 to close the public hearing. saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: a motion. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: All in favor, signify by Opposed? Motion carries. May I have Madam Chairman, I make a motion that we approve Petition No. CP-90-5. Seconded. I have a motion and a COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: second to approve Petition CP-90-5, subject to the stipulations of removing hotels and motels. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. The next item is the policies of the D.C.A. objections, recommendations. Who's handling that? MR. LEE: I am as well. What we have here for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 131 consideration is all-staff-initiated amendments to the future land use element. There have been no changes since the Board looked at it on the 23rd. However, there's one item where we would like some clarification. As you just have approved, the amendment that would allow conversion of commercial from eight to six units per acre on Marco Island, the affordable housing provision in the future land use element provides for affordable housing on Marco Island at eight dwelling units per acre. There's an inconsistency between the eight and the six, and we want clarification or direction from the Board as to whether those should be the same; or do you want to allow the affordable housing to go in at eight units per acre? That's just a point of clarification. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, if we're going to upgrade anything in this respect, why don't we just leave that six, too. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I agree. I think that it's inconsistent to have this at eight and the other at six, so I'd like to suggest that what we do is that the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 2O 21 132 maximum allowable dwelling units in the coastal urban fringe area would be six dwelling units per acre. MR. LEE: Even though it's affordable housing, that's the -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Even though it's affordable housing. MR. LEE: Okay. I just wanted clarification on that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just wanted some clarification, which we required; then, an amendment or a change to its -- actually, it's page 3 is where I'm looking at and its Land Use 5.32. MR. LEE: Page 3. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: My recommendation in the form of a motion would be to change that to -- change eight to six dwelling units per gross acre on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Before we do that, we need to close the public hearing. Are there any speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, there are; there's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 133 three, your last three public speakers. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Call your speakers. MR. DORRILL: Jeff Purse. MR. PURSE: For the record, my name is Jeff Purse with Peppers, Neal & Purse. We are representing the Manatee Shopping Center on 951. I was here before you last week, and to explain the -- what has happened to Manatee Shopping Center as it relates to the language in 5.1. Manatee Shopping Center was required to get its S.T.P. approved for the -- prior to April deadline of 1990, and which we did. And what that constituted was basically -- if I could use an example -- is that when we got that approval in May, we basically got four apples; and of those four apples, one of them had to be yellow -- happened to be yellow. And as the language also indicates, that January 10th was the date that closed off all S.T.P.'s that were used for vesting that had not started construction. So, here we are with four apples: Three red, one yellow; and we have started construction on the project, thereby starting to eat the apples. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 134 During the process, one of the developers backed out of the -- one portion of the project because he had the yellow apple and he really wanted a red apple. The developer that has the three red apples now wants to take this yellow apple and make it a red apple. I use this to say how simple -- no green apples. We're not making a major change, but the language that is proposed under 5.1 will prevent any of these apples being changed out. But we're not opening up the orchard to everybody else to come and get aDples because the January 10th day was the date that stopped the S.T.P. I mean it's so confusing of what is going on on this project, that we haven't approved S.T.P.; and we are under construction. But with that, we had a -- the developer that is doing the northern portion of the project -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Why don't you tell it -- excuse me for interrupting, but what is the significance of whether one is red and one is yellow and someone backed out because it was yellow? I mean there's obviously some significance to someone. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 135 MR. PURSE: We want to change the S.T.P. again. COMMISSIONER HASSE: To all red apples. MR. PURSE: To all red apples. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And what would be the significance of that? What would that allow this person to do that he's not already allowed to do? MR. PURSE: What it will allow him to do will make one unified project. Right now we have one building that one developer's doing; and then we .have another building that is L-shaped that will not fit, as far as the overall scheme of the project. Now, this L-shaped building came about, as I've mentioned last week, that when we discovered 5.1 was going to stop even what projects that had gone past the January 10th date, that we had to come up with something to get this yellow apple to start to resemble a red apple. COMMISSIONER HASSE: building? MR. PURSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: at this site right now? What color is that L-shaped It's a yellow apple. Is there unity of ownership Is it all owned by one OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 136 individual or one company? MR. PURSE: Yes. Yes, it is. I don't know if they closed on the older parcel, but it will be -- there will be one developer of the parcel. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, this is, then, a -- some sort of unified plan, a development for this entire site, under a single ownership where he or it has a plan for the development of the entire parcel? MR. PURSE: That's correct. We're only changing one portion of the project, and that portion that we're changing will allow the building that is being built now to be duplicated on the southern portion of the project. MR. DORRILL: The question is whether it's he or someone else. Fruit aside, the point is whether or not how plans can be amended that were used as exemptions from the zoning reevaluation. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Bob. MR. BLANCHARD: Commissioners, just one point of clarification, and I think Mr. Purse brought it up, is that at the time the exemptions were granted, it was different owners; and really, the ow6ership shouldn't OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 · 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9.2 enter into this discussion, really. The issue in this case is Policy 5.1. The way it was amended or recommended for approval on this amendment cycle would allow certain changes to occur to existing development orders that had received exemptions, provided they were not time frame exemptions, those S.T.P. exemptions that had to commence construction or building permitting. Exemptions that had to commence construction within a certain period of time. So, any of the other exemptions that would change as to those development orders would be permitted or those that were permitted under compatibility exemption, provided they were consistent with all of the other elements of the Growth Management Plan and they made a significant reduction in density and intensity of use. And we've -- at the last hearing, the Board agreed to the definition of 20 percent as being a significant reduction. The issue has always been: Should we allow change to those exemptions that have a time line for construction? Construction for commercial properties were -- was required to commence by January 10th of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 138 this year. Right now we have 18 building permit exemptions, 58 S.T.P. exemptions; and I'm combining commercial and residential. We have three subdivision Master Plan exemptions and three final subdivision plat exemptions. So, we have a total of 82 exemptions that we have a chance, that if they do not commence construction, we'll be able to bring into conformance with the Growth Management Plan. I have continuously argued that those are really about the last ones. Because there is a time line for commencement, we have a chance to Gain something out of the zoning reevaluation program. I feel very strongly about this, and I've always argued that we should not allow changes to S.T.P.'s or the ones with subdivision Master Plans. Obviously, the other side of that coin is that if the county is able to get a, quote, "better project,"-then should we allow changes to be made to do that? But the issue is, really, does the Board want to encourage the continued development of projects that are inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan? And OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 lo 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 139 the staff has consistently recommended that we do not. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Can we do it? MR. PURSE: We can't allow changes, Commissioner Hasse, except for those that have a time line connected with their zoning reevaluation exemption. He has a time line, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I have a question, if I may: Does not the significant benefit to the county, does not the density reduction equate to an S.T.P. coming in with a better plan, that you could, in fact, review it on that basis? I mean why do we want to make it so inflexible in a sense that if we -- if we're able to generate those caveats, why wouldn't we consider a better plan coming in that gives significant benefits to the county, or reduction of density or intensity equal to greater than 20 percent, regardless? MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Shanaban, I know there is at least one other speaker that is going to address the same item; and instead of going through all these considerations twice, if Mr. Purse is through, I think -- is this not the item that Mr. Pickworth wants to speak on? You may want to go ahead and have everyone OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 140 speak on it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Are you through, Mr. Purse? MR. PURSE: Well, yes, sir. If Mr. Purse is through. This particular change that we're requesting to be made will allow us to be -- create less parking, which would create less traffic, give us more open space, would require us to have less water use and also less sewer use. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Forgetting about the fourth -- four, three, and one apples, do you think that this change will provide significant benefits to the county? MR. PURSE: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: SiGnificant benefits? MR. PURSE: Yes. In reduction of the project, yes, sir. MR. BLANCHARD: I would remind the Board that the significance is actually defined in this policy as a 20 percent reduction in density or intensity. I would be looking at floor area in this particular case. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I hear the point that Commissioner Shanahan has made, and I want to hear from OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 141 Mr. Pickworth; but there is a mechanism for making some changes to an approved S.T.P., if, in fact, they meet the requirements set forth in Policy 5.19 MR. BLANCHARD: Well, the only way that we have been interpreting that you can make changes to those that with time line exemptions is if they're considered an insignificant change, as determined by Development Services when they come in to amend their S.T.P'S. MR. CUYLER: It splits the type of site development plans into two categories: Those who have the time lines for construction. Basically, they were in with the site development plan and have to commence within a certain period 6f time. They have to construct and continue in good faith. Then there's the other type of exemption that is, for example, a conveyance exemption that has no time lines. If you conveyed and you have that type of exemption, then you don't have to construct within a certain period of time. And the type of change that this 20 percent applies to is the type without a time line. If it has a time line, then it's only insignificant changes. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 142 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So that I understand, then, if you've got a time line exemption or exception, okay, and someone comes in and said, "Look, I hurried up to get this done because I was under a great deal of pressure to get my S.T.P. in. And now, I've got a better plan and I'm prepared to reduce the densig~ and I'm prepared to do some other things to modify this plan, which I'm Going to end up with is a better project because I'm going to address these." You know, you said in this instance you would be looking at a reduction in the number of square feet. Where you see some benefit -- where you've Given up something where he's going to show that there is the overall benefit, rather than just allowing him to build up, shouldn't we at least give someone the opportunity, whether it's a time line or whether it's someone who has come in and they're an exception or an exemption, to show there is that benefit? I don't want to talk about this gentleman's particular project, I want to talk about those that are out there where something is better than they rushed to Get it approved, you know, to meet that time line. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 ll 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 143 MR. CUYLER: Well, with all due respect to Commissioner Volpe, the rushing to get it approved is one of the major issues in the way I think staff feels about -- strongly about Policy 5.1. I think that as the staff was calculating these numbers today, they made a determination that something along the order of 40 percent of all those S.T.P.'s were approved in the 30 days prior to adoption of zoning reevaluation. To me, that indicates they were coming in to get something on paper and to get it approved through the exemption. I would expect probably all of those people would like to come in and make a change because now they will be able to market a product that is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan because they got some application approved in the final 30 days. I don't deny that what you're suggesting has merit; but there are those that try to beat the system and did, that I have to question whether it's appropriate that we let them beat it again. COMMISSIONER HASSE: beat the system? MR PURSE: Is that what you did, try to No, sir, I don't feel we are beating OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 2O 21 144 the system. We got approved before the deadline in April and then we also met, and we had to get vested. Then the other deadline, that we see it, was the January 10th deadline, which we started construction and we're under way out at the site. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It probably happened within the intervening period of time you got this piece of property back. MR. PURSE: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, you know, you've got a unique situation, that somehow you ended up with a piece of property that the fellow says you've got a yellow apple here and I can't go forward with it; and now you're trying to deliver to your client something that the other person pulled out. The other client was already involved MR. PURSE: in the site -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand. MR. PURSE: -- on the northern half. And now he's taken over the whole site and he wants to do it as one congenial project and that's where I see we're not opening up to everybody else except that we're already OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 :2 4 5 6 '7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 20 145 under construction. So, that if someone else that rushed to get a permit approved back in April, if they haven't -- if they're not under construction a couple weeks ago, they're no good anymore. that? COMMISSIONER HASSE: MR. BLANCHARD: Can you see any sense in I still feel strongly about the way that I'm presenting this. As Commissioner Volpe mentioned, I think, you know, there is merit to debate and consider whether we should allow changes; but I think we have to always consider the change -- or the c~nditions under which what we have discovered almost half of these S.T.P.'s were approved. COMMISSIONER HASSE: in this case. MR. BLANCHARD: You're not looking at that I'm not, no, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Bob, we're not looking for a loophole to let everybody come back in to beat the system to beat it again. We're looking for some sort of direction that may provide a vehicle for a situation such as this, instead of always throwing out the baby with the wash water and not leaving any OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 146 flexibility, whatsoever, for a real situation; and it seems like we've got a real situation that we ought to be able to address without letting the system fall apart. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Perhaps what we ought to do, and my suggestion is listen to Mr. Pickworth and see what he's got to offer because maybe he's in the same boat. MR. DORRILL: a registered speaker. Thank you. MR. McCLURG: My name is Buryl McClurg, M-c-C-l-u-r-g. As owner and developer of this project, we understand the problem you face; and yet, we feel confident. And let me say, since the word seems to be "strongly," while we are at your mercy in this decision, we feel strongly that a minor -- and we see it as a minor change to this plan -- would allow us to put a much more presentable center together. In the middle of all of the dates, we acquired the property. We were -- it was impossible for us to act on it because it came after January 10th, where we The owner is here tonight, and he's If he will give his comments. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 9. 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 19. 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 147 were already under construction on our project. The other thing wasn't going to work. We've acquired it. It is zoned for retail, and retail will go there. And there is a configuration there that is not nearly so compatible with the property as the one we're speaking of here. So, we're asking you to find a way to help us with this, because we believe it makes Good sense and is reasonable. I must say that if you measure this change with some decrease in square footage, it will not work with us. The Phase I, which we're currently under construction on, is 97,000 square feet. This addition is about three or four acres to the south, which is going to be 33,000 square feet. Now, what we will do is -- already, as Mr. Purse says -- we will reduce the land area because it won't need the required parking. We'll take the restaurant out. We'll reduce certain affluence going into the system and water use and those kinds of things; and we'll reduce the intensity of the requirement of parking and, thus, the traffic. We're not modifying, in any degree, the total site plan as it has been presented before. There will OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 ~.0 21 . :22 148 only be the one entrance off of 951; that won't change. Traffic will come in. It will be able to split either direction. The buildings will be in such a manner that they will have capability and face the road. The architecture will be the same if we're allowed to do this little squiggle in the buildings, and that's really what we're asking. If we're unable to do that, then we're going to end up with a different presentation of architecture where we're trying to make the whole center look like one center and to be compatible. And so, we think it will be more coordinated, more attractive; and we're not putting up a center that's just sticks and bricks, either. It's going to be very attractively done. It's going to be an upscale center. There's going to be some major national tenants come in that have very quality merchandise -- something that the County and everyone who shops there can be proud of -- so, we would like it to look just like it belongs together. As we said, it would be less intense and it will serve the county better. It would be dishonest for me to say that it OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 149 doesn't serve us better, too, because it does. If we put up a project of the nature of which we speak here, it will be easier for us to lease, the value will be greater, there's no question about it; and we'll be able to coordinate the landscaping in a more consistent process and manner. better way to do it. A~d so, we just think this is a It makes more sense to us. It is, in our view, a modest change; and we understand the dilemma that you face, but we feel like there must be some way there could a lot done. And I guess, just in short, we feel if no one is damaged and you're not put in such an awkward position that you can't help us out, we feel good about asking you to do it because it will enhance the project and it will serve better visually and functionally for us. And we're not increasing, we're subtracting; so -- I would answer any questions if I could. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Discussion, questions? COMMISSIONER HASSE: I would just like to address a question to Mr. Blanchard. You heard what the gentleman said. Mr. McClurg, I think it is. You still stick with your original, and do you think this OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 29. 150 particular project would impact the entire plan? MR. BLANCHARD: Well, in terms of impacting the entire plan, I go back to the argument that if the Board wants to consider this type of an action, that we need to be very careful that we don't allow an out for those that we might have an opportunity to bring into conformance with the plan. So, in a certain sense, some of the action that might be taken might impact certain parts of the zoning teevaluation program. One of the things that we need to remember, and I just do this to remind the Board, is we're talking about projects that are inconsistent with a Growth Management Plan that have received an exemption through the zoning reevaluation ordinance. So, you know, if the Board wants to consider this idea, I think, you know, we listen to the rest of the speakers and we can go from there. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Bob, does it fit under the criteria of minor change or minor adjustments? MR. BLANCHARD: To my understanding in this particular case, we met with Mr. Purse a few days ago; that it does not fit into the insignificant change as OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 19 20 21 22 151 determined by Development Services, which is what -- which is the gauge that we've always used in making changes to S.T.P.'s and whether we say it's okay or not. So, it's my understanding that it does not. Or at the very least, that they couldn't get a decision made by the~time we made the decision tonight on Policy 5.1. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Can I just comment for the Board? The problems that I have is when -- as we went through the Golden Gate.Presbyterian Church, is where we try to change a policy that has countywide application to address a particular problem. And you may make very compelling argument as to why in this instance it's harmless and it should be done; but I just have, from a policymaker's perspective, a difficult time trying to establish policy based upon individual petitions. And that's the dilemma that I have very often, and I just share that with my fellow commissioners and understand that the problems that I have when I hear a very compelling argument. And I'm sure that in your case, it sounds like it's not a bad idea. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 9.2 152 MR. McCLURG: Well, we actually feel it will be more to the advantage of the land use plan, I mean, if you really want to talk about land use and grading up and looking right. Now, the fact is we have a plan which we can build to. It's disjointed and disoriented on that part of the property and we're going to build it if that's what we have to do and it will be retailed, but -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And I understand that what you said is, you know, you were going to allow this project to develop out in that disjointed way -- MR. McCLURG: But it wa~ a whole different use that was not compatible. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And everyone else who's got a similar kind of -- there may be other people -- and as I'm saying, I'm just having a difficult time going through and looking for a change in our established policies to address a particular project. And if there's some way -- I'm looking more at: Is there a reason for distinguishing between those exemptions and exceptions that have -- that were created as a result of a time line and those that are otherwise. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 '7 $ 9 lO 11 13 14 15 '16 1'7 18 19 2o 21 22 153 I'm looking at the broader perspective and saying to you, should we be applying the same kind of criteria to both? You're saying, "No, we shouldn't," because those people, for policy reasons you're suggesting, fall into a different category than others. That's what I've understood you to say. MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. MR. McCLURG: Do these numbers which were quoted earlier about the people who -- and I think the word was "beat the system," and that was never our intent -- have all of them manifested themselves in the way of construction and started? Do you have 80-something projects, or did they get in before the 10th; and then they really didn't get under construction, so they've fallen out of the -- MR. BLANCHARD: We avoided 13 commercial exemptions to date. MR. McCLURG: And all the rest of the 80 are under construction? MR. BLANCHARD: No, all the rest of the 36; and I can't say that all the rest of those, because our staff is still making some determinations. The residential OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 154 S.T.P.'s have not even been required. We haven't even reviewed those yet because they have until next year to make their changes. MR. McCLURG: Well, I just didn't want to get an association of all those numbers with this because it really doesn't stick. And I think, you know, that ought to be looked at. I guess what I would ask of you is not to close the door or the window. Give us a window. I heard earlier in the discussion relative to the Presbyterian Church, that perhaps in six months -- or it was a cycle thing, could we come back? The cycle wouldn't impair us; it wouldn't hurt us, but to build it the way it is now, the way we have inherited it -- and we had nothing to do with that. We had come on as a Johnny-come-lately to make the project work and want to do it right. Could you give us some sort of a window, so that in six months we could look at it and see what's happened? Perhaps our concerns about others would have been resolved or settled down or something where we could have a shot at this. That's all I'm asking. I know it's difficult for you, and I understand OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 lO 11 1:2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 22 155 that. If I were in your seats, I would be squirming; but somehow could you give us a window of opportunity? MR. DORRILL: Miss Chairman, before you answer that question, I'm going to cut through a certain amount of chase; and I think Mr. Pickworth has, at least, suggested another alternative that you might want to at least consider in the way of dealing or looking at this same type of a problem. And that's why we've been trying to get to Mr. Pickworth, you know, not to cut out his presentation; but I think he's got a certain perspective on this that you may want to hear before making a decision. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: For the record, I'm Don Pickworth. I do have a little bit of different perspective on it. It probably -- my perspective is probably not going to help these gentlemen because, I guess, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Blanchard at length; I've attended the meetings; and I obviously understand, as you do, both sides of this. It's a difficult issue here. I do feel, however -- it bothers me when we characterize a lot of these as "beating the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 156 system," and I'm realistic enough to know that, yes, there certainly are some number of these that were, quote, "ginned up to beat the system." I also think that a lot of them were not. Obviously, there were products in the stream at the time this came along. And, unfortunately, though, the broom that we're using here is sweeping pretty clean; and it's unfortunate because I think that it's going to produce some unfortunate results. I have -- obviously, if I have my druthers, I think that, notwithstanding the policy reasons that Mr. Blanchard has advanced to you for taking the position they have as to those properties which have a time line exemption for -- to use the short form term, I still think we ought to afford those projects the same opportunity for change to the site plan that we are affording projects which have other types of exemptions. That, I think, would be the best thing to do; and I know Mr. Blanchard strongly disagrees with that. you. And so, you have both sides of the issue before I would propose, which again, will satisfy OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :20 21 22 157 certainly the concerns of those individuals who have asked me to speak on this, an alternative; and that is to essentially have what amounts to a two-tiered regulation here, in which we treat projects which do not have the time line exemption; and that's what's in what's before you now. Because it says that if you have an exemption that's not a time line exemption, you have to significantly reduce your density intensity; and they define "significant" as 20 percent. I would suggest that instead of making this provision unavailable totally to projects which have a 2.4 time line exemption, I would propose that we make this available to them if they make not a significant reduction in density or intensity, but an extraordinary reduction in density or intensity. And by "extraordinary," I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 percent. In fact, I mentioned this to one of the private land planners out in the hall; and he said that strikes him as rather draconian. And I said, "Yes, it is." Because I think if you're going to have an extraordinary reduction, I think it's got to be draconian. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 158 I think as a practical matter, this will probably not be a provision that would be taken advantage of by very many applicants because there are going to be very, very few projects where you could knock off 40 or 50 percent of the units and still have a viable project. As a practical matter, a particular project I have in mind can do that only because there is a consistent land use which can be put on the site in the area where the residences that you knock off are. Obviously, not a lot of projects are going to fall within that -- within those rather narrow parameters; but it does afford an opportunity to avoid an otherwise rather harsh result; and I would offer that for your consideration. We have worked at length with Mr. Blanchard and with other county staff; and the substantial- insubstantial definition which they have been applying, it just -- it muddies out when you start trying to work with it in terms of site plans. And so, we -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What have we accomplished by this, though? I mean what we're trying to do is to discourage development inconsistent with our newly OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 :2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :2o :21 22 159 adopted Growth Management Plan. And you've said that -- by the compromise here, if you will -- would be to say that we could allow an amendment to the site development plan where there was a significant reduction and where you got a time line exemption, "significant" will mean a 50 percent reduction; and you've said that no one's going to take advantage of it because the projects aren't viable. Most of the projects aren't viable to cut the density in half. For example, for the square footage in half. So, as much as I want to try to address a particular problem, you know, I hear what -- I mean it all sounds -- but what have we really accomplished? MR. DORRILL: Well, not to be his proponent, but I think to provide an opportunity to amend what may have been a bad plan to a better plan, given that they are going to provide some reduction, intensity or density has some merit. Now, I don't know what that level is where it can be done and still have a viable project so that you are providing some sort of encouragement. Now, I'd like to protect, you know, the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 .... ~L I__1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 160 principles of the planning staff; but sometimes I think the managers think it's incumbent upon them to step in and be that middle road. And I think, in this case, you know, I think there is an opportunity for the Board to say -- as long as they are continuing to meet their time lines because you don't want to sidestep that -- and they will be able to come in and reduce their densities or intensities by some certain level; and I'll look to them to provide whatever that is and still make a project viable. Then, you've given a mechanism for a person to come in and change their site plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But let me ask you a question. This particular gentleman has a situation where he's saying he's got a project that's under construction. I mean, you know, so he's says, "I'm in the ground, I'm building; and I'm 50 percent complete." We have got some others, that where they've got an S.T.P. that's been approved that they have done nothing, no infrastructure. MR. BLANCHARD: All of the residential, and they are not required to do anything for another year. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. So, wouldn't it be OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 4 5 6 '7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2o :22 161 fair to look at those instances where you've got some significant improvement, you know, where you've got an ongoing good-faith attempt to come in and put a time line on the other end of it if the application is made within six months or something. MR. BLANCHARD: I'm not following that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, what I'm saying, I'm looking at this particular gentleman's. He says, "Is there any way that you can give me at least, you know, a little window of opportunity." He's been under -- you're under construction; is that correct? He has begun to implement his S.T.P. He may be of the title -- the total site, I don't know how many acres are there. He's maybe got -- a third of the project is completed. It's under a unity of ownership; he's not breaking it out. I mean isn't there a way that if you have got a situation like that where you really look at what good-faith effort has been made toward construction of your S.T.P. approved project, to come in at some point in time and allow for some -- MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Volpe, let me address that. Everybody's going to have to meet the time frame OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLI,IER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9.0 21 22 162 for construction; nobody's going to be able to avoid that. I think the thing that the county is looking for is not necessarily good faith because everybody's going to have to meet the good faith. The question is: What are you going to reduce? And, in return for the County allowing you to change your site development plan, how much are you going to reduce your intensity? Now, you've said for those without a time line, 20 percent; with a time line, there's no guarantee. think the staff will tell you, one of the problems is there's no guarantee those projects are going to construct at all. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. MR. CUYLER: You don't know until they actually get through -- and they have to complete. They have to go in good faith until completion. And if they want to come in and change it, then I think Tom's point is that not 20 percent, something more than 20 percent; but what are you going to reduce your intensity? Whether -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think I understand. I realize that I'm kind of maybe confusing the issue; but OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ].9 2o 9.1 22 163 where you've got those, I'm saying here's a particular situation. We've got a real live case, as Commissioner Shanahan points out. Me's under construction. He's not that residential $.T.P. that's out there that may or may not build. Why give them the opportunity to come in and amend that plan that allows them to develop inconsistent with their Growth Management Plan? And by Mr. Pickworth's own suggestion, if we cut the project in half -- he's talked to the land use planners and they say it's draconian and doesn't really serve any purpose -- you might just as well not allow it to happen at all. MR. CUYLER: Well, this gentleman's case seems to be a little bit peculiar; but what he's basically saying is for his purposes, for his marketing, for his appearance of his project, he wants to come in and change his project. I think the staff's saying, that from a policy point of view, if he's willing to come in and reduce his intensity, if he's willing to give up something in return for the ability to change his site plan, then that's fine. But if people just want to come in -- whether OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 lO 11 1:2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 164 it's any of those other 50 projects -- and basically make their project more marketable but not really reduce their intensity, then the staff's indicating the policy that they recommend to the Board is, "Don't do that." MR. DORRILL: And I think the practical result of this particular case is if you don't have some way of amending that site plan, the value of the land's going to dictate that he's going to develop that commercial property out as the existing approved site development plan in any case; and I think you've got to assume that's going to happen because just the value of the property is worth "X" amount of dollars as commercial property versus three to four units per acre for residential on a main thoroughfare. So, you know, you've got to be able to provide, in my opinion, some sort of an incentive, that when that change occurs, it's not going to be a change of equivalent, it's going to be -- we're already admitting it's inconsistent with the comp plan. So, in order to allow you to develop, you're going to have to come in; and if you're going to change OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 165 it, you're going to have to give up something and make it a better project than it was originally. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: This guy's got something more than just an approved S.T.P. He's got quasi vested rights, in my view. I put him into a different category than the other person. That's my mind set right now, and I'm trying to address those unique situations consistent with what we're saying about Policy 5.1. MR. BLANCHARD: If you're going to discuss a specific situation and if we look at this same one, this particular project is in two phases. He's got construction under the first phase, only. The second phase, which could considerably -- could conceivably be considered a separate lot; that, you know, if it proceeded through to rezoning, I'd just throw that in as an example. I mean it's not quite as cut and dried as if they had started construction. But, in fact, in many cases we have S.T.P.'s that are phased in; and the question of whether they ever build the entire parcel or the entire development is really a valid question in that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ____ __1 I __. I II k _1 JfL__ IIJL]111_~1 __11 _J~ d~11 .... - - 1 2 4 6 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2o 21 22 166 case. COMMISSIONER HASSE: portion has been started. sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: the Commission, Mr. Purse? No construction on this COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: On the second portion. MR. BLANCHARD: That's my understanding, yes, That's my understanding from Mr. Purse. Would you like to address MR. McCLURG: May I just address that, please? One of the stipulations we have in this project and in the zoning of the whole parcel -- and by the way, we're constructing on probably 80 percent -- and the rest of it is probably 20 percent -- that we have acquired -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Wait just a second. We need to change the tape. MR. McCLURG: What I wanted to say is: From the very beginning, the County has looked at this entire parcel as one project, both Phase I and Phase II; so, we shouldn't start separating it now. And there is a contingency that Phase II will lose its zoning, unless we go right forward in a steady walk with a construc- tion onto Phase II. In other words, as we end Phase I, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 167 we must go immediately into construction on Phase II. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Somehow you-all separated it. Not us. MR. McCLURG: I'm sorry if I did. The separation game is: We came in the middle of the act and acquired the property, but the stipulations have not changed just because we've acquired it. It is still the -- the vested zoning was maintained because we, as Phase I developers, went in and we did all the -- were doing the infrastructure, including the retainage ponds, which are now in place on the Phase II property. We had to do that in order to save the zoning on the entire piece. So, we have done that. So, it needs to be looked at as one piece and not as two pieces. That's the point I wanted to make. MR. BLANCHARD: In answer to Commissioner Hasse' question, I think this Board wants to consider making an allowance of this sort. That because of the difference between those projects with S.T.P. exemptions, that -- again, I qualify it -- that if we're going to take this action, that test S.T.P. exemptions should be a larger percentage than those OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 :2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :20 22 168 that have an exemption that last forever. Because there's a very difference -- there's a major difference in the possibility that we have of bringing some of these parcels into conformance with the plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think what Mr. Hasse and I are saying to you, though, is where you've got a project that is well underway, would you -- is there some suggestion that you could make where you've got a project which is well underway, that if they come in with a significant reduction, combining the two, Mr. Pickworth's 50 percent with a project well underway~ That's kind of my mind set. Is that sort of where we are going -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Personally, I could go along with Mr. Blanchard's thinking; but I'm just saying here is a gentleman, one case, that's maybe unique right now because we're changing over somehow. And, you know, some people are getting caught in a bind. MR. OLIFF: Let me ask, because maybe I don't understand. You've got a project today that's a residential project whose exemption doesn't run out until '92. So, you don't want them to be able to come OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 :2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :20 21 29. 169 in and amend their plan and make it better until they begin construction. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But that is the way Policy 5.1 is drawn up, that they don't. That they've got a year to go out and develop, and that's if -- MR. OLIFF: I'm just saying that from a practical standpoint, that doesn't make much sense. I mean I don't want to require a developer to go out and start construction on his project, be substantially underway before I'm going to allow him to come in and amend his plan to make it better. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But we're trying -- I think what we're doing, Mr. Oliff, is we're trying to address these particular -- this comes up in the context of one particular individual. MR. OLIFF: And I'm trying provide you a policy. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I know that goes beyond the issue. Maybe I don't understand the issue; but I assume if you've got someone that's come in with a residential $.T.P., they are one year. That's what it provides, you have one year. MR. OLIFF: Right. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 170 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You knew that when you came in. You've got a time line, you've got one year. Now, we want to change the policy and say, "Well, you had one year; but what you can do is, in that one year, you can come in and you can get a change to your S.T.P." MR. DORRILL: To improve it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: By, say, a 50 percent reduction in density. And then what? MR. DORRILL: You're still required to be in construction the same day that you originally to -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So, it still has to happen within one year? COMMISSIONER SMANAHAN: Correct. The time frame doesn't change. all. change. COMMISSIONER' MASSE: now? What can he do? MR. BLANCHARD: MR. DORRILL: The time frame does not change at You're only allowing for a change, a positive What can this gentleman do He can develop consistent with his improved site development plan under the recommended Policy 5.1 with no changes. OFFICIAL COURT REP TERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 1:2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 9.1 22 171 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So we can maybe not whip this horse any further, Bob, is there anything in your imagination, in your creativity, that will allow you to think for a second that everybody doesn't try to beat the system? And I don't think everybody does. Is there anything that we can do? Consider this as an example: A minor change without creating a problem in the 82 site plans that you've Got sitting out there. Or 82 exemptions. MR. BLANCHARD: I don't think we can consider it a minor change; but if the Board wants to allow cases like this if we make them either subject to the same criteria for significant reduction, or my recollection would be some higher test. I don't think we can just find them to be a minor change. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: What is that higher test? MR. BLANCHARD: I would go with a recommendation like Mr. Pickworth has made, or definitely something higher than 20. 30, 40, 30. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I would go along with the 40. MR. BLANCHARD: And we would look at that in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 172 terms of real reductions, too. that in terms office floor area. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: like it at all. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: alternative? COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: I would be lookin9 at It's draconian. Well, what's the I don't To leave it the way it is, I mean if there isn't any opportunity to try to justify a particular case that we have on hand. Albeit, it's particular; and I don't see any sense in juggling it around and talking about a 50 percent I think that's, frankly, in my mind, reduction. ludicrous. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I realize it's getting late, but on the other hand, if you don't do that, then I think what Mr. Oliff has been telling us that these people, in order to protect what they've got, are going to go ahead and develop out this particular project at 8 units an acre, 12 units an acre, 16 units an acre. And I don't think -- I guess what we're looking at is a compromise in that regard. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I think you're probably OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 9.1 22 173 aligning yourself with one or two people. Specifically, again, you're getting into an area of providing this 50 percent significant reduction, because there's a couple of S.T.P.'s that are willing to do that. You are falling into the very same trap that you try to avoid, making a change for a particular development. CHAIRMAN G00DNIGHT: Don, do you want to say something? MR. PICKWORTH: Let me, just in response to you, Commissioner Shanahan, respond to that. There may be one or two out there now who are willing to do that; but in addition to that, I guess what we're really talking about here is providing an incentive. And if you start talking in terms of 30, 40, 50 percent reduction, what I think you will get is the people who will take advantage of this will come in with extremely good projects. So, what you're doing is you're holding a great carrot out there; but you're exacting a big price for that. And the projects that come out of that will be, for the most part, I think real good projects you're 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 174 talking about. Because, obviously, they've probably acquired this land under valuations of a density that's way up here and you're dropping it down here. So, obviously, you're going to have to be adding value somewhere else, probably in the form of, you know, obviously very luxurious units, good architecture, various amenities. It's going to have to be there. And so, the projects that result from that are going to be extremely good projects. I understand that that doesn't speak to every situation out there. It doesn't speak to this particular situation. I'm not saying that we can, with a stroke or two of the pen, resolve every one; and maybe we need to resolve different situations different ways, but I do think that we are missing a big opportunity here. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think you've convinced me, Mr. Pickworth; and plus with what I'm hearing our staff say that if -- in fact, I'm comfortable not with 40 percent, with 50 percent. If that's going to resolve the better projects, upscale projects, lower densities and they're still working within that same OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 175 one-year time frame, we haven't extended that out for any additional period of time, put in some flexibility. And if this gentleman then can come in and he can reduce his project significantly or in an extraordinary way, so be it. If he can't -- MR. BLANCHARD: To be real honest, I'm not sure that Mr. Purse' project would meet the 20 percent. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: They have already said that. MR. BLANCHARD: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: He's already said it wouldn't meet that criteria. MR. BLANCHARD: I didn't hear that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Then there's no sense in going any further on this. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Commissioner Shanaban does not agree, COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Then I go back to what Mr. Blanchard came in and said he didn't think there wasn't any changes that ought to take place; and now he's, all of a sudden, willing to make a change that's 30, 40, or 50 percent. I don't particularly like that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 176 kind of a swing. He came in totally committed; and now, all of a sudden, he's uncommitted. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We're beating a dead horse here; so, we need to drop it and go on to something else. And there's no other issues than that? MR. BLANCHARD: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I would ask the Board for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: So moved. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: It carries. pleasure of the Board? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: The pleasure of the Board, Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the amendments to the future land use element, text, and map. And what's the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2o 21 22 177 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Do I have a second? You don't have a second. Well, I'm not Going to second the motion if I don't have four votes here. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: What is the motion to? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion was to approve the policies as they have been submitted. MR. CUYLER: And there was no second to that? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: No, sir. MR. CUYLER: We're coming up on a 12-hour meeting. I suggest somebody else make a motion that -- CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: You want me to take one of them in the back room and beat them around a little bit? MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Chairman, I won't make a motion for you; but I'd just try to -- I think where we're falling down on this is, what is a reasonable number that a developer might take advantage of and actually be able to use as a percentage? COMMISSIONER HASSE: 40 percent. MR. DORRIL5: I think 40 percent is high, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 16 17 19 20 178 frankly; but I talked to this Board -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: You're not voting on it. MR. DORRILL: No. And I'm going to make a recommendation to you just from a practical standpoint. I went in and talked to this developer about what does 30 percent look like in terms of your project? And he says, "I know. It's very difficult, but I would probably take advantage of that." I'm trying to tell you it's a way to improve. It's a number that you could use, and it's something that you may want to -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: My problem is: Are we setting a precedent for 30 percent? MR CUYLER: You are establishing a criteria is what you're doing. It's not a precedent. Those people that can come in and meet the criteria can do that. Those that cannot meet the criteria cannot do it. MR. DORRILL: The worse thing that would happen is you would have a 30 percent reduction in density and intensity to those parties who took advantage of it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm comfortable with Mr. Pickworth who, in this instance in the capacity in which he presents himself, I think he's come up with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 179 something that's reasonable. And I mean he's made a very persuasive argument, and he persuaded me that the greater the reduction the better it would be; and I'm very comfortable with 50 percent. If it will move us from this impasse and make things move forward, I'm willing to consider something less than 50 but I'm not willing to consider 30. Commissioner Hasse has, in mind, 40 percent; and Mr. Blanchard has said that it is his interpretation -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I'll accept that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Blanchard, is there some way that you can -- you understand that I'm not sure that we have -- I'm not sure that we've got four votes. MR. CUYLER: I think Mr. Blanchard is in a position of cut his losses, as it were. I mean he's made a recommendation that the Board is not going to exactly follow, if you want to establish -- I don't think he has a problem if Tom wants to suggest that. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Are you pleading his case or something? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Blanchard, let me just hear from you, despite -- we've gone around, we've OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 180 discussed it at length, it's a very important policy. It comes up in the context of this particular gentleman. He felt very adamantly about leaving 5.1 as it was. You've heard the arguments. Have you -- as a staff person, would you be willing to make a recommendation to the Board to change what you've based upon this? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes, sir, I would. And I don't feel that that's out of order. Yes, I will. My recommendation would be 40 percent. the S.T.P. exemptions -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I still feel that Preserve the integrity of what it is that we've tried to do? MR. BLANCHARD: be a limited number -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: we need four votes for this. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: close. COMMISSIONER HASSE: 40 percent. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yes, because I think there will You realize, of course, that Well, you're getting I make a motion for So, the motion would be that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 9.O 9.1 9.9. Policy 5'.1 with respect to time line exemptions that the petitioners may come in with an extraordinary reduction and an extraordinary reduction would be a 40 percent? MR. BLANCHARD: I would insert another paragraph that basically says, "That exemptions pursuant to 2.4 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance which do require that authorized construction commence and continue in good faith may also be found consistent with the future land use element, provided Criteria 2 and 3, which is consistent with the other elements of the plan as well as meeting a significant reduction test; that 2 and 3 are met, and that the reduction and density or intensity are permitted by that development order are equal to or greater than 40 percent." CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a second? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: second. Then, I'll call for the question. favor, signify by say aye. (Chorus of ayes) Okay. I have a motion. Do Second the motion. I have a motion and a All in OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 182 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Thank you. The next item is Land Use Map. We need a motion on the entire section of policies, then. We are still on policies. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Is that what we are saying? We need a motion to improve the land use element, text, and map, exclusive of the changes we have just made? MR. LEE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Including the changes. I'll second it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and second, then, to adopt the policies and future land use map as has been submitted. saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: traffic circulation. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: All those in favor, signify by Opposed? All right. The next item is I'd like to comment for the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 ll 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 183 record that this now is going onto almost 12 hours. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Are there any additions or anything that's been added since the first public hearing? JIM: There have not. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: the first public hearing. the Board? COMMISSIONER SHANAMAN: Is there anything we should know about traffic circulation, simply because it's an extremely important element in the Growth Management Act? And I know it's late, and I want to Get out of here just as much as everybody else. I had a 7:30 meeting to attend, which I'm now an hour and a half late for; but I'm still willing to talk about traffic circulation if we need to talk about it. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Well, go ahead and talk. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: No, I'm asking you him. MR. PERRY: For the record, I'm Jeff Perry with the Growth Planning Department. All of the changes that were suggested by staff this year were basically what we would term as house cleaning updating-type Everything was the same. Nothing has been added since Is there any discussion of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 9.1 29. 184 changes. They were necessary to keep the traffic circulation element current, to update the maps, and that type of thing. There was nothing controversial, there were no objections or comments from D.C.A. concerning our staff recommended changed; and there have been, to my knowledge, no speakers against any of the changes. And I have nothing more. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Any further discussion? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Then I'd ask for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MASSE: So moved. COMMISSIONER SHANAMAN: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on traffic circulation element. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: unanimously. Opposed? The motion carries OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 16 17 19 2O 22 185 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Some of these levels of service, now, and the conditions map, are there any changes in there that are of any significance. MR. PERRY: The one change that you might consider significant is that the State amended some of its standards in what is called a transitional zone. It's sort of a modified urban area, and it did affect a couple of the highways. Those changes did not affect our work program. It didn't affect the State's work program. There was nothing significant resulting from those changes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Does it affect the Trail? Did it affect U.S. 417 MR. PERRY: Only a very small portion of it out towards 951 that -- I can show you the map if you would like to see it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: of 951, does it not? MR. PERRY: The darker hatched area out here and coming down to Marco is sort of a new portion of the urban area. Prior to this amendment, the urban boundary came all the way out here. Everything to the It also affects a portion OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 9-1 22 186 west was urban; everything to the east was rural. The State came through and said, "We need to have a transitional area, and apply some of our rural minimum standards to some of these roads." The East Trail, there was a very small portion out here that was urban. That level of service, D Minimum Standard, it changed to a minimum standard of C. That portion of the Trail is well east of 951, and has such a long volume of traffic on it now that that level of service was insignificant. The other change on 951 did take part of the road from an E service standard to a D service standard; however, that section of the highway is funded, so it didn't affect the work program. It was already beyond E, anyway; so, the level of service was F. So, it didn't really make too much difference if we set it D or set it at E because it was already beyond that minimum level. And as we all know, it is fully funded now. So, there were a few minor change; but they were insignificant as far as their results. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is it within this element OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 of our Growth Management Plan that we establish the methodology for arriving at our levels of service? MR. PERRY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The methodology for setting levels of service, is that done within this element? MR. PERRY: Yes. In other words, the choice is made by the County; and to what is minimum standards you are going to have your county roads set at is done through the traffic circulation. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Have we changed that standard since the plan -- have we changed that standard at all since the plan was first adopted? MR. PERRY: We tried to. We tried to last year. The last update cycle we tried to change the southern section of 951 because the State tried to put this on us last year. We tried to change -- tried to object to that particular standard. We also tried to change Bonita Beach Road from the minimum standard, which was D, to 150 percent of E because of level of service of that particular roadway. Both of those attempts at changing the standards met with objection from D.C.A. in the regional planning OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ! 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 188 counsel, so we withdrew those amendments last year. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The specific question is: When we're going about the generalized daily level of service of maximum volume tables and using, as we do, all volumes are based on the highest 15-minute period of the 30th highest volume hour of the year at a higher direction of flow of traffic. I mean that's the perfect world, isn't it? MR. PERRY: It's a worst case scenario, is what you get; and you set your standards at a worst case situation, realizing that the rest of the year everything works a little bit better than that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And what we are doing is we are building our roads to the worst case scenario, as I see it. And I'm asking that perhaps -- maybe not as a part of this amendment cycle -- but I'm asking that the staff give us some consideration as to what alternatives may be available in establishing those levels of service? Because, as you say, this is a worst case scenario. That's the way we've looked at our storm water drainage plan, the worst case scenario. I think we need to be aware of it. I think we also OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 189 need to know if there isn't some ground which is not worst case scenario where we can still, without compromising the plan, have a reasonable alternative available. So, I would like to give some direction to the staff, that at least as we come back during the next cycle, that we look at that in a different method for calculating our levels of service. MR. PERRY: We'll certainly do that, keeping in mind that it's the time of the year we look at that level of service. The level you set it at, if you live with a level of severe congestion, that's what you might set during the season. So, you have to take both of them in context. We are looking at it during the peak season; but we're also setting a congestion level that is close to intolerable during the peak season, realizing that we're doing much better during the off seasonal months. If we set a very high level of service during peak season, one that you just physically almost can't achieve during peak season, then I would agree that we are overbuilding. We're building to the point where , 11 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIE~ COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33969. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 2O 9.1 9.2 everybody is free-flowing during peak season and peak hour, and that's not what we have set. In some cases it's level of service E during peak season and peak hour. In other cases, level of service D during peak season and peak hour. So, that during the off seasonal hours and off seasonal months, we have a much better level of service. And we only have the severe congestion during the -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But when you set those levels of service at E, those also become not deficiencies but become, like, unacceptable conditions, don't they? Isn't that the way they're characterized in the plans? MR. PERRY: Yes. When you Get to congestion -- capacity is level of service E. So, when you have -- when you set a road at level of service E, you are literally putting all of the vehicles that you can physically Get on that road; and you begin to extend the congestion level, so the peak hour is much larger longer than just the peak 15 minutes or the peak hour. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't want to -- I'm just suggesting to you that the last two years that I've sat OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 19. 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 191 here, there's been some discussions about, you know, the fact of how we are establishing those levels of service. And I'm just asking you as a part of the consideration -- when he comes back -- I would like, you know, if we could get some direction. At least we consider the alternative and what the impact would be and what the significance is. MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Maybe we're doing the best -- you know, maybe this is the best case. MR. PERRY: We went through a lot of those discussions during the initial development of those standards with the Citizens Advisory Committee; and the question they kept posing was, "At what level of congestion do you want to live with during the season, realizing that it's going to be better during the off season?" and that's how we went about setting the standards. If we want to live with a little more congestion during the season, we can adjust those standards accordingly; and I will be glad to look at that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I think that's what OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 19 2O 21 22 192 we're kind of looking at. We're looking at increasing in ad valorem taxes, we're looking at limited funding sources, and we're looking at a seasonal population where, on Marco Island, for example, the population doubles, I think, you know, during the season. So, you know, the question is: Those of us who are permanent residents, what's the freight that you can bear? MR. PERRY: The other thing that we have to keep in mind is learning from our experience with the first attempt is that many of our roads are listed on the hurricane evacuation routes; and as they're listed hurricane evacuation routes, the regional policy plan and the state plan will not let us lower those levels of service during the peak hour, because that's the period you're going to have all that congestion, trying to get out of Marco Island and Naples and that type of thing. So, some of the roads, we may come a lot of objections from the region and the state if we try to -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Maybe I'm just thinking in this last comment. Obviously, we don't have hurricanes in April, usually, or May. I just -- I hear what OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 ! 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 193 you're saying, but that's the only direction that I'd like to get to the staff. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: May I have a motion to I'll make a motion that we approve the traffic element of our Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Seconded. I have a motion and a second to approve the traffic element of the Growth Management Plan. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If it takes a motion, I would like to move that we actually give our staff direction that comes to establish the service levels that we consider alternate methodologies. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll second the motion. I have a motion and a second to direct staff to bring back some different methodologies for service levels. All in favor, signify by saying aye. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 17 19 2O 21 22 194 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: item is Public Facilities. that. MR. LAVERTY: to Recreation and Open Space. Opposed? Motion carries. The next We have already handled We have done that. We would move CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Recreation and Open Space. MR. LAVERTY: There have been no changes since the last meeting. MR. MASSE: I make a motion to close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: May I have a second. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second the close the public hearing. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? MR. SMANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I second the motion to adapt the amendments for the Recreation and Open Space element. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 195 CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: approve. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Motion and second to Mr. Laverty, did you take credit for our beach facilities in Parks and Recreation? MR. LAVERTY: Yes . CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to approve the Recreation and Open Space element. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. The next item is the Housing Element. MR. LAVERTY: There's one change that staff is recommendinG: Those policies since our last meetinG. If you turn to your staff report and look at the new draft of Policy 1.5.6, you'll see that the analysis that staff wishes to complete to determine the appropriateness of additional housing units within the urban coastal fringe would be to change from a study based on acreage to a study based on a number of units. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 9. 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 9.1 9.9. 196 And that was the direction the Board of County Commissioners gave us in July before this was transmitted to D.C.A. However, just as a matter of staff oversight, that correction was not made during the transmittal stage. COMMISSIONER HASSE: housing units? MR. LAVERTY: Are you talking about Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only thing is, that we always look at gross acreage to determine density. So, why are we doing it differently here? MR. LAVERTY: I'll defer to our Growth Planning staff, who are more involved with the development of that policy and are much more -- MS. SOTO: My name is Elly Soto, with Growth Planning. What we're doing simply is coordinate the fact that you have approved 600 dwelling units in the coastal urban fringe area for the affordable housing market. We are asking, in the Housing Element, to coordinate that with the housing units when we look at the 1990 census data. We felt it would be more congruent to look at dwelling units in the census data, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 4 7 9 lO 11 19. 13 14 15 17 19 20 9.1 22 197 as opposed to acreage, but if it's at the -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: that -- MS. SOTO: Units in the census data Well, what we're going to do is analyze the census data when it becomes available. And if there is a need for affordable housing in the coastal urban fringe area, then we'll come back to you with a recommendation for "X" number of units, rather than acres. COMMISSIONER SHANAMAN: Elly, it has nothing to do with the 600 we have already approved? MS. SOTO: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER SHANAMAN: That's a separate and distinct part of the plan? MS. SOTO: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have a little bit of a problem with this only because I probably don't understand it. But the coastal area, fringe area, we are talking about the capacity of that property, that land to accommodate a certain number of dwelling units. And what you're going to do is, by doing census data, you're going to come up with a certain number of units OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 5 198 I and you are going to say somehow, some way we've got to 2 get these units in this, irregardless, irrespective of 3 the number of acres that are -- you can look at uplands 4 or you can look at some other things, so I'm not sure I'm supportive of this approach. MS. SOTO: We simply made the change to be 7 consistent with what we had presented with the 600 portable units. MR. VOLPE: Commissioner Shanahah says 600's a different issue that we handled separately. MS. SOTO: Yes. If it's the Board's will to look at acres, staff would not have a problem with that, yes. MR. HASSE: That's a good idea. We've always done it that way, it makes common sense to me to do it that way. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: We would have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: You are not changing the zoning -- MS. SOTO: No, no, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: And the zoning criteria, all 8 11 15 17 18 19 22 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 9.1 22 199 you're saying is that when you look at this -- at the 1990 census data, that you want to compare the units instead of the acres that's going to be needed for affordable housing. MS. SOTO: Exactly. And we have a number of large D.R.I.'s in the coastal urban fringe area that's going to have the need for the service oriented employment. So, we are just going to look at the census data when it comes in to see if locating specific numbers of affordable housing in the coastal urban fringe area would be appropriate; and we may be able to come back to you and say no, it's not appropriate to add any more than the 600 hundred units, simply because we have locations in the other areas of the county that would accommodate those large DRI's. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: But your proposal is not to increase density per acreage. Your proposal is only to look at affordable housing per the population of the 1990 census and the units, instead of the acres? MS. SOTO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: So, it's got nothing to do with density on acreage. It only has to do with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 l0 ll 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2O0 numbers. She's not asking us to change or to have a larger density per acre for affordable housing. She is only asking us for them to be able to compare affordable housing units to the population and what the need is, compared to the number of acres that we're going to need. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand, I think I understand that. My concerns continue to be that we've got a policy that directs the population away from the coastal fringe area, and I understand what Commissioner Goodnight's saying about the urban to change density. There's a need to put more affordable housing in this particular area, and we've got -- we're going to look at it not on an acreage basis; and it's going to result in something that I think I would prefer not to see happen, at least right now as a part of this amendment cycle. MS. SOTO: Certainly. We wouldn't have a problem with that. We can certainly change it back, and that's the way it was last. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Let's just leave it as it was, and everybody seems to be satisfied. It's up to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 201 staff. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to close the public hearing. saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: unanimously. COMMISSIONER SHANAMAN: I have a motion and second All in favor, signify by Opposed? The motion carries Madam Chairman, I move I have a motion and a second that we adopt Policy 1.5.6, including additional acreage. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Is that including the rest of the Housing Element? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes, for the rest of the Housing Element. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: to approve the Housing Element in changing acreage units back to acreage. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 9.1 22 202 (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. The next item is Intergovernmental -- COMMISSIONER HASSE: Before you go into that next item, and not in order to lengthen this meeting in any way, I'm going to explain something to the assistance of the County Manager, to staff, to you: That the next time we have a meeting such as this after a commission meeting, and Commissioner Saunders is not here, you won't be able to do anything because I'm not going to be here. I'm just telling you that now. So, is that clear? MR. DORRILL: I'll relay that message. COMMISSIONER HASSE: You please do that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Does Commissioner Saunders have another commitment? Is that why he had to depart? COMMISSIONER HASSE: I don't care whether he had to go to church. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The last item is Intergovernmental Coordination. MR. LAVERTY: Madam Chairman, there have been no OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 changes, as that presented by staff since our last meeting; and we recommend approval of these amendments. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I'd move we closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Motion and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I would make a motion to the Board to adopt the amendments to the Intergovernment Coordination Element. COMMISSIONER HASSE: CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I'll second it. I have a motion and a second to approve the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 204 (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: unanimously. COMMISSIONER HASSE: The motion carries would like to go forward into next Tuesday's meeting, if I might. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Madam Chairman, I'd make a motion that we adjourn. MR. LAVERTY: We need to make one more motion to close the public hearing as a whole and to adopt the ordinance, which will adopt the 1990 Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I make a motion that we close the public -- the general public hearing. COMMISSIONER HASSE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second All in favor, to close the general public hearing. signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? (No responses) CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: MR. LAVERTY: Motion carries. Now we need a motion to adopt the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . 21 22 205 adoption ordinance for the 1990 Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I make a motion that we adopt the 1990 ordinance for the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER HASSE: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: this motion? MR. LAVERTY: I'll second it. Do you need four votes for Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: I have a motion and a second to adopt the amended Growth Management Plan for 1990. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes} CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: Opposed? CHAIRMAN GOODNIGHT: The motion carries unanimously. The meeting is adjourned. ('The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962 II IlL __11__ I ]11 __ __ __ ~11LL_ _ g]L L II I I II _ __ 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 206 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Jeffrey W. Marquardt, Deputy Official Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the foregoing meeting was taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto at Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-aided transcription, consisting of pages numbered I through 205, inclusive, to the best of my ability and with the aid of cassette tapes, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 18th day of February, 1991. //i /' Jeffrey W. Marquardt.'.. ......... ""~' ':" Notary Public " ..- ..... State of Florida at T~rge.- My commission exp~re'~,;~ .. .' .. ~3 / 9.~-'/-93 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS, COLLIER COUNTY, NAPLES, FL 33962