Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/07/1991 S COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING January 7, 1991 RE: Petition R-90-34 HEARD before the Board of County Commissioners, commencing at 6:00 p.m., Monday, January 7, 1991, in the Commissioner's Board Room, Third Floor of Building F, Collier County Courthouse Complex, Naples, Florida 33962. PRESENT: Chairman Max A. Hase Vice-Chairman Michael J. Volpe Commissioner Anne Goodnight Commissioner Burt L. Saunders Commissioner Richard S. Shanaban Nell Dorrill, County Attorny Manager Mr. Tom Olliff, Assistant to County Manager Kenneth Cuyler, County Attorney Mr. Robert Blanchard, Growth Planning Director Mr. David Weeks, Senior Planner Reported by: Connie S. Potts, Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Deputy Official Court Reporter OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Mr. Daniel D. Peck, Esquire Ms. Linda Lawson, Attorney at Law Mr. Perry Peeples, Esquire Mr. Greg Thompson Mr. O. C. Perry Mr. Lee Hall Mr. Chris Vick Mr. John Brugger, Esquire Mr. Burdette Metzger OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 ].3 14 16 17 lB 19 2O 21 22 24 25 (WHEREUPON, the herein meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners having been held at the scheduled time and day, and properly and legally advertised, such affidavit(s) being on file, the following proceedings were had.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Come to order. Mr. Olliff, would you please give the invocation. (WHEREUPON, the invocation was presented; followed by recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Anybody who wishes to speak tonight better pick up some sheets outside and sign up for them. There are no minutes on the agenda. We only have advertised public hearings. You're there. MR. WEEKS: I'm here. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Good evening, Commissioners. David Weeks of your Growth Planning Staff. You're all aware of why we're here. We had our previous meeting about three weeks ago on Decembe]: 17, 1990. Tonight is the second and final hearing for the subject properties, the unimproved commercially zoned properties that are inconsistent with our Growth OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Management Plan. At your previous hearing of December 17, you gave us some direction, as identified in the Executive Summary, and I would like to just walk through those and respond to you the findings and determinations and outcome and so forth of the various directions that you gave us. The first one I would like to come back to because that's -- at least as far as the detail goes, because that's the investigation of properties along US 41, your direction regarding the appropriateness of single family zoning along US 41 and the issue of whether or not a consistent zoning district, namely a single family zoning district, would leave those properties with a minimum beneficial use which is a requirement, I guess of our constitution. I know it's also within the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance in Policy 3.1.K of the Future Land Use Element of our plan. The County Attorney has drafted a memo, though, that does state that we have met, myself and other staff of our department has met with the County Attorney's Office, and based upon our review of the properties and the revised recommendations that are indicated in your Executive Summary packet, all of the subject properties will have a minimum beneficial use. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 5 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: residence? zoning As single family MR. WEEKS: Well, it depends on various districts. In some cases, it is still single family zoning; in other cases, we have modified our recommendation to a higher zoning district. The second item was to withdraw properties. You did give us the direction to do so. We also have three additional properties which we wish to withdraw from this process due to nearby applications. Specifically the direction that he had asked previously was that properties that might become consistent, via the Commercial Under Criteria, the in-fill commercial provision in our plan, be withdrawn. We have two or three additional properties that because of nearby applications it will not affect their consistency, but it may affect the outcome of the property, the minimum beneficial use, the appropriateness of rezoning the property to a consistent zoning district. Both of those properties are in Naples Park, specifically, Naples Park Unit One, Block Seven, Lot Forty-seven, and Naples Park Unit Five, Block Sixty, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 ll 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 24 25 6 Lot Forty-seven. In both cases these are lots that are zoned commercial but they are adjacent to residential zoning and have nearby properties that do have applications pending. Should those pending applications be approved, then our recommendation to you to rezone them to residential might not be appropriate. Next was the piece of property that used to be developed with a restaurant over the years, and a convenience mart, gas pumps, out near Corkscrew Sanctuary. The direction, number one, was to verify that the property is located less than five miles from the nearest commercial. And after double checking, we see that it is. It's approximately four point six miles from the closest commercial which is in Orangetree PUD. Additionally, the property is approximately three acres in size, the commercial portion of it, and the plan would limit this property to be consistent -- in addition to that mileage requirement to be over five mills, also limited to a maximum of two and a half acres. So on two accounts this property is inconsistently zoned with our plan. However, in discussion with the attorney representing the property OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 19 2O 21 :22 24 2§ 7 owners, it is possible that this property was improved. We have made our review of the submitted information, and we determined that this property does not meet the test for improved property as defined in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance and as interpreted by staff. However, it's possible that at the time of the plan adoption in January, the 10th, 1989, that this property was improved, that it did meet the requirement to be a developed or improved property. And as Policy 5.9 in the Future Land Use Element provides, these properties if they were improved, are deemed consistent with the plan. As you know, we have previously discussed what happens to these properties once their improved status is changed. That issue will be becoming before you for again within a week or two for further direction. Our request, then, is that we withdraw this property from the rezoning process until we can meet with the applicant and have them provide further information to try to verify that in fact the property was improved after the plan was adopted, therefore, this property should be treated the same as all other properties that are inconsistently zoned but that are improved. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 4 $ 6 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 8 located? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Where is this property MR. WEEKS: This is located on County Road 846, a little bit south of Corkscrew, southeast of Corkscrew Sanctuary. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In the event that there is someone here to speak on that particular issue, would it be appropriate for us to go ahead and make a motion to accept staff's recommendation in reference to that one parcel? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Let's see if there is somebody here to speak first. All right? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the attorney for the applicant would like to address the Board. CHAIRMAN HASSE: applicant here? MR. PEEPLES: at this time? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: staff's recommendation? Is the attorney for the I'm sorry. Are you seeking it Do you agree with the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PEEPLES: I do not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: to the microphone. MR. CUYLER: Excuse me. 9 You need to come up The staff's recommendation is to withdraw it to determine consistency? MR. WEEKS: To determine if it was improved subsequent to the Plan's adoption. MR. CUYLER: MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And therefore consistent? You say you haven't That's correct. But it may have been gotten -- I Just want a little confused where you say that you have made a determination that as of today it is not improved. MR. WEEKS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: improved a year ago. MR. WEEKS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. WEEKS: Okay. That's correct. That's what I just -- This may seem a little The concept is that Policy 5.9 was included strange. in our Plan -- the Future Land Use Element was included in the Plan at its adoption as of January 10th, 1989, and that policy states that properties that are OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lO so even improved are deemed consistent with the plan. though they don't meet the location or density criteria, they are nevertheless considered to be consistent with our Plan. As you are aware, we have been discussing with you more recently the redevelopment issue, what happens to these properties that are inconsistent with the Plan from the standpoint of the location criteria, however because of Policy 5.9, because whey were improved when the plan was adopted, they were deemed to be consistent with the Plan. What happens when those improvements are gone. And apparently the situation here is that Plan was adopted, this property was improved, therefore deemed consistent. However, that status has changed. We're suggesting let's hold off and verify that, and then let this property be treated like all of the others that we're discussing, this redevelopment policy. If your ultimate determination is that they should be vested, then that would apply to this property as well, assuming they can verify that yes, it was improved as of the adoption date of the Plan. We're dealing with the policy issue of Policy 5.9, how to treat these properties; and since that property was in the Plan, though we are discussing the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 11 redevelopment issue today, that's the same policy that has been in the Plan since its adoption. So we think that it is appropriate to treat this property and any other property that may have been improved when the Plan was adopted but is not today to be governed by this redevelopment. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Cuyler, you don't have anything to add to that? MR. CUYLER: I don't have anything to add. I think that Mr. Saunders was thinking, perhaps, that this item could be taken out of the staff's presentation if it in fact was going to be withdrawn. It looks as though we're going to have a full presentation with three or four people. I guess you need to decide whether you want to do that in the middle of the staff presentation, if we're going get into a full blown discussion or whether you want to save that for after the presentation. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's up to you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Well, when will we hear this presentation? MR. CUYLER: You will hear it either right now or at the conclusion of Mr. Weeks' presentation. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 3 § 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 12 I think Commissioner Saunders was Just going to move things along if it was going to be withdrawn and the petitioner was going to agree that it was going to be withdrawn. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Is it going to be withdrawn? MR. PEEPLES: No, sir; it is not. MR. CUYLER: I think he wants to argue, I think, that it's improved property. MR. PEEPLES: That's correct. MR. CUYLER: So you can either take that discussion now or after Mr. Weeks finishes. Whatever you want to do. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, the staff hasn't yet made the determination, though, as to whether it was improved on January 10th, 1989. So you haven't done your analysis. Is that the argument that you intend to make, that it was improved on that date? ~4R. PEEPLES: No, sir. What we believe is that the property is improved now. And I would like to make my case to the Board and have the Board make a decision, hopefully that the property is currently improved and remove this particular parcel from zoning reevaluation. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 25 13 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Isn't that what you were talking about, Mr. Cu¥1er? MR. CUYLER: Yes. That's what I understood the presentation would be. You just need to decade whether you want to hear this now or -- how many speakers are on this one item? item. MR. OLLIFF: MR. CUYLER: Four. There's four speakers on this You need to decide whether you want to hear all four speakers right now or let David finish and then listen to everybody with these four speakers being the first speakers that you listen to. finish up. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. OLLIFF: David, will you please Your people will be the first public speakers once he finishes. MR. WEEKS: Okay. The next item: This particular property that was located on State Road 951, Mr. Tucker spoke representing the property owner. You directed that the property owner have an additional fifteen days in which to submit an application. That's been done and the application is approved. That property has just been OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ].5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 granted an exemption. The next item: Island. Property down on Marco Linda Lawson was the attorney that spoke representing that property owner. We have verified that both the certified mail notice and the required fifteen-day regular mail notice was sent to the property owner at the address listed on the Property Appraiser's records, and that's out at Woodland Hills, California. The certified mail return receipt did come back, but it was not signed by the actual property owner. And again, I think the attorney representing the property on this is going to want to speak to you about this parcel. Additionally, we did verify that the tax notices for the last three years, '88, '89, and '90, were sent to this same address as listed on the current tax roll. CHAIRMAN HASSE: And they weren't returned or anything? MR. WEEKS: I don't know, sir. The Property Collector's office did not verify that, whether they were returned or not on the reasonably short notice that they were given. I guess it would take a lot of time; I guess it's a difficult OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 § 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 time for them right now, having just sent out 1990 notices. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And, finally, was the direction regarding the possiblity of creating a new zoning district to allow the community facility uses, those uses which we allow typically as provisional uses on residential districts. But, of course, they are also allowed in some of your commercial districts, such as ACLF's, nursing homes, child care centers, churches, schools, et cetera. And after some brief discussion in-house and with Planning Services staff, we have basically no real concerns or difficulty with creation of such a new zoning district. The one concern that came up was the poss~bllity of creating a new zoning district every time it seems like we need to fill a void, almost like a Band-Aid approach, and we wondered if it wouldn't be more -- this was a comment from Planning Staff staff -- wondered if it might not be appropriate to wait until we adopt our new unified land development program. However, if we should go ahead with this new zoning district, it's staff's guesstimation that within about six or eight months, we could have this back to you for adoption. And we have, you'll notice, in our OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 5 6 ? 8 lO ll 12 13 ].4 15 17 2O 2]. 22 24 25 16 recommendations approximately half a dozen properties that we are recommending be pulled from this process and held off from rezoning until we can create such a new zoning district, and then we would recommended that these property be rezoned to that new zoning district. We do have fallback recommendations should you not pursue that direction to create a new zoning district. The recommendations that we have provided to you are listed in two places. One, they're listed on each map page, so as you're looking at each parcel or groups of parcels, you will see the recommendations, both Planning Commlssion's and staff's, as well as in the ordinance exhibit where we list the legal description of each of these properties. We have also identified Planning Commission's recommendation as well as staff's. We do have -- I believe there is only one change to be made. I think all of the others, the other two were to pull properties from this process, as I previously identified. One parcel on map number 0514-N, which is in about the middle of your map set. It says E-2 parcel; it's over on the far right-hand side. I believe the staff's recommendation may not have been provided on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 17 your map sheet, and ours is the same as Planning Commission; that is, the RSF-3, the residential zoning district. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: again, Mr. Weeks? CHAIRMAN HASSE: the lower right-hand corner. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: parcel What was the number 0514-N. Map number is in Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Again, the recommendation of that is to be rezoned to RSF-3. And I don't think staff's recommendation was identified on your map set. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Give me that map number again. MR. WEEKS: 0514-N. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: On that map, it does say CCPC RSF-3 and staff RSF-3. MR. WEEKS: It does. Okay. My mistake. I thought it did not. As far as your options go, I thought it was certainly appropriate and necessary to identify to you all of the options available to you in reviewing these various properties. There are several, depending upon the property's location as well as its size in some cases. And those options are -- there's a total of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 § 6 7 9 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 18 about, all totaled there are eight different options here. Some of which would result in the property being deemed consistent with the plan, and a couple of our recommendations were to do that. The Commercial Under Criteria provision, which is explained in the Executive Summary, is an in-fill commercial provision. That is, it's for properties that are bounded on each side by developed or exempted commercial that is no greater than two hundred feet in width. Again, it's somewhat of an in-fill provision to be appropriate for these properties to maintain their commercial zoning. And, also, that same provision allows for a transition from a lower intensity use to a higher intensity use, typically from commercial to residential, and in a couple instances I know we have recommended you rezone these properties to the C-6 zoning district. district. That is a transitional zoning The limitations in both cases, though, whether the property maintains its existing zoning or if it's rezoned to C-6 -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: second, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Could you hold on just a Certainly. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 § 6 ? lO 1! 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 19 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: something here. MR. WEEKS: Sure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Just so we can check We have two sets of These have these zoning maps, I've Just discovered. been reduced. It appears to me that these are the ones that Commissioner Shanahan was referring to. MR. WEEKS: The reduced maps, the eleven by seventeen or eight and a half by seventeen is prepared -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What about the long ones? We can discard the seventeens? MR. WEEKS: I thought you might want to keep those because that shows the previous recommendation from the last public hearing. But specifically, the reference tonight will be made to the legal size map set. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. MR. WEEKS: Again, that was just in case we might get into some discussion about previous recommendations and what was on the property. To try to shorten up what I was saying. The Commercial Under Criteria provision will allow for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 c:~ El_ ~21 23 24 25 20 commercial properties of an in-fill nature and also for transitional nature, from a commercial to a residential district. But there's limitations. Number one, the property can be no greater than two hundred feet in width. But that's at the discretion of this Board. If you deem it appropriate, then you can go beyond that two hundred. You might see a property that's three hundred feet, bounded by commercial on both sides that's developed or exempted, or bounded by commercial on one side and then residential on the other, where it's a transition. If you find it appropriate, then you would make that consistency determination. And we have specifically made some recommendation to use those options, that alternative, for this Board to determine that, yes, even though it's greater than two hundred feet width, it's appropriate that this property remain commercially zoned. Another limitation that applies to these properties -- and this is important -- is that these properties are limited to a maximum of twenty-five thousand square feet of gross floor area, if you make this consistency determination, this Commercial Under Criteria provision. That's important because it's not OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 l0 ll 13 14 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 21 related to the parcel size. So regardless of how many acres the property may be, this same limitation applies. A maximum of twenty-five thousand square feet of floor area. And the other limitation would be uses could generate no more than ten percent of the average daily traffic on the abutting road, which in most cases, if not all that we're dealing with here, we do not believe will be in issue. To move on, because I don't want to belabor the point. First was Commercial Under Criteria. The second is the Commercial Under Criteria provision for the transitional zoning, the C-6 zoning. The third is where those properties that are not in the coastal urban fringe -- that is, those properties below US 41 East -- you can made the finding that rezoning these properties to the maximum residential density -- that is, the sixteen units per acre -- would be deemed consistent with our Growth Management Plan. Fourth would be what we have discussed a little bit already; and that is withdrawing the properties pending the adoption of a new zoning district for community facility uses, should you so OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 13 22 direct us, and then rezone those properties to the new zoning district. The fifth, we discussed briefly last week, is that there is a plan amendment for properties on Marco Island that would allow for conversion of commercial to a density of up to eight units per acre. And this will be coming before you within the next I guess one to two weeks. That's the first of your two public hearings on plan amendments. If this should be adopted, then you would have the ability to rezone these properties to a density of up to eight units per acre. So one choice is to withhold properties from this public hearing process until such a plan amendment is possibly adopted. Number six is the properties in Golden Gate City, and staff has changed our recommendation to be the same as the Planning Commission's. That is, we are recommending that all properties in Golden Gate City, and there's only about half a dozen, be withdrawn from this process until we have adopted the master plan for Golden Gate City. Two reasons for that. One is, possibly you might wish to change the designations of commercial areas; secondly, there may be -- you might adopt a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 23 Co~mercial Under Criteria provision that might allow some of these properties to be consistently zoned. Number seven would be I;o leave the properties as they are zoned right now and make the finding that this zoning district is necessary, though it's inconsistent with our Growth Management Plan, for the property to have a minimal beneficial use. And there is only one parcel that we're making that specific recommendation on. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Where is that? MR. WEEKS: That's on State Road 951. Backs up against Henderson Creek. It's a very small parcel. Measures approximately sixty or seventy feet in width. It's got frontage on 951 and a side street and, again, backs up against Henderson Creek. It's got mobile home subdivision zoning and development to the west. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: have a -- you have a memo that says that all of them will have a minimum beneficial use. Does that not apply to this particular parcel of land? MR. CUYLER: No, it does apply. I think that what David is trying to point out is that even though that may be inconsistent, it nevertheless is required to have a beneficial use, and Does the County Attorney OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 :25 24 that's why -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. CUYLER: That's going to override any other consideration. And, yes, it does have a beneficial use. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. MR. CUYLER: And I think the Growth Management Plan contemplates that as well. MR. WEEKS: Yes. As I mentioned earlier, specifically in Policy 3.1.K of the Future Land Use Element, which is the policy that provides for zoning reevaluation, it specifically states that all properties must have a minimum beneficial use. The last option, of course, is rezontng these properties to any other zoning district, other than what we have discussed, that would be deemed consistent with the Plan. The A-2 zoning district, A-i, the Estates, RO, golf course. Very -- lower intensity uses, as compared to what we have been discussing so far. Another specific change I would like to bring to your attention is some properties close to the end of your map set, Map Number 1720-N. There are -- it's about six or so pages from the end. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19_ 13 14 15 16 LO17 (:D18 22 23 24 25 25 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: 1720-N? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. About six or eight pages from the end. It's the first page after you get off of Marco Island, going backwards. We had previously recommended residential zoning for these properties. After further checking, though, we realize that these properties are in fact in the rural designated area; therefore, they're limited by the Plan to a density of one unit per five acres. So our recommendation here has been changed to the A-2 zoning district, the agricultural zoning district. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Now, the CCPC differs with you there? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Their recommendation was single family, but that was based upon our recommendation as well. At the time we took this to Planning Commission, we mistakenly identified these properties as being in the urban designated area. RSF-3 would be clearly inconsistent with the Plan here. With that, I think I'm going to close. There have been changes, as I mentioned, on several of the pages of the map set, and unless you want to go through these page by page, then I'll just stop now. I'll leave it at your discretion should you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 26 wish to ask about specific parcels and want to go through page -- you know, whatever your pleasure, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Just one general question. On several of these maps, obviously, the Planning Commission recommendation is different than the staff recommendation. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are -- I assume that staff is sticking with its recommendations as listed on That's correct. the maps here? MR. WEEKS: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if there was any change in the staff recommendation, you would have pointed those out on the individual maps? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And I would like to point out, as I have mentioned in the Executive Summary, in all fairness to the Planning Commission, this process has been evolving rapidly, and the information that has been presented to you both tonight and at the previous hearing was more finalized and more detailed than what we were able to present to the Planning Commission. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 4 5 6 '7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 ;25 27 At the first Planning Commission hearing, the time period for submitting applications wasn't even up yet. So a lot of properties fell out of the process. So I think it's only fair to mention to you that the Planning Commission's recommendations, from their first hearing in particular, was when the information was still a bit rough in nature. At the second hearing, though, it was more detailed but, nevertheless, not as much so as what we're presenting ~o you. MR. CUYLER: David, just to clarify Commission Saunders' question. The staff's recommendation on the legal size set of maps have in fact changed, in some cases, from the previous maps. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The staff recommendation that is on here now is still the staff recommendation for this evening even if it's inconsistent with the CCPC recommendation? MR. WEEKS: Right. MR. CUYLER: It is for tonight, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And one other question for Mr. Cuyler. Mr. Weeks has indicated that, and this is not in any way intended to be a criticism, but it is OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 § 6 '7 9 lo 11 1§ 16 19 23 28 indicated that some of the information presented tonight or what has been developed since the Planning Commission may be a little different than what was presented to the Planning Commission on individual tracts of land, and you identified one specific parcel. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Where the process has evolved since the CCPC meeting. Do we have any obligation or necessity to send any of this back to the CCPC, individual lots, where different information has been generated since then? Or can we act, have final action tonight on each of these parcels? MR. CUYLER: My opinion is that you can have final action, if you want to. If you found some need, you obviously have that option, but you have the right to. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the County Attorney a question? As we go through these various parcels, are we confronted with an issue of any spot zoning? It seems to me that we have some isolated parcels here and we're going to take a particular parcel of land and rezone that parcel, and it sounds to me as though there's an issue of spot zoning. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 29 MR. CUYLER: Well, the issue of spot zoning comes in, more than any other way, with regard to compatibility and whether your spot zoning, in effect, is incompatibile with the surrounding area. I think the staff would indicate to you, and certainly in the discussions we've had on the specific parcels that we've looked at, that you're not going to have a spot zoning problem. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the only other question that I have is so that I understand the staff's recon~endation with respect to Number Four or one of the options which has to do with withdrawing the property from the rezone process and creato a -- conduct a new conununity facilities district and rezoning. That's -- have you identified that, what parcels -- that you are going to go through now and tell us which parcels that zoning district might be created for or -- that's not all of the parcels we're looking at? MR. WEEKS: No. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: those parcels. MR. WEEKS: half a dozen total. This is Just certain of That's correct. There's about OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 3O Again, my position is I'll gladly go through these page by page and we can discuss these individually. That's at your discretion. It may not be a bad idea because I know we have discussed -- our previous recommendation was pretty much, some exceptions, across the board a recommendation of the RSF-3 zoning district. And we have now revised that quite a bit based upon both our discussion that last hearing with attorneys. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I just wanted to know how we could do it without going through each one of these. CHAIRMAN HASSE: We can't do that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: One by one. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Weeks, why don't you leaf through them -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HASSE: As rapidly as you can. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Again page one, which we will be discussing further when the attorney for the property owner speaks, we were recommending be withdrawn. The very second page, 8505-S. A change recommendation here is that the parcels Number One, Two and then Seven through Ten be withdrawn from the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 13 31 process until we determine the approval or denial of the applications that are pending right next door. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Now, help me. Where -- on the second map you're talking about? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HASSE: 8505-S? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. So the one long narrow lot, Twenty-one, we're recommending be rezoned to residential single family, RSF-3; but the remaining lots right -- on that page, right above it, be withdrawn until we review the applications that are right next door. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Now, this is out on Vanderbilt Drive? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And Audubon, as the map shows, Audubon Country Club PUD is adjacent to the south. Residential and golf course. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And Parcel Twenty-one, is that where that Big Scoop Ice Cream Parlor is out there? MR. WEEKS: That's farther to the north, the ice cream parlor. This Lot Twenty-one is undeveloped. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Nothing on it at all? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Again, to be rezoning these properties they have to be unimproved, undeveloped. Next map, 8509-S, the C-4 parcel, a little under ten acres. We are maintaining our recommendation for single family zoning. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Now, that's in conflict with CCPC. MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. Planning Commission's recommendation for properties along US 41 outside of the coastal urban fringe -- that is, not restricted to their density, to four units per acre -- their recommendation was rezone these properties -- excuse me. Maintain the commercial zoning on these properties via the Commercial Under Criteria provision; if that was not available, then rezone them to their maximum density of sixteen units per acre. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I'm trying to locate that. Where is that? MR. WEEKS: This is a little bit north of the apex of 41 where Old and 41 split. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Oh, yeah. MR. WEEKS: And this is the new 41. I believe it's about a mile or so south of the county line. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 5 $ ? 10 15 24 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Again, you've got the Retreat Development there, to the west. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. WEEKS: Okay. 33 Yeah. The next parcel is on Map 8527-N. Immokalee Road. Health Clinic. that. This is a small industrial parcel. It's on That's opposite the North Collier I'm not sure of the proper name for This is the first of the properties that we're recommending that we withdrawn from the public hearing process pending the creation of a new zoning district. With the uses there to the north, the North Collier Health Center and surrounded by industrial land which is improved. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you withdraw those from the public hearing process awaiting the creation of the new community facility zoning district, then in the interim period what this property? MR. WEEKS: developed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: a temporary taking? MR. WEEKS: can the property owner do with The property still cannot be Okay. Would that be The property owner can develop OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 34 consistent with the Plan, which in this case would require them to initiate their own zoning change. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll direct this to the county attorney because it seems to me that we are creating parcels that for some short period of time, which may be two months or six months, whatever time period that is, that in effect have no zoning on them. And that -- I'm not sure if that's a temporary taking or not. It may not be. I'm posing that as a question. If you say that this process ls not fraught with some peril, then I'll accept that. MR. CUYLER: We have -- that argument can be raised. We have taken the position that, first of all, we are trying to rezone this to something that is of a higher intensity and, from a practical point of view, we don't think anyone is going to come in and argue that they don't want their property to go to a higher intensity. And, secondly, directly addresing the question is: I think we have taken the position that as long as we are in a process and moving forward towards rezoning the property, then that's going to be OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 sufficient to protect the county. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Essentially what you've got -- you may have -- is just a moratorium, if you will, on that particular piece of property for a brief period of time pending the adoption -- MR. CUYLER: Well, a moratorium only in the sense that it takes some period of time -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. MR. CUYLER: To fezone the property, and we could do it tonight at RSF-3, and we assume that the property owners will be more than happy that the county is proceeding in a process to rezone it to a higher intensity. But your question is legal in nature. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Would it be more -- would it be safer to go along with, for example, on Map 8527-N, to go along with the CCPC recommendation of RSF-3 but indicate that that lot, as well as the other ones, would be subjected to the new community facility district if such was developed, Just so there ks some zoning in the interim? CHAIRMAN HASSE: What is it zoned right now? MR. WEEKS: Industrial. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Industrial. MR. CUYLER: You certainly could do that, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 C917 cD18 CD19 CD20 21 22 23 24 25 36 but I would want you to go further. We are contemplating the fact that there will be this district; correct, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. CUYLER: I think you should go further and say that we are going to in fact do that district in one fashion or another. From the practical point of view, I don't know that it's going to matter. Legally you might be on a little safer ground if you did that because they're going to have to sue that the RSF-3 is not a beneficial use and by the time they file suit, we're going to be through with their rezone anyway. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Map Number 8528-N. This is one of the two parcels identified earlier -- it's there in Naples Park -- that we're recommending be withdrawn from the process pending the review of nearby applications. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The very next map, the same holds true for Lot Forty-seven, Block Sixty. This is Map 8525-S. And again, we've got parcels, be Lots Seven through Eleven, that we're asking to be withdraw pending the creation of this new zoning district. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 9 10 11 12 13 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: referring to? MR. WEEKS: 8528-S. Map Number 8533-N -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Which map are you Hold on just a second. I Just want to -- Find. MR. WEEKS: Map Number 8533-N. We are recommending a rezoning of the RMF-6 for Lot Forty-seven. That is, extend that RMF-6 zoning district from the west over to include this subject property. 37 This would utilize -- as you know, previously our recommendations across the board were the RSF-3 zoning district. One of the provisions, again, Is that when you're converting commercial in this area which is outside of the coastal urban fringe, you can rezone these properties to a density as high as sixteen units per acre. And we're suggesting that because there's RMF-6 adjacent to the west, it would be appropriate to rezone this to six units per acre instead of RSF-3. CHAIRMAN HASSE: CCPC differed with you on that, huh? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ]. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 MR. WEEKS: That's correct. They -- their recommendation, again, was find these properties Consistent Under Criteria; and if you can't do that, rezone them to RMF-16, sixteen units per acre. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It's hard for me to understand, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Like on this particular map with respect to Lot Forty-seven. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Your recommendation is that it be RMF-6? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: CCPC said it should remain C-3. But there is nothing on this map, at least I don't think there is, that tell us anything about what the surrounding zoning is or what the surrounding uses are. So I guess -- I don't see it. Maybe it's here. MR. WEEKS: Okay. For uses, you're correct. The zoning boundary is drawn. This property ts adjacent to that north-south black line. That's your divider between the RMF-6 and the C-3. The C-3 is down within the striped area. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 :22 23 :24 25 It'S kind of obliterated, partially obliterated. striped area -- well, on the next block. 39 The COMMISSIONER VOLPE: the center of Ninety-third Avenue? -- I can't -- MR. WEEKS: Does it run right down Is that where the The zoning boundary, Lot Forty-seven, adjacent to its west property line, that black line that runs north-south. boundary. That's the C-3 CHAIRMAN HASSE: It's on the Trail? MR. OLLIFF: Is the higher rectangle from Ninety-fifth Avenue all the way down. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah. This right here. So why wouldn't that be C-37 I mean everything else in that -- MR. WEEKS: The consistency of the Commercial Under Criteria provision requires that there be developed commercial on both sides. In this case, we have commercial development on one side but residential on the other side. It would be eligible if you deemed this lot no longer usable for residential use. It could be rezoned to the C-6 zoning district, but it could not be consistent under C-3. Does not meet the test. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What's the -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 § 6 '7 9 lO 11 13 15 16 17 19 ~o :~4 40 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: What's the use of the property to the east of that particular parcel? MR. WEEKS: Don't know the specific use, other than it's developed commercially. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Lot Forty-six has a house on it? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you're just creating some transition between the commercial and the single family residence next door to it. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Which would be -- MR. WEEKS: Not really transition, because since it's residential next door as well, but just moving the cut-off line. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: right? CHAIRMAN HASSE: residential. MR. WEEKS: But it's multi-family Lot Fifteen is also That's correct. Right. All the lots from Forty-six and Fifteen to the west are zoned RMF-6, residential multi-family, and are developed with a variety of single family, duplex, multi-family. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 121 :22 23 24 25 41 MR. WEEKS: I think I mentioned -- the lots at the bottom of the page, we're also recommending that we pull out of the process pending creation of this new zoning district. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Move on. MR. WEEKS: The next map is 9501-S. And our recommendation, as well as Planning Commission's, is to fezone this parcel to RSF-3, single family. And this is also is in the neighborhood of ten acres in size. Map Number 9522-N. Both of these parcels on the left-hand side, they're right on the 41, Just north of the city limits, we're recommending -- Planning Commission's, again, recommendation was to keep these C-4 if they comply with that provision; if not, rezone them to the RMF-16 zoning district. We're recommending the C-6 zoning district, which is that transition from commercial to residential. Specifically for Tract A, the northern of the two parcels. This is one of those that exceeds that Two hundred foot in width, and we're asking you to find that it is appropriate though it exceeds two hundred feet. You have that discretion. appropriate to rezone that to C-6. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ask you to find it Yet Cypress Woods Drive OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 divides these two pieces of property. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HASSE: them should be the same? MR. WEEKS: Yes. 42 And you figure that both of CHAIRMAN HASSE: Even though there's -- MR. WEEKS: In both cases, there's a commercial on one side of them and then residential development on the other. Residential to the east and then commercial to the south or west. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What is that one little piece of property immediately to the west of it? MR. WEEKS: Don't know what the use is, Com~issioner, other than it is commercial. But I don't know what type. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Oh, it is commercial? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Whereabouts is this on the Trail, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: I think it's about a mile north of the -- a mile or less north of the city limits. Solano would be a little bit further to the north. Looking further over, you've got Goodlette Road about in the middle of the page, and then the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Royal Polnc£ana Golf Club. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. WEEKS: be Solano. Next map is 9621-N. 43 Right. A little bit north of that would Golden Gate City. And again -- the next two maps we're recommending -- they're both Golden Gate City. We're recommending that we withdraw these from the procos~ until we have adopted a master plan for Golden Gate. The next map is zero -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Wait a minute. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Where is this property located? I have to get myself in sync. MR. WEEKS: On 9621-N, the one lot is located That's part on Santa Barbara Boulevard, the east side. of that long strip of C-2 parcels. This is the only parcel in that area that did not submit one of the applications. Property owner is in Puerto Rico, but they did receive both notices. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Is this compatible to the surrounding zoning? MR. WEEKS: As currently zoned, certainly. But all of the properties around it, the north and south, the immediate properties, are undeveloped and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 they have applications pending. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I see. MR. WEEKS: So we're recommending that we withdraw those both because there's applications. And the map -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Map number -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about the one on Santa Barbara there? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The lot -- is it Twenty-one on Santa Barbara? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's who you're recommending? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Both of these be withdrawn until we adopt the master plan. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: All right. MR. WEEKS: And the same holds true for the Parcel Number Seven on the next map, 9622-S. That's in Golden Gate City, just a little bit north of the Parkway, a little bit to the west of an office building, Kentucky Fried Chicken, some restaurants, McDonald's. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What is that immediately to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 the south of Chat 9rogerty? MR. WEEKS: That's vacant land right now. Further to the west of that parcel that you're asking about -- excuse me. Further to the east, towards 951, is where the Gathering Restaurant is at. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yeah. But there is some problems with that property that they can't get to the back of it or something like that? MR. WEEKS: I'm aware that there has been some, some issue regarding subdivision of the property and potential -- subdivision that's occurred in the past that is not in compliance with our subdivision They do have an application pending on regulations. that parcel. Map Number 0502-S. The two tiny little yellow dots. Very tiny parcels at the end of a lake. And we're recommending that those properties be rezoned at RSF-4 district instead of three. The reason for that is simply to extend the RSF-4 district to the north on Co these subject properties. CHAIRMAN HASSE: do with that? MR. WEEKS: boat dock on the lake. room for. What in the world could they Very little. Literary. Possibly put up a Is about all there's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 46 small. I don't know how those were created so Presumably, years ago. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Wouldn't it be more appropriate -- that would be Brookside (phonetic). MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HASSE: It's crazy. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Just east of the city limits. The next map is 0511-N. We're recommending for Lots Three through Eight, the long sideways strip of lots, be rezoned to the RSF-3 zoning district, residential single family, which is the same as Planning Conunission's recommendation. For Lots Thirty-seven and Thirty-eight, the two lots right to the north, we're recommending that those be withdrawn from the process until we see what happens with the lots there at the north, which have an application pending, and also to the two properties to the east until those have been dealt with, until we find if they're going to be rezoned or not. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do Thirty-five and Thirty-six have -- MR. WEEKS: family house. It's zoned commercial, so we know that house has been there for some time. And, of course, Those are developed with a single OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~0 11 12 13 ~4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 your redevelopment policy will have some bearing on this as well. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: The next parcel is 0513-S. are the parcels that Attorney Dan Peck spoke on last week. They are on the East Trail in the neighborhood of Shoney's Restaurant and a little bit further to the south and east of Town Center. Our recommendation here -- we have changed. As you know, previously it was the RSF-3 like most of the properties. The front tier of lots on US 41, we're recommending be rezoned to the C-6 district, which is that transitional district from commercial to residential. And the back tier of lots -- not on 41 but, instead, abutting on Outer Drive -- we're recommending that those be rezoned to the RSF-3 single family zoning district. And then further to the south and west is multi-family zoning, RMF-6, and then some RSF-4. And the development -- I think Mr. Peck went over extensively at the previous hearing; but specifically to the -- across Outer Drive, most of those lots in that area are developed with duplexes and then single family on the RSF-4 zoning. These OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 And then the uses that were further down the Trail from this property consisted of a day care center, a dentist office, and interior design firm, Two Wlckered Women or something like that. And then further to the north of this property, in that striped area, there's Teds Shed. And I know Mr. Peck is here, and presumably he's going to want to speak as well when we're completed here. The next map is 0514-N. And the one parcel there, I spoke about earlier, I believe. I was questioned whether our recommendation was included. The property is a tiny piece of C-3 that's sandwiched between developed RMF-6 zoning and off the map to the right, to the east, is developed with mobile home subdivision. And the lot that is adjacent to the west In the RMF-6 Is developed with a single-family home. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Bayshere Drive? Avenue. page. That property fronts on MR. WEEKS: No. That front is on Barrett It's way on the extreme right-hand side of the CHAIRMAN HASSE: I got it. MR. OLLIFF: What's your recommendation for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 1!) 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 it again? MR. WEEKS: residential single family. recon~endlng to -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. Okay. Our recommendation is RSF-3, We had contemplated Okay. MR. WEEKS: We contemplated recommending a multi-family zoning to the RMF-6, using that provision for this minimum beneficial use -- that is, saying there's no minimum beneficial use if we rezone it to a consistent district; but even at RMF-6, given the size of the propety, they're only going to get one single family unit, and there is residential development, one single family, adjacent to the west. So we do think it's appropriate and can be developed with a single-family home. CHAIRMAN HASSE: To the west? Where is Bayshore Drive here? MR. WEEKS: Inches to the west. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. I've got it now. MR. OLLIFF: MR. WEEKS: discovered, did have an exemption. Bayshore Drive is about four Oh, yeah. I see it. Lots One and Two up there? No. Lots One and Two, we They are OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~-0 21 22 23 24 25 withdrawn. 50 So it's Just that one parcel we discussed. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The next map, 0514-S. This parcel is at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, and there's this portion that's commercial and then the remainder is Just RMF-6. We're also recommending that this go to the single family zoning district. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: four units an acre? MR. WEEKS: Which would allow, what, Is that what we're talking about? Be less than that. Be closer to three units per acre, three point something units per acre. Right in the neighborhood of three. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You are suggesting what, RSF? MR. WEEKS: RSF-3. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Three? MR. WEEKS: Right. Be single family district, which is the same as Planning Commission. These properties, now, were below US 41 East, were in that coastal urban fringe where the residential cap is eight -- excuse me -- is four units per acre. The next map is 0523-N. And we're getting close to the end. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 10 11 ].2 13 14 15 16 17 ],8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 These two parcels we're also recommending for single family zoning. There's single family development to the east and, as you can see, many of the RMF-6 zoned properties are striped. Those are undsvsloped, as well, and eventually will be coming before you for a possible rezoning. And many of those RMF-6 parcels that are white, the long narrow lots, close to maybe eight to ten acres in size, but many of them only developed with one single-family house. Next map is 0629-S. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, didn't that -- MR. WEEKS: Yes? COMMISSIONER ¥OLPE: This is along Bayshore Drive, which is -- Bayshore Drive now is four lanes, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: This is south of Thomasson, though, where it's still two lanes. There's relatively small traffic down here. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: All right. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Where is Constitution Avenue? Isn't that in here? UNIDENTIFIED STAFF: One inch to the left of the mark, Mr. Hasse. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Oh, yeah, I see it. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 52 MR. WEEKS: Okay. Are we on Map 0629-S? Parcels on 41 East again. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Parcel Nineteen, which is that triangular shaped parcel, we are recommending be rezoned to the RSF-3, residential single family district. The remaining lots, One, Two, Three and Twenty-two and Twenty-three, we are recommending that we withdraw from the process until the nearby applications are approved or -- determined. Approved or denied. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Map Number 1610-N. Parcel 8.7, which should be shown and white on your map, on the west side of 951 just north of Manatee. It's right below eight six, which is highlighted in yellow. 8.7 is the parcel that we discussed last week, that you gave the owner additional time. That's where they have submitted their application and had it approved. Because of that and because there's an application pending to the north. Parcel Eight -- we are recommending that Parcel 8.6 be withdrawn until we see what the outcome of that application is. This might become Consistent OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 53 Under Criteria. Parcel Seventy-eight, that tiny parcel on the right-hand side, that's the one, the only property we're recommending maintain it's existing zoning so as to have minimum beneficial use. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What could you put on that? MR. WEEKS: A very small amount of retail or possibly an office building. It's comparable in size, as far as square footage goes, to some of the properties up in Naples Park, which are about fifty feet in width and about a hundred and thirty-five feet in depth, and some of those are developed with professional offices. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Map Number 1615-S. RSF-3. Map 1720-N. These are the parcels that are on 41 East, right in front of Naples Shores. These are the parcels that we have discovered in fact are in the rural area, and our recommendation therefore is changed to the A-2 zoning district. Quite frankly, it was just simply a goof-up on my part that the recommendation went to Planning Co~misston was for RSF-3. The notices that we sent to the property owners, the fifteen-day notices, we did advise the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 54 property owner of the 9roposal to fezone them to the A-2 zoning district. It was Just a goof-up on my part. And, again, we are recommending that all of these go to the A-2 district. Agricultural. Now we're on Marco Island, Map Number 1B1B -- or MB1B, Parcel Eight. This ks another parcel -- it's & corner lot, so we have two frontages and two sides, and the frontage on Palm Street is in the neighborhood of three hundred feet. We are recommending that it retain its C-4 zoning, that you use your discretion to determine that though it exceeds two hundred feet in width, it is consistent with the Plan. CHAIRMAN HASSE: It seems logical in any case. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Map MB7B. This is the parcel that Attorney Linda Lawson spoke on last week, and I'm sure you're aware she's here tonight and perhaps wants to speak. This is the one we verified the notice was sent correctly. Our recommendation here is to rezone it to the C-6 zoning district, that transitional zoning district. It's got exempted, which means it can be developed; it's consistent. C-3 zoning adjacent to the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 lO 55 south, and then adjacent to the north across the alley is the RT, residential tourist district, which allows hotel uses or residential up to sixteen units per acre. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: zoning of that? is C-3. What is the current MR. WEEKS: Current zoning of this property Again, we're recommending C-6 -- that transitional district between residential and commercial allows for -- zoning. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Makes sense. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What is the development of -- what is that, Lot Three? No. Lot five. MR. WEEKS: Lot Five is currently undeveloped, but that property owner has submitted and had approved an exemption that allows them to retain their C-3 zoning. So it's not developed now, but it can be with the C-3 uses. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I see. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about Lot Seven? That's in a different zoning district, isn't it? That's the -- MR. I'l, n it is ~ WEEKS: Yes. That's the RT residential. I'm not aware of what development is there, other than ~veloped. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 56 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Well, in any case, with Lot Seven, does that little sliver of land with the point on it go with it? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. That's an alley. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Oh, it's an alley. MR. WEEKS: That alley, as you can see, behind this property as well. Goes north. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Oh, I see. Okay. MR. WEEKS: Map MB7D. Tract L. We're re¢omending this go to the single family zoning district. Again, Planning Commission recommended Commercial Under Criteria, that it maintain its existing zoning, but again it doesn't meet the criteria because we've got C-3 on one side -- it's a corner lot -- and on the other side, we have residential. On the surface, this may seem like not such a good idea, but in viewing the arials, we can see that Lot Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, these single family residential lots behind the subject property and the commercial adjacent to the south, which is developed, those are developing with single family homes, including Lots Thirteen, I believe, and Fourteen, both, which are right behind developed commercial. And then you'll see further down on South OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 :2 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 15 16 1'7 18 19 2o 22 :23 24 25 57 Barfield Drive, there's residential zoning, RSF-3, the same as what we're proposing, right on South Barfield Drive, and these are developing that way, with single family units. So our recommendation is that this Tract L be rezoned to the single family district, which would allow a single-family house to be built. It's larger in size than the other residential properties. That in addition to the fact that there is residential behind it and further down the street, we do think that's compatible and appropriate. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Tract X is what? believe MR. WEEKS: CHAIRMAN HASSE: Tract K is developed, and I K. All right. MR. WEEKS: That's with a two-story office building. I know it's multi-story. Map MB6F. This is way out on State Road 92 going towards Goodland, and in the lower right-hand corner of the map, you can see 92-A that goes to Goodland. And to the north, the PUD is a portion of the Marco Shores PUD that is developed with multi-family uses. There's a lot of mangrove in this area, wetland area, and it's questionable how much of any of this can be developed. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 4 6 7 8 10 13 But nevertheless, it's zoned commercial now. We're recommending it be rezoned to the RSF-3 district and maintain the ST, special treatment, overlay. And the last parcels are on Goodland, Eleven and Twelve, and again we're recommending they be withheld until we create the new zoning district. This is -- for location, it's on the south across -- on the south side of 92-A; on the north side of that street is where Stan's is located. CHAIRMAN HASSE: As it's zoned at the present time, though, can they use it as that, C-47 MR. WEEKS: No, sir. These properties because they are inconsistently zoned with the Plan and unimproved, Policy 3.1.K does not allow development orders to be issued. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: That's all I've got, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'll just start in the order that they were handed to me. The first speaker is Daniel Peck. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Peck. Give us the map number if you can. MR. PECK: 0513-S. I have a little memo that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 cr~.8 ~20 22 23 24 25 59 I passed out last time. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Peck makes his presentation. As you'll recall, at the first hearing, I abstained from voting because of the fact that Mr. Peck and I are involved in a law partnership together, and so I would abstain from participating in the discussion or voting on this particular parcel of land. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. What was that again, what number? MR. PECK: 0513-S or 5. It looks more like a five to me, but I heard it depicted as an S. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. WEEKS: MR. PECK: Well, it's an S. Zero Zero five -- 0513-S. three. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I don't know. MR. PECK: My name is Daniel Peck. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You're going to have to wait until I find this thing. MR. PECK: It's kind of toward the middle or a little bit past the middle. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Here we go. Have you got it, Anne? 0502-S, I've got. Now, where is it? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 MR. PECK: It should be right after that. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's where it should be. MR. CUYLER: It's two pages after that. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRMAN HASSE: Go ahead. MR. PECK: Okay. It's after 0511. 0513-S. My name is Daniel Peck. I practice law at 801 Anchor Road Drive. Several different comments to make. One, I did not appear before the Planning Commission, so hopefully they didn't have any awareness of the situation, they wouldn't have had any reason to make any particular recommendation concerning this property. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You're thinking for them. MR. PECK: The staff has changed the zoning to a front lot basis of C-6 and rear lot basis of RSF-3. Unfortunately, that does not work very well with the subject property. I have three different groups of owners. One group owns Lot Eight on the Trail, Seventy-eight, Seventy-nine and Eighty off the Trail. Another group owns Lot One on the Trail, Lot Eighty-seven off the Trail. And a third group owns Lots Two through Seven on the Trail and Eighty-one through Eighty-six off the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 ],'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Trail. 61 In essence, what they have done is purchased land as a unit to have setbacks from the Trail, which iS generally thought to be advantageous in zoning; and in essence, if you now say that one-half the lot can be residential and one-half the lot can have very limited commercial use, it doesn't make a lot of practical sense in zoning. I would respectfully submit that if you look at the surrounding area -- and I'll quickly rehash that with you. We went over that last week. Ted's Sheds is immediately west of the property. West of that lies PUD property which is now Just under construction, then the Grill and Fill, then Home Design Center, and after that the Sherwin Williams Shopping Center. Immediately east of the property is Two Wickered Women, then True Value Hardware, then State Farm Insurance, then Price Realty and then Johnson Pittman Funeral Home, and finally Rex Audio and Video. Immediately east of the rear lots is Grace Community Day Care and School, and east of that are dentist's offices. Opposite the land, across the Trail, there's J E~ett's Restaurant and Lounge and Plaza Travel, with OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 ? 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 62 NCNB immediately west, and Manor Nursing Care Home behind that. Immediately west of NCNB, is Exxon, then Patroit Square, then vacant property and then the Naples Shopping Center. East of the property across the street lies the Great Western Bank, with Bill Smith east of it, then Perkins, then Ryan Homes Model Center and Western Steer Steakhouse and then, finally, Shoney's. If you look at what is appropriate, what is the minimum beneficial use, what's compatible and not spot zoning, I would respectfully submit that the present zoning of C-3 on the front lots be retained. You then, I would submit, have a viable option of either having C-3 hopefully on the adjacent lot developed with it or at least C-6 on that back lot so that something compatible could be done. I would much prefer, of course, to have both of them the same type of commercial use so that someone can develop the property as a viable entity. And I also would note that C-3 would -- is zoning all around there. It would be totally in character. If you look at the Commercial Under Criteria, to me, on both sides we have developed C-3 property. The net floor area would be less than twenty-five thousand feet; it would not generate more than ten OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 6 ? 10 11 13 1§ 16 17 18 19 ~0 ~-1 63 percent of the traffic for the area. We're on the Trail, and we have six laning proposed there, and it certainly is not suited for residential use. I would therefore suggest that the property should be developed as C-3 zoning -- which would be compatible with the adjoining use, would not have any adverse side effects; residential certainly in the back lots would in no way be suited, with commercial on the front lots, and even the existing day care center and dentists' offices adjacent to the property on the rear lots -- and that it all should be some type of commercial use, preferably C-3. Few properties otherwise would be affected. The use would not be more intense or dense than the average of the intensity or density of nearby uses and would not impose any burden upon the area and would not be inconsistent, whereas the residential use would be inconsistent. I think if you look at the Tamiami Trail -- and I said this last time -- all the way from Tampa to Miami, particularly around urban area, and more particularly in my situation where you're surrounded by C-3 type of use, that in no way is residential use appropriate to that and particularly the residential use is not appropriate. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 64 In this case when the whole little pylons (phonetic) on the Trail consists of two lots, a front and a rear lot, and the lots are bought in conjunction with each other. And to try and divide them up, I would respectfully submit, doesn't make realistic sense and would not be proper, compatible, and would not be of beneficial use. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Didn't you indicate that these are separate owners? MR. PECK: We have three sets of owners. Each owner has at least one lot. One set of owners has six lots on the Trail, six lots immediately behind it. So to say that there are six lots on the Trail you can do one thing with and six lots behind it doesn't make any sense to most buyers or to any practical use of the property. Another set of owners has one big lot on the Trail, one big lot behind it. To try and split those up and say, well, you're going to have to thumbnail sketch and -- you know, you have to further understand that some of these lots, except for the one -- one big lot, only fifty feet wide. To say that you're going to use one use on the front lot and another on the rear lot makes little sense. And the third owner has one lot on the Trail OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 25 65 and three lots off of the Trail, but the lots are, again, right in front and behind each other. So I would respectfully submit that they should be developed in conjunction with each other on a common use basis. north. Interiors CHAIRMAN HASSE: What's on Nine and Ten? MR. PECK: Nine would be the one immediately Immediately north would be Two Wickered Women CHAIRMAN HASSE: I don't know. You're reading this different than I am. It's immediately south of it, isn't it? MR. PECK: Nine and Ten would be immediately east, which would be Two Wickered Women Interiors and then after that would be True Value Hardware. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. PECK: And immediately west would be the Ted's Sheds. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. PECK: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Any questions on this? Anybody else to speak on this? MR. PECK: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ladies and gentlemen, you have to make a recommendation here, I guess. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 66 Mr. Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Weeks, do you have any response to that in terms of if you take a look at all of the lots to the east, both on the Trail and off the Trail, is there any residential at all in that whole strip, both on the Trail and off the Trail? MR. WEEKS: not immediately, no. Not further to the east and west, That whole strip all the way down to Thomasson Drive, I think as Mr. Peck has indicated, is developed with a variety of different commercial uses. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If this were to be designated some commercial both on the Trail and off the Trail, front and back, what commercial would be appropriate? Would that be C-3 or C-67 MR. WEEKS: It cannot be C-6. The C-6 district is only consistent with the Plan if it's a transition from commercial, and that's why our recommendation goes hand in hand for some residential in the C-6. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: street. MR. WEEKS: the south. Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, like across the Take Outer Drive to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 67 Of those -- of that intersect -- or that corner. All of the lots on Dale Avenue, Cindy Avenue. Isn't that all residential? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is; across Outer Drive, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So would there -- MR. WEEKS: With duplexes and single family. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would C-6 be the transition from Tam±ami Trail and -- I don't know if there is any commercial on the other side of Tamiami Trail. MR. WEEKS: Yes, there is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In the area that's called -- that's designated flood zone, DNDR. Is there commercial along there? MR. WEEKS: Yes, there is. There's -- Shoney's Restaurant is in there, and then there's some undeveloped but exempted; therefore, they're going to maintain their commercial zoning. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, arguably would this yellow section on the map be considered a transition between the commercial on the north side of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 68 Tamiami Trail to a transition to the residential on the south side of Outer Drive? MR. WEEKS: You could say that. That's very different than how we have ever implemented the provision; but certainly you could make that finding, yes. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Dave. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would that be a logical thing to do? I mean I'm asking you. If that's not a reasonable -- MR. WEEKS: Not in my mind, Commissioner, to Jump across US 41 to additional property to be the transition. The way we have always used the ordinance is we say a transition from one zoning district to another. We would refer to that as abutting the subject property transition, as opposed to jumping across the street. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: this entire yellow section commercial, then what would be the appropriate designation? MR. WEEKS: You could find -- make the finding that that entire yellow area, as you were suggesting, would be a transition to the residential So if we were to make OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2o 21 :22 23 24 25 69 across Outer Drive and make it C-6. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You would not find that objectionable if we did that? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You would. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: The entire parcel? MR. WEEKS: If we thought that was appropriate, that would have been our recommendation. COMMISSIONER $HANAHAN: But you're not -- you still don't think it's appropriate? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. But you -- I think it's only fair in view of what Commissioner Saunders is asking -- I'm hearing him ask -- is about options. And, yes, that's one of your options; to find that consistent, that you would find that there is a transition there from commercial to residential and therefore be appropriate as the C-6 zoning district. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you take a look at Lots Seventy-seven and Seventy-six and Seventy-five, does that have some commercial use on it right now? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Seventy-seven and I believe six, as well, has a day care center on it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Further down from that is a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collior County Courthouso, Naplos, Florida 33962 ! 2 ¢ 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 13 ~4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 70 dentist's office. ~.~.,~' COMMISSIONER~ So would it be appropriate for Lot Seventy-eight, for example, to be residential? MR. WEEKS: I believe so. That's not uncommon at all. Naples Park is another example where right side by side we've got single family and commercial use. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Do you think that drawing a line down the center of this property like we have here, and see -- evidently, you're indicating RSF-3 for Seventy-eight to Eighty-seven and C-6, One to Eight. Are we cutting these lots in too small of pieces if they're going to work them out together as commercial in one form or another? MR. WEEKS: Again, not in our opinion. We don't think it's too small. Again, another example of where we've got commercial fronting on a major roadway and residential right behind would be right up Airport Road, where Spank¥'s Restaurant, the plaza the Collier's have developed. Right in there we've got C-3, the same zoning district as here, on Airport Road; and then OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 71 immediately adjacent, with no intervening street, we've got single family residential development. That's one of the things we certainly consider is: Are we doing something unique here; and if we are I think certainly you've got a good point: Staff, why are you doing something so different here. But we do see other areas in the county. Again, Naples Park is another. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I think Spanky's is a poor I'll tell you that. We've got enough trouble simile. with that. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I agree. Dave, all the way down Outer Drive after dentist's office and the Grace Community Day Care, all the way on down Outer Drive. How are those properties zoned? MR. WEEKS: They're all zoned C-3. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: All C-3. MR. WEEKS: Between Outer Drive and 41. And the development varies from, as Mr. Peck has indicated, from some professional office type uses and there is also retail in there as well. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You wouldn't find it more consistent to make the entire section C-67 MR. WEEKS: That will be a uniform, you know, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 chunk of property, certainly. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's what I'm thinking. MR. WEEKS: Again, that's -- the reason staff didn't make such a recommendation is that's different than how we have ever implemented the plan. We have read it, again, as the transition would mean abutting commercial and then abutting a residential property. And we have intervening streets here. But the same response as to Commissioner Saunders: You're the Board, and you have the authority; if you deem it appropriate to make that transition across the street, I believe you can do that. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. I move forward that the staff has come up with RSF-3 for Eighty-seven through Eighty-seven, and I would suggest that this is a good way of going about it, with the transition of C-6, One to Eight. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not going to disagree with that. I thought if staff could be persuaded otherwise, that -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: What did you get? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll go along with the staff recommendation on that. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I will, too. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9_O 9_1 22 23 24 25 73 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Any question? Okay. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Linda Lawson. CHAIRMAN HASSE: there, Mr. Olltff? MR. OLLIFF: get back into that piece, that very original piece up on Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you identify the map that you're going to be referring to? CHAIRMAN HASSE: looking at now? MS. LAWSON: MB7B. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MB7B. How many speakers do we have Just one on that, and then we'll Yeah. What map are we Okay. Got it. MS. LAWSON: I'm Linda Lawson. 5811 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Naples. I represent Andy Pearson and Carol Irving who are the owners of Lot Six, Block 184, Marco Beach Unit Seven. At the previous hearing, I advised the Commission that these owners had not received the July notice of inconsistency and had therefore not had an opportunity to apply for an exemption. I requested the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 § 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 Commission to be able to come back before the Board tonight and present evidence of that non-receipt. In the interim, Mr. Weeks has provided me with a copy of the certified mail receipt notice. I have submitted that to my clients, and they have reviewed it. And I have affidavits with me tonight from both of them concerning the circumstances of their non-receipt of that notice. I would like to offer those into the record of tonight's hearing and go through the background of what we have been able to reconstruct as the non-receipt. CHAIRMAN HASSE: haven't received it? MS. LAWSON: receive it. Yes. a move? You still maintain you They did not physically COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Linda, has there been Have they moved from their previous address where they got tax bills mailed to them for three consecutive years? Has there been a move from where they were living? MS. LAWSON: stated in the affidavit, and I was going to go through the outline of that real quickly. Yes, that's correct. And that's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 '!3 ~ 22 ~..: 23 ~- 24 25 75 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Please. MS. LAWSON: Andy Pearson and Carol Irving are co-owners. They are cousins who both reside in the Los Angeles area. At the time of the acquisition of the property, Andy Pearson's residence address was 5226 Don Peot Drive (phonetic), Woodland Hills, California, which was the address used on the tax rolls for the purpose of the July notice. Or about June 1 of 1990, Andy Pearson moved from that residence into a different location in the Los Angeles area. She did not sell the Don Peot Drive address residence. It remained vacant at that time, under her ownership. She did file a change of address card with the Postal Service, but she became aware that the mail was not being forward forwarded. And as she has described it to me, this Woodland Hills neighborhood is a somewhat remote residential area in the Los Angeles area and neighbors were helping her get some of the mail that was coming to that address, but as you can well image, once you move across town in a metropolitan area like Los Angeles, that's not going to be a foolproof situation. She did subsequent to June 1st moving engage OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 22 76 in some remodeling work at this former residence, and her guess is that either a neighbor or a workman at the site signed for the notice. But she never got it delivered to her from whoever it was that signed. She does not recognize the signature on the card, nor does the other owner, Carol Irving. And they have both attested to this in their affidavits. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Were they living in the same location? MS. LAWSON: If you want to call Los Angeles greater metropolitan area the same location, the answer would be yes. It's a huge metropolitan area, and she moved to Tarzania, California, which -- I'm not sure how many miles away. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: MR. BRUTT: It's close. MS. LAWSON: There we go. Pretty close. We have a local expert, local knowledge. MR. BRUTT: Not far. Five miles. She has been dealing with staff over about -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Brutt. MR. BRUTT: My apologies. Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator. We have been working with Mrs. Pearson on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 77 this particular project for months upon months and probably twenty conversations relative to the development of the property and that alley that is adjacent to it and the relationship of the zoning of north and south of that alley. So it's a little hard for me to feel that she wasn't noticed of the fact and had no knowledge of the process that we have been involved in. In fact, she had legal counsel I would say a year ago on this project. So I don't know if she got the particular two letters up in Woodland Hills, near where I lived when I was out there, but I'm very certain -- sure that she and her attorney were very familiar with the entire process. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Brutt. MS. LAWSON: I would like to respond to Mr. Brutt's comments, and I was just getting to the last point that was set forth in the affidavits, which is that the affiant, both of them, have been actively and continuously pursuing numerous development approvals for the property from Collier County from on or about October 1989, up to and including the date of the affidavit. 4th, 1991. And the date of the affidavit is January And I have that affidavit from both of the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 5 6 ? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~-0 ~3 78 individuals. I was engaged by both of those clients sometime in July or August of this year. I did not represent them prior to then. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Last year. MS. LAWSON: 1990. You are so right. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I just thought maybe you would want to know that. MS. LAWSON: Thank you. And prior to that time, I'm not aware that they had legal counsel in this area. If Mr. Brutt wants to identify who that was. I disagree with him on that point. I'm not sure that they were represented by legal counsel. I was contacted in regard to very specific problems regarding setbacks. The property is in a 1968 Marco Island plat that reserved utility easements over the rear and side yards to the developer, Deltona. Deltona subsequently granted those utility easements that it reserved to the Lee County Electric Co-op. In that grant of easement there was a special provision that said that only citrus trees could be planted in those easements. That provision conflicted dramatically, as it was originally interpreted by Mr. Brutt's office, with the native twenty-five percent OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 lO 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 vegetation rule that we have in Collier County now. And we had to go around and around on those sort of problems. And I never discussed with the client the issue of the receipt of the notice, and -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Did you discuss with them, though, the fact that this property might be subject to rezoning reevaluation? MS. LAWSON: No, I didn't. At that time I knew generally that the notices had gone out previously, and I operated on the assumption that since she was going forward with the development approvals, that she already had filed for an exemption and I didn't go into it, Mr. Volpe. I'm sorry at this point that I didn't. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Cuyler, can you review for us very quickly circumstances under which we granted additional time for Mr. Tucker's client? MR. CUYLER: We may all have to kick in to remember that. But I think he was claiming or the clients were claiming that was a problem with the Postal Service, and he provided affidavits from the clients indicating it was actually a problem on the Postal Service's part. Maybe somebody can correct me if that's not OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 16 .6:: ~ 20 2~ 22 23 24 2~ 80 correct. It's what I remember. enlighten me. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Perhaps they could But I think in that instance the actual letters were returned not deliverable. CO~4ISSIONER SAUNDERS: I believe that's correct. MR. CUYLER: Correct. We had the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we were to grant additional time to Ms. Lawson's client, what would that mean in terms of other property owners and the process that we've got here? MR. CUYLER: I can't tell you exactly what it would mean. I will caution you probably even more strongly than I did last time. As you'll recall, I cautioned you last time that there was always the potential that a subsequent -- COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I think it was more than a caution. MR. CUYLER: Well, in any case, I indicated I can't tell you what's going to happen. It certainly opens the argument for other people to come in, and we have tried to limit that situation by having the Board only accept this type of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 '7 8 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 ~ 17 ~ 18 ~ 19 ~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 evidence at this hearing. But whether that's going to be sufficient or not, I certainly can't assure you and I couldn't assure you at the last hearing, but I think Mr. Tucker's situation was probably stronger in having the actual letters returned and not received. In this case, they were actually received by someone, although Ms. Lawson said it was not her client. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MS. LAWSON: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Or anyone that -- Unfortunately, this -- That could have been representing your client. I mean they were there at the residence and signed for them. MS. LAWSON: They were at the residence, but we believe it was a neighbor or a workman. And also I would like to respond a little further to Mr. Brutt's comment. As strange as it may seem, this non-local individual who was very actively pursuing development orders was entirely unaware of this procedure for lack of getting the notice; and had she gotten the notice, I'm sure even Mr. Brutt would agree, considering the amount of effort that she was putting in to seeking development orders, it would have been a very simple OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 4 82 thing for her to fill the thing out, and since she had her site plan approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance, she already had the grounds for that exemption. It would have been negligent on her part not to have done it. And considering all of the activity that she was going through, it would be fairly inconsistent with what else she was doing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have heard the staff recommendation for C-6 on the property. Do you have any problem with that? MS. LAWSON: I believe we do. There are architectural plans that are in the works. I believe that the Development Services is perhaps ready tomorrow to grant a building permit on this site. That's how close we are after all of these months of going around about citrus trees and three front yards and all of the other problems that we've had. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What had you anticipated? MS. LAWSON: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN HASSE: What do you anticipate putting there if everythinG Goes? You say you've Got the butldtnG plans and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 everything. What did you expect to put there? MS. LAWSON: Commissioner Hasse, I'm the attorney and, unfortunately, I'm not the architect or the builder, and I haven't review it. I know that it is a commercial structure that fits within the C-3 zoning. It does have some retail I don't know whether it's entirely involved in it. retail. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That might have been a good thing to find out from your client, wouldn't it? MS. LAWSON: It probably is. Mr. Brutt probably knows because -- I hope he does -- because he's reviewed the plans. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Frank, could we -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Can you respond to that? MR. BRUTT: Going back five or six months because I didn't see the SDP when it finally came out. We solved or settled the question of the zoning line in the middle of the alley where it shows on the maps. My best recollection was that it was going to be an office and professional building. And like she says, the SDP has been filed, so the minute the SDP was filed, the staff was satisfied with our requirements and what they were going to be, I dropped out of it. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Frank, on C-6 does it OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 22 24 25 84 also allow for office and professional use? Mr. Brutt: As I understand, it does. Right, Dave? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: To the best of my knowledge, it does. MR. BRUTT: I don't see what the discussion is because the staff is recommending what I think is what the SDP was. MS. LAWSON: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The question is -- MS. LAWSON: The one thing I do know is -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The specific question is whether the project for which a building permit has been applied can be constructed in C-6 zoning on that piece of property. And do you recall the answer to that? MS. LAWSON: I recall the answer to that, and the answer is no because I checked with the architect. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Ms. Lawson, I was asking the Mr. Brutt and Mr. Weeks the question. I apprecite you answering it for them, but I would like to hear their answer. MR. BRUTT: I can't answer that because I did not ever see the SDP itself once they settled the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 85 problem with -- they could build a commercial structure on the site. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: have an idea? at a time. Mr. Weeks, do you MR. WEEKS: I'm not familiar with the SDP. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: But taking one thing What is your client requesting? A: A? MS. LAWSON: What we would like to have is the same thing that you gave to the other people at the prior hearing where they indicated that they had not gotten the notice. We would like an opportunity, a small window, to file our application for an exemption. We're not asking for you to grant an exemption tonight or to take any other action but to give us an opportunity to file for that exemption. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: What is that small window? CHAIRMAN HASSE: You're their attorney, Yeah, but that was though. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: What is the small window you're asking for? MS. LAWSON: I believe you gave the other parties ten days. I see another fifteen days referenced. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 § 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 under different set of circumstances in a sense. what's the small window you're talking about? 86 So Are you talking about the same window they got or do you have a window in mind? What are we talking about? MS. LAWSON: I would take ten days. You know, if you're willing to give me ten days, I think I can get an application in in that time. CHAIRMAN HASSE: When you were here the last time, you knew what was going on here, correct? MS. LAWSON: When I was here last time, Commissioner Hasse, I had been called that -- by telephone that afternoon at three o'clock by the client who advised me that there was something going on, and I didR't know until I got down to this hearing that her property was on the agenda. CHAIRMAN HASSE: And had you explained this to her since when you got through with this meeting, the next day did you -- what I'm trying to say is: Haven't you had some time to work with your client? MS. LAWSON: Yes, I -- well, what happened, if you want to go through the chronology since the last hearing. David Weeks went through his records and found the certified mail receipt for this property. He OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 § 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 1§ 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 87 provided a copy to me and I provided a copy to my clients. We all inspected it. They each inspected it to determine whether or not they were familiar with who the individual was so that maybe they could find out who got it, and then that. -- neither of them were able to do COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lawson, if we were to grant an additional ten days or whatever it is to give your client an opportunity to apply, would you agree on the record that we would direct staff not to process any further the permit application and that that would be held in abeyance until after the issuance of or the application is reviewed? The problem that I see right now is if we give you ten days, for example, and staff is about to issue a building permit, once that building permit is issued -- MR. CUYLER: There must be some mistake because I don't think a permit can be issued for that property. MR. OLLIFF: If so, there's something that I'm missing. MR. WEEKS: As present it could not be issued because there has been no exemption granted; therefore OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1§ 16 17 18 19 2O 2! 22 23 24 25 88 that property is in that category of inconsistently zoned and unimproved. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: We're prohibited from issuing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just assuming that one was about to be issued based on the comment. MS. LAWSON: That's what I have been told. ! don't want to go into that any further, but I have been told by the cltent's builder that there's been discussions on a daily basis with Mr. Madajewski's shop and that a permit is forthcoming. What I was told today, for instance, was that they're about to say forget it, we don't need to get Lee County Co-op to sign off on the citrus tree problem. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Have you got the builder here? MS. LAWSON: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Ms. Lawson Just a couple questions on the specific issue. Because you didn't file a timely application for -- MS. LAWSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Zoning reevaluation. So OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 89 we're here to determine whether for some reason you should be excused for the failure to timely file. MS. LAWSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You said you were retained in July, and you have been working with your client between July and now in connection with the development of this particular piece of property? MS. LAWSON: Not on an ongoing basis. I was retained either in late July or early August -- I didn't check my records -- for a specific problem involving an interpretation of zoning ordinances with Mr. Baginski's shop. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And then the client went off and began to continue -- after you resolved that particular issue to the satisfaction of your client, then the client was working directly with our staff? MS. LAWSON: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: get the Initial notice, MS. LAWSON: That's correct. Then the client didn't a hundred and twenty days? That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: At least that's what they said, although we've got the signed return receipt requested. MS. LAWSON: Right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But they did get the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 90 notice of the fact that there was a public hearing to be held on this issue of zoning reevaluation? MS. LAWSON: I don't believe they got that either. And I will say that I also inquired as to whether the client got the tax bill this year, and she said no, that she had not. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: indicate that she received it for '88, down. MS. LAWSON: She lived there until June 1 of '90, so that would all be consistent, that after June l, '90 is when she started having a problem getting mail from that address. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only thing I was trying to get, Ms. Lawson. Then what happened? The last time you appeared, you had just been called that same day. MS. LAWSON: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think you said: I Just found out that there's a situation here; I don't have any of the facts. MS. LAWSON: That is exactly correct. But our records '89. I wrote it COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How did she become aware of all of this in California? MS. LAWSON: Her builder is Mr. Joe Lynch -- OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 ;24 25 91 backwards -- and the architect Am I and I might have thls Mario LaMendola. I might have those backwards. -- got it right there. One of those individuals or both of them had been down to the county and were trying to process the permit. The thing has been through site development review now for a number of months. And at some point they were directed, I believe, one of them was, to David Weeks, and I think David advised Mr. Lynch, it may have been, that -- David, maybe you can help me out of this, on what you did tell Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Lynch then alerted me that there was a hearing that same night, which was that Monday night hearing that I appeared at. I didn't know until I called David that that property was actually one of the itemized parcels. I assumed it was a general hearing for general input, but when I called David after having been told my Mr. Lynch that there was a hearing that was somewhat important for this property, David said, no, that property is in fact one of the itemized properties. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if we could, let's get back to what the issue is, and that is whether we're going to grant an additional ten days to file an application, based on the fact that the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 92 potential applicant did not receive the notice, but we have an indication that there was no defect in terms of what the county did and no defect in terms of what the US Postal Service did. The simple question is: Are we going to grant the extension on the facts, on those facts. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I have a relevant comment as well, if I may. Linda has yet not, of course, submitted the application. The time period in which to do that is past. If you give the additional time, of course, then so be it. An important point, though, so far -- at least, the discussion has been regarding a final site development plan, which is one of the exemptions. That is, simply by having a final SDP approved will make the property eligible for an exemption. However, there is the requirement that construction begin on the property on January 10th, 1990, which is only three days away. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. 1991. 1991. Thank you. I Just want to bring that to your attention. Not to, of course, affect your decision whether to extend it or not, but Just -- everybody is aware that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 there is only three days for that construction to commence. 93 And Ken I guess would have to advise further, but I Just don't see anything in the ordinance that gives any of us the authority to extend that date of January 10, 1991. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You heard that? MS. LAWSON: MR. WEEKS: MS. LAWSON: Oh, I'm very well aware of that. Yeah, she's aware of it. And not to diminish the importance of that particular potential exemption to us, there may be other exemptions that they are entitled to as well. But that is one exemption that we're looking at, and miracles do happen. MR. WEEKS: I just wanted you to be aware. I didn't want -- you're trying to look ahead and avoid any further issues or problems of what could occur if you grant additional time and then we get into this question of construction not commencing. That's all. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Cu¥1er, tell us. MR. CUYLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do you -- once more, Mr. Your advise, sir. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 MR. CUYLER: Well, as Commissioner Saunders Just said, the evidence indicates that there was no defect on the part of the county and no defect on the part of the Postal Service. There was something that happened at the other end where the mail was delivered. We got the green card back showing that the certified mail was delivered. I can't tell you how many of the other thirty-five or forty-five, fifty persons who may not have received notice fall into that category, and I can't tell you that there won't be forty people showing up and saying: We admit there was no defect on the part of county, we admit there was no defect on the part of the or Postal Service, but we want to file. And whether it's two months later or six months later -- you may have people coming in a year later saying, you know: Let me file my request for an exemption, my application for an exemption, because I never got my notice a year ago. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I personally would like to find a way to help you out on the terms of the extension of time, but I just don't see how we can do it under these specific facts. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Nor do I. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Let's move forward. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 95 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Well, in that case we should move, then, that we accept staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: parcel. On this particular CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Have a second? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What do you mean yes? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I asked if I had a second. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And he said yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think I've made tho motion that we accept the staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I understand what you're doing, Max. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thanks. All those in favor? (Affirmative responses.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Unanimous. MS. LAWSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. Next. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, Perry Peeples. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~9 21 22 23 24 25 96 Back to your first map. MR. PEEPLES: My name is Perry Peeples. I work at Harter, Secrest and Emery, 800 Laurel Oak Drive. I'm here representing Greg and Norma Thompson. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What was the page you're looking at? MR. PEEPLES: The page? I don't have the numbers. It's the very top page of your map. There's only one property right in the middle. Zoned C-2. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yeah. Go ahead. MR. PEEPLES: We're here to appeal the decision of staff regarding this particular parcel in that it was staff's determination that this parcel is unimproved and therefore it falls under the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. Our argument is that this parcel is in fact improved. Staff has done a very good Job with what they have been given, a tremendous number of properties to review; but in this case, we feel that there has been a mistake. Therefore, we ask the Board to determine that this particular parcel is improved and therefore exempt from zoning reevaluation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, the current staff recommendation I believe is to withdraw this and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 then for staff to evaluate this piece of property and make a determination as to whether it has been developed. Is that correct? COMMISSIONERE SHANAHAN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As of -- MR. WEEKS: If it was previously improved. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. MR. WEEKS: After the plan was adopted. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: If it was previously improved; not that it's improved now. MR. WEEKS: previously improved. There is no question that it was I mean this obviously was at one time a functioning business. Again, the issue for us is whether or not the property was improved as of January 10th, 1989, when our Plan was adopted, when that Policy 5.9 was adopted that says if you're improved or developed you're consistent with our Plan. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Do you view -- does the staff feel that it was improved in '897 MR. WEEKS: That's unknown. And so we're asking to withdraw this property. CHAIRMAN HASSE: You don't know? MR. WEEKS: Yes. We don't know what the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 98 status was in '89. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What if it was unimproved in 1989 but it's improved now? MR. WEEKS: If it is improved now, then that property is consistent with the Plan. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So your evaluation would be to determine whether it's improved at some point, now or 19897 MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, would it not be appropriate, Mr. Peeples, for us to have staff make that determination? MR. PEEPLES: No, I don't believe so. What we would like right now is a determination that the property is now improved. In the alternative, if the Board does not reach that decision, then we will submit evidence to staff that the property was in fact improved in January of 1989 when the Plan was passed, and therefore it would fall Into whatever determination this Board makes at a later date concerning previously improved properties which fall into -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: What was it used for in January of '89? MR. PEEPLES: In January of '89, the property OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 was a bar, convenience store. The background of this property a little bit -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. PEEPLES: '89. January of '89. It had been -- 99 let me give you the background of this a little bit, and I think if we follow it in a chronologicl order, it will help a little bit. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I've seen it quite frequently. MR. PEEPLES: I understand. As you know, then, this property is between Orangetree and Immokalee. Approximately five miles from Orangetree. Unfortunately, a little less than five miles from Orangetree, but it's approximately fifteen miles west of Immokalee. It's zoned C-2 at this time. And if you look at the pictures, you'll see I took that there is a building existing at this time on the property. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can you certify who took the pictures and the date that they were taken, where this is? MR. PEEPLES: I took those pictures. them approximately one month ago. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ~4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 lOO And this -- the pictures are taken on the subject property. They are pictures of the subject property from various front angles. CHAIRMAN HASSE: this place? MR. PEEPLES: There is no roof on this. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I didn't think so. MR. PEEPLES: Okay. And I have original pictures, if you would like to see those, as well. They may be a little clearer. that. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. PEEPLES: Is there still a roof on Okay. Why don't you do What I would also like Yeah. to do at this time, since I have Mr. Olliff making his rounds, is I have petition from the members of the Corkscrew community. Many of them came out this evening. Some of them would like to speak later. Unfortunately, they couldn't all be here, so I would like to introduce, as well, a petition from those who could not be here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. PEEPLES: This property, as I said, was zoned C-2. It was built in 1962 originally. The building permit issued in 1961. The property was used for a number of years as a restaurant, as a convenience OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 lol store, as a gas station and as a bar. The Thompson's bought the property. They wanted to renovate and improve this particular property; and to that end, in 1988, they closed down the property and curtailed its commercial use at that time. Essentially they closed the doors and began the process of applying for permits and beginning to rebuild this structure. The improvements that still remain on the property are the approximately sixty by sixty cinder block building. As you can see, there are no doors, no windows and no roof. There is also is circular paved driveway. Theta is a man-made lake. A driveway towards the rear, and ten mobile home concrete pads to the rear of the property. Also present on the property at this time are all infrastructure needs. That includes potable water, electric, drainage, access, and septic. Now, Policy 5.9 of Future Land Use Element -- I think everybody is familiar with it -- states that the Collier County Growth Management Plan will find all developed properties to be consistent with the Plan. Further, the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, Section 2.3 goes on to state that the Plan will only reevaluate unimproved properties. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 102 So the question I think here becomes whether you feel that this property is improved or not, whether the infrastructure needs which are all in place, whether the current structure, again, without a roof, consists -- constitutos an improvemont. The definition that we need to use on this is improved property, and that's from the zoning reevaluation ordinance. That's -- that is found in Section 4.11 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. I would like to read the definition of improved, which I believe is our basis. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Good. MR. PEEPLES: The ZRO states that, quote: Improved property means a lot on which there has been commencement of construction and on which substantial permanent buildings have been constructed or installed pursuant to a valid unexpired final development order of Collier County. Now, we had a final development order in the form of a building permit issued for this property in 1961. Subsequent to that, this particular building was built. I think it has been staff's contention that these buildings, this building does not constitute a substantial permanent building. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 I believe that this building is substantial. Certainly a cinder block building that has been there since 1962 when built constitutes a substantial building. Further, the permanence of it is shown by the fact that it has been there for another twenty, thirty years now, the fact that the Thompsons have applied for site development plans to renovate this existing building, using the building as you see it now and essentially renovating it and maintaining the building. According to Plan use of substantial and per~anent, which is what the ordinance conveys that it will go by, this is, I believe, substantial and permanent improvements to the building. As to why it was found unimproved, I know that staff has investigated and they have found it unimproved initially. My understanding is that staff took their list of improved and unimproved properties from the Property Appraiser's rolls, and I investigated this through the Property Appraiser. It was not deemed improved in 19 -- for the '89 taxes, and that is because sometime during 1989, the doors, the roof, the fixtures within the building were removed. The Tax Appraiser's Office took it off the rolls as property OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 104 rolls. It has been since reinserred as improved property by the Property Appraiser's Office and, in fact, the Thompsons are paying taxes based upon improved property for this particular property. What I would like to do is have Mr. Thompson fill in some certain background information and also members of the Corkscrew community, who feel this is very important to their community, would like to speak as well. But I will answer your questions and then remain available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Are there any tanks in the ground at the present time? MR. PEEPLES: Some of these questions may be for Mr. Thompson to answer as to the existence of gas tanks and such. May I call him at this time? CHAIRMAN HASSE: By all means. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Could -- before you do that, maybe we can ask some questions of you. MR. PEEPLES: Certainly. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Do you know between 1961 and 1989 whether this building always looked the way that it does in these pictures? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 22 24 25 105 MR. PEEPLES: No. Certainly not. In these pictures -- these pictures were taken subsequent to the partial demolition of the building, I will say, when the roof and doors and windows were removed. The bar which was in place in October of 1988 was closed down in October of '88. Approximately a year later, sometime late in 1989, the roof came off. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Came off? MR. PEEPLES: The roof was taken off. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Thank you. MR. PEEPLES: Sorry. And that is so that the shell of the building, the building itself, could be used and renovated. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Since the -- the building was used as a bar? MR. PEEPLES: Its last use was as a bar. It was used as a convenience store, gas station, restaurant and bar. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Up through 19887 MR. PEEPLEH: ThrotJgh Octobor of 1988. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And then did you get some sort of a permit, a building permit, to remove the -- MR. PEEPLES: Yes. The Thompsons have OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 106 received a demolition permit. I do not have a copy of their permit. Their recollection is they received a demolition permit in late '89, early '90. As I said, we don't have a copy of that permit at this time. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the intent at that time was to remove so much of the building as was there, to leave it in the condition that it's shown in these pictures? MR. PEEPLES: correct. That's correct. That's At that time, they had site development plans before the county. The idea was to rebuild this building. They wanted to rebuild the existing structure. They had problems with their consultant in this. I will say that our firm also represents the Thompson in a legal action filed against their consultant. That's why this has taken so long. Unfortunately, they, I believe, were misled by a consultant in this deal. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That explains a little bit better for me what Mr. Weeks had said in the beginning. Staff wanted to withdraw this petition to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 § 6 7 9 l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 107 determine whether this property was improved in January of 1989, at which time it may have had more -- it may have had windows, doors and it may have still had the roof on at that time. MR. PEEPLES: That's right. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And that's, still is in the offing here. I mean if you don't get a favorable result here, the staff could still go back and determine that the property was improved in January of 1989. MR. PEEPLES: It's my understanding that this Board has not yet made any determination of how they will view properties which were once improved and which are not now improved. I -- MR. WEEKS: That's been before the Planning Commission twice now, and it will be back before you shortly. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commissioner Goodnight, can you shed some light on this? COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Well, you've also done a lot of evacuation work out there. There's been a lot of dirt that's been moved in and there's been a lot of work that's been done cleaning up the property and removing some of the garbage. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 108 There was an old building 'that was in the back of it that's been torn down. And, you know, it was my understanding for a number of years -- well, ever since they closed it down -- that they were going to go in and redo it because of the work that was being done. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I guess the only question, though, as I think this gentleman has pointed out, the only question is whether under the 4.11 -- MR. WEEKS: Ordinance. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: constitutes improved -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. PEEPLES: permanent structure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The Zoning Reevaluation Whether this building Whether this is improved. Constitutes substantial and Yeah. MR. PEEPLES: That's correct. I think Mr. Thompson probably is the best one to let you know what he has done through the process. And, again, we will call him up here and he'll let you know. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Fine. Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 109 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Do you want to explain? MR. THOMPSON: My name is Greg Thompson. I'm the owner of the place we're talking about. Any questions you all have, I'll try to help you answer. The property was -- it was open in eighty -- let me see. We closed it down October of '88, I think it was, and about a year later, we got -- I think we had to have a permit to do what we did, as far as taking the roof off and all of that stuff. And we cleaned up the back part, which was the mobile home part, and the front part, and it that took a lot of time out there. And there was a lot of melaleucas trees and pine trees around the lake we got cleaned up, and I hauled ten thousand yards of dirt in there, and I have did a lot of work in there. And we had a consultant that we were going with, and he messed us up with a lot of plans and the finances. And we had already -- the first plans that we had were supposedly approved, he told me, and we went from there, and as we run into a problem with him, -- we had shut it down to clean it up and to remodel it. In the process of him -- having a problem with him, we had got another contractor here in Naples to start drawing up the plans and stuff for the place. And we have -- in fact, he was coming down to the courthouse OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 110 and getting information when we found out about this zoning thing. So we was still planning on doing what we want to do with it out there. I mean -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: What do you anticipate doing now? Everything granted, what would you do? MR. THOMPSON: Convenience store, gas pumps and on the remaining part of the property would probably be some rental stores in the future. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Some what? MR. THOMPSON: When I say that -- rental stores in the future. Such as maybe -- we have some people out there that would be interested in feed stores and such stuff as that, for the community that's out there now. But the initial idea was a convenient store. Because that community out there -- everybody that has had that store since the 1960's, and it's just been run down and run down, and nobody's never seemed to put no money back in the place, and eventually it's just run down like it is now. And the trailers were bad. It was a junk pile out there when I bought it, and I -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: You didn't own it at that time? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 ... 17 c) 18 CD 19 CD 2O 21 23 24 25 MR. THOMPSON: years, ! guess. Just guessing. less. CHAIRMAN HASSE: open at one time? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. 111 I've owned it for about five Maybe more, maybe In other words, you had it We had it open, and we went to clean it up, and that's the reason we shut it down, to clean it up. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Are the tanks still in the ground? MR. THOMPSON: One tank in the ground, I think. We had -- when the first plans were drawed up, we had to get all those soil samples took, and there was no contamination in the ground at that time. And the consultant that we were working with has those papers, which I doubt we ever will get them because of the court process we're in. But we have had J&M Pump back out there, from Fort Myers, since the time of the other permits and worked on all this and discussed how we were going to do it. And I don't know if there's one tank or two tanks in the ground, but I do know that the ground is not contaminated, and I think they're five hundred and sixty gallon tanks, if I'm not mistaken. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ._ 17 co 18 CD 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. -- that's a small tank for now. 112 Five hundred and sixty. That's an average But back in those days, that was probably pretty -- a lot. guessing -- they told me it was a small tank -- they had to guess by sticking the tank with the measuring. So I don't know. this? CHAIRMAN HASSE: I'm just because Do we have any background on I'm talking to you, Mr. Weeks. I'm not MR. WEEKS: I was afraid of that. sure what you meant, background. Just very briefly, as Commissioner Goodnight is well aware, and maybe some of the other commissioners, this property has been developed for They closed it down, as Abe said, in October of ! can't verify that, but that's what they're years. '88. saying. The only background as far as the development order process: I'm aware that they have a preliminary SDP in process right now that has been put on hold pending the resolution of this zoning reevaluation process. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about the point, Mr. Weeks, that's been made by the attorney for this OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 13 14 ,~!:! 16 ~:(~i:.'{.17 CS) 19 ;' 23 'i. 24 25 113 gentleman, that at the present time this property is considered to be improved property by the Property Appraiser's Office7 MR. WEEKS: Okay. Perry is correct. Basically the information that we have chosen to find out which properties are improved or not, we've taken from the Property Appraiser's Office, but we've also used personal knowledge of properties. And in this case, I happen to be knowledgeable of the property and knew the state it was in. And so despite what the Property Appraiser's record showed, I was aware that it did not meet our test for improved property. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But essentially, normally on the other cases, we have relied on the Property Appraiser's records as to what is or is not improved. MR. WEEKS: Yes; that's correct. Not unless Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Basically this all boils down to the language in there that talks about a substantial building. MR. WEEKS: MR. OLLIFF: we know otherwise personally. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: That's correct. That's the whole issue here, and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 the staff is saying they don't feel the building is substantial. That's the decision that's in front of the Board, whether you do or not. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I have a problem with that. I mean when you read, you know, literally, technically that language in 4.1.1, I have difficulty is seeing this as being improved property. I think you've got a very unique situation And I think that what I'm looking for, and think here. we all are, if there is some way of finding some entitlement to an exemption here. But I, for one, don't see it on the improved property. And I realize the money you have expended and the work that Commissioner Goodnight has pointed out has been done, but that's not what the ordinance actually addresses. I would hope that there would be some provision that you would be able to find it improved on January 10th of 1989, but I'm not sure the situation was any different back then. MR. WEEKS: Again, that's the big unknown, and we can't -- I don't think we can determine that right now. That's -- staff's position is we need more OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 115 time, we need the property owner and/or his agent to provide us with some information that shows that it was improved January 10, 1989. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Burr. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Regardless -- Okay. Go ahead, Regardless of whether we decide this issue tonight or whether we direct staff to determine whether it was improved in 1989, they're still going to have to go through the question of redevelopment. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's not an issue that's going to be resolved favorably for the property owner tonight, even if we decide it tonight, that this property was improved in 1989. So I'm not sure that there's any down side to Mr. Thompson or to the Commission to say to our staff let's go along with staff recommendation, determine whether it was built -- it was improved in 1989 and report back to us. You're asking us to make a factual determination without any opportunity for us to go back and take a look at the site, take a look at any documentation, really do anything other than look at OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 § ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 :23 :24 some pictures. MR. PEEPLES: 116 NO, sir. What ! was asking is that the Commission make a determination tonight as to whether this particular property is improved now according to the language of 4.11. As to whether it was improved in January of 1989, I will get together with Mr. Weeks and we will go over what evidence we have, if that is reuired, and provide him with necessary documentation to show that in fact it was improved at that time. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But I think, if I understand what Commissioner Saunders has said, then, the redevelopment issue, even if you were to have a determination of the Board this evening that this property is improved, then there's still the question as to whether 5.9 -- however that should finally be adopted by the Board -- would allow you to redevelop this property. MR. PEEPLES: Certainly -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: yeB. I think that may be correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Isn't that -- excuse me. That's what I said, Isn't that the point you OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 were trying to make? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think Mr. Cuyler had agreed with that or had stated that. MR. PEEPLES: Certainly while this rebuilding of the building is under project review, there would be no determination as to what would be allowed out there. We're merely seeking an improved property determination at this time. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you've got two more speakers at this time. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. OLLIFF: MR. THOMPSON: the soil. Okay. 0. C. Perry. That one question. This is a piece of paper that we have about It's not contaminated. He had a copy of it. I didn't know it. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Fine. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. Fine. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, while the next speaker is coming up, since we brought up the idea of the redevelopment issue, that is scheduled to come before you on January the 15th, a little over a week. MR. PERRY: I'm a resident out there at Corkscrew. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 118 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Your name, please. MR. PERRY: O. C. Perry. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Perry. Go ahead. MR. PERRY: I don't know how you determine what's improved property or unimproved property. In my mind, unimproved property is just bare land; right? This property has got a driveway, it's got a building, it's got a foundation. It's got, like he said, ten thousand yards of sand moved in there. It's got a lake. It's all cleared off. It seems to me like it's improved. It's going to be improved more if everything goes down. We need a store out there. We have to go thirteen miles one way to go to a store. Now they've got another one a little bit closer, but it's still seven miles the other way. I mean we really don't get much out there in Corkscrew. The property for fire station was donated by an individual. We fix our roads. there. We try to keep it going ourselves. The least we could have is our own store out We don't have a paved road out there except going to the Sanctuary. We pave all our own roads. had to fix them ourselves. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Perry. We OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 119 MR. PERRY: The county doesn't do anything. The least they can do is let this store go through. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: We volunteer for everything out there and we help ourselves. We pay for fixing the roads ourselves, besides paying the taxes. The least we could do is have a store. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: with, Mr. Perry, is simply that we're looking at a definition of what is improved under a particular law, and that's -- MR. PERRY: £t'S Just common sense. If you have a bare piece of property out there with rocks and trees growing out of it, it's unimproved. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. MR. PERRY: But if it's been leveled off and there's a building started on it, been on it -- the only reason the roof was taken off is to rebuild it. It looks to me like that's an improvement over raw land. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. PERRY: MR. OLLIFF: MR. HALL: The problem that we deal I don't know. It seems like that Thank you, Mr. Perry. You're welcome. Lee Hall. Yes. I'm Lee Hall. I live on OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 Sanctuary Road, right around from this property being mentioned. And I don't have a lot to add to what they've said except for one thing. I've lived out there seventeen years. And it's been the only store that we had from that time that I've been there. And we need a store and we need it bad. In Naples, they've got one every thirty blocks or so. I don't understand why we got to have seven miles or eight miles out there to have a store. But the land has been improved. I go by it every day of my life, and it was a Junkyard before. The man went in there and he cleaned all that stuff up, put a lot of money into it. The community is looking for a store out there. We have to go to Naples or someplace else every time we buy a loaf the bread. taxes, too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Olliff, MR. OLLIFF: MR. PEEPLES: Mr. CHAIRMAN HASSE: It's not fair. We pay Thank you. who else? Well -- Chairman. Yes. MR. PEEPLES: One last thing. I would just like to have the Commission make OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 121 I feel that We feel a determination as to the improved status. it's a close enough question here, certainly. one way, staff feels another. It's a close enough question that if the Board so chooses, they can certainly find this property to be improved, and we ask that you make that determination. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I know that we can do that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Could you or someone Just re-read that section of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance again as it relates to improved property. MR. OLLIFF: David, correct me if I'm wrong. If the Board determines that it's an improved property tonight, then it becomes consistent with the Plan and they can go ahead and pull permits and do Because of the redevelopment whatever they want to do? MR. WEEKS: No. issue, the issue of, yeah, Policy 5.9 says improved properties are consistent with the Plan. But as we have discussed with the Board previously and will be again on the 15th, there's the question of the ability to redevelop these improved properties. To further -- the further removal of what is there now, the improvements there now. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CUYLER~ if there was -- MR. WEEKS: 122 They could alter it or expand it Right. The Board previously determined that these property owners can alter or expand to the extent of their boundary as described on the development order. MR. CUYLER: there. here. If there's an existing building MR. WEEKS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There's no existing use That creates another issue, doesn't it? I mean there really isn't an existing use. MR. WEEKS: No, the lack of a use is not an issue Just from the technical standpoint of is it improved or not. If the building were in its complete status -- that is, the roof, the doors, windows, et cetera -- even if it had been closed down for a couple of years, it would still be considered to be improved, because it's got the substantial, permanent building and it's got the infrastructure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I hear what you're saying. I was thinking about on the reconstruction issue, though. I mean when it gets to redevelopment. I mean redevelopment -- we don't have the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expansion of an existing use. I mean it's just -- MR. WEEKS: This case, the way we look at Again, that would be the structure, not the use it. itself. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: MR. WEEKS: infrastructure. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. We'd be looking at the Well, do you consider this -- would they be able to expand the use of this building? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN HASSE: height, everything? MR. WEEKS: Our position is no. Again, our -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- what question were you answering? MR. WEEKS: That there could not be the expansion or alteration. MR. CUYLER: That's because it's not im -- so your position is that it's not improved. MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yes. 123 No, sir. Our -- Stay at the same size, same The answer is no to Okay. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 124 Cuyler. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A question for Mr. If we make a finding tonight that this property is to be considered improved property for purposes of whatever, the Comprehensive Plan, then would this property still be subject to the new ordinance that we're going to be adopting concerning redevelopment? MR. CUYLER: about -- Yes, because what you're talking COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: Is an actual redevelopment of this building, as opposed to an expansion of -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. Would we -- by finding this to be improved property tonight, would we be giving them the ability to expand the use or the building? Or would they have to go through some review process under the redevelopment ordinance? MR. CUYLER: I think Bob is going to address this. I guess if you find that it is an improved building, they are allowed to alter and expand an improved building to the extent of the zoning district. MR. BLANCHARD: Bob Blanchard from the Growth OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Department. CHAIRMAN HASSE: COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. BLANCHARD: 125 To the extent of what? Zoning district. Oh. If the property is determined to be improved, they can expand to the limits allowed in that particular zoning district. The question, though, on this particular property becomes one of redevelopment of the existing structure, and I have proposed a definition of redevelopment in an Executive Summary that I presented to you a couple weeks ago. That I think there's still the redevelopment question here because there's been changes to the existing structure from the way that it was originally permitted with the development order. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Don't leave. Mr. Peeples, if we find that this property has been developed, would you agree and would your client agree that it would be subject to the ordinance dealing with redevelopment? MR. PEEPLES: I'm not sure that we have any choice in that matter, Commissioner Saunders. I think that if -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, then that should make the answer easy. If you have no other OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 choice. You would agree to that, then. And your client would agree to that? MR. PEEPLES: We agree to abide by the ordinance as it's written. And to be honest, I'm not sure how it comes out. I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Cuyler entirely on that, but -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, then you think you do have a choice. Then your answer is no, you wouldn't agree to it. MR. PEEPLES: I think we have a choice. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: You were Just going to reiterate for us Just the definition because that's the narrow issue that we're dealing with. MR. PEEPLES: That's correct. I want to preface it with the statement from Section 5.8 of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance which says that all words and phrases are to be construed according to common approved usage. Section 4.11 states that improved property means: A lot on which there has been commencement of construction and on which substantial permanent buildings have been constructed or installed pursuant to a valid unexpired final development order of Collier OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 127 County. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the development order here that you're talking about is the original development order that was issued back in 19617 MR. PEEPLE$: That's correct. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yes, Commissioner Goodnight. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Mr. Chairman and Co~missioners, the way that I'm looking at this thing is would be the same as if in December of 31st of 1988, there was a fire in this building and it was partially destroyed, less than fifty percent. And in January of '89, the first -- the deadline, then we could call this as being, you know, not developed. And I mean I -- this was in operation in January of '89. They have since gone in and tried to clean the place up and -- I'm sorry -- in '88, and they have since gone in and tried to clean the place up and tried to make it something that the community as a whole could be proud of and to where that they could -- they could make some money off the place. And, you know, I just -- I have a problem with staff saying that it is not consistent with the Plan, and -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Staff hasn't said OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 13 15 1'7 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 that. 128 They have said that they want an opportunity to see if it's developed or if it was improved. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Well, I mean, you know -- I argue with David about the thing because David has driven the road as much as I have and he knows what goes on out there. Probably stopped several times to use the telephone or to get a Coke or whatever. So, you know, I just have a problem with them saying that this is not something that -- that it's not consistent. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we find that this property was improved as of today, in terms of what's out there, based on the testimony of Mr. Thompson. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: I'll second the motion. question. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is that -- another Is that with the understanding, though, that the applicant or petitioner and his attorney have agreed that if found to be improved that it would be subject to the 5.9 policy as it might be adopted by the Board? OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: have a choice. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: agreed to that, and we subject to that. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: your -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER VOLPE: your motion, then. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 129 I don't think they Mr. Peeples has not don't know whether it would be So that's not a part of Right. That's not a part of The motion is based on the fact that they're -- obviously, there has been some building out there. There's a driveway out there; there's some gasoline tanks. MR. PEEPLES: And all their infrastructure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There may need to be removal of that, but it seems to me that this is a piece of property that had been improved. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Well, I utilized these facilities in the '70's and I know it was there. The only thing is the condition it is at the present time, if it's still improved, and I'm not too sure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But I think -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: But I can understand what OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 you're saying. All right. the floor. MR. CUYLER: to indicate -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: 130 We have a motion and a second on All those in favor? (Affirmative responses.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Opposed? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Aye. Mr. Chairman, I would also like Four to one. MR. CUYLER: Just for the record, that that was also a building that was complete at some point and some portions were taken down to improve the property. Just for purposes of the record. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Well, as I recall that building, there was a fire in it. Am I correct? MR. PEEPLES: have to ask that of -- me: Again, I'm not aware. You'll CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Thompson, can you tell Was there a fire in the building? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interrupt you or anything, but we have already done that. MR. CUYLER: Yeah. I Just wanted to get that OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 4 5 7 9 10 11 19_ 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 9.1 9.9. 23 24 25 131 on the record in case there was something that came up on it later. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yeah. Well, I was Just going to make sure there was. That's understood. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have a lot more issues to deal with tonight. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Saunders. Commissioner. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I have three more. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Go ahead. MR. OLLIFF: And -- unless there is someone else who wants to register to speak, I have three more. Chris Vick. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Chris Vick. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Is he back there somewhere? Fighting his way up. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. MR. VICK: Yes, sir. My name is Chris Vick. I'm a vice president with Stun Bank at 801 Laurel Oak Drive here in Naples. And I don't have a specific piece of property that I want to talk about, but I do want to give, if I could, a lender's perspective to the issues that are before you. The most important perspective, and I feel -- I realize that -- I don't want to take up your time, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 4 132 and I will try to be brief. I do know that we have various pieces of property that are financed, and I just got called to come here due to the illness of the senior lender at the Sun bank, and I work directly under him, and I do know that we have various pieces of property that are affected by all this. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Who is that, sir? MR. VICK: That's Joel Whittenhall. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Yeah. Okay. MR. VICK: All right? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Now I know. MR. VICK: And so he's been out all week with a liver infection and could not be here this evening to speak, so he asked me to come here. So can I tell you which piece of property do we specifically have financed? No. But I can tell you that if you down zone, if you rezone a piece of commercial property to residential multi-family or residential single family, you are taking the value away from that piece of property. I had also very quickly called an appraiser to try to see whether somebody could come and speak, and they were a little bit hesitant because when they put something in as in this, in the public record, they OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 133 would rather talk about a specific piece of property if hired to do so. So they were reluctant to come. But from the banking perspective, we've got three different ways that we value a piece of property. We've got the income approach, the cost approach and the market approach. And if we take a commercial piece of property that somebody bought for what is traditionally a higher cost to him for that commercial zoning, and he has intentions to develop that piece of property down the road, nothing specific or he may be in fact just be speculating on the land value -- and if it wasn't for land speculators, none of us would be here in southwest Florida right now anyway. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Most speculators don't make out, though. MR. VICK: Most speculators don't make out? CHAIRMAN HASSE: I say all speculators do not make money. MR. VICK: You're exactly right. There's a lot of things -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Good. I Just -- MR. VICK: A lot of factors can change. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Fine. Thank you. MR. VICK: And that's why we have gotten away OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 134 from the raw land financing anyway. But you've got the income approach, the cost approach and the market approach. And if you rezone a piece of property, down zoning it, you're taking away two different approaches. You're taking away the income approach and the market approach. Two: What is traditionally -- when you do an appraisal, you get three approaches which correlate to a value of a piece of property. And if the cost is approach is high and it's highest and best use is commercial, typically it will be developed into a commercial piece of property which will then be consistent with the income approach because the market rents generated from that income piece of property all make then that piece of property a salable piece of property in Justifying the market approach. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The only point is here we're dealing with unimproved property, though. So -- MR. VICK: However -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The cost approach and the income approach -- MR. VICK: The cost approach then has already been established in that the person who bought that piece of land bought it for the commercial piece of property. And the only developable use then, to make OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 135 all three factors work -- and this is what we look at when we underwrite a loan for a commercial piece of property to develop it. Another one of the things -- and I'll Just go ahead and throw it in here as a caveat. If you're going to change a piece of property from commercial zoning to residential zoning, have you looked into the fact whether Florida Department of Transportation is going to allow ingress and egress at the level of residential zoning along US 41 when you're changing it from commercial to residential? Are they going to you allow thirty driveways going onto US 41 where they had in all of their plans one main ingress and egress into a commercial piece of property? And that's a question. I don't know whether you can answer that now or not or whether that's something that you had thought about. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Please. MR. WEEKS: Number two -- we have not checked that. Number two, the parcels that we have recommended for rezoning tonight literally on US 41, I think there were only two that we recommended rezoning to residential, and those were large parcels, close to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 ten acres in size. And, thirdly, because these are vacant properties, there have been no plans prepared for them yet that DOT could have reviewed; at least, no plans -- approved plans. But that's a good point. MR. VICK: But consistent with the speed limit, that may be forty-five miles an hour, that's consistent with the area where they could typically -- the owner of that property would typically have to pay, you know, to the Florida Department of Transportation, the fees or they have to go in and improve it themselves for them to have the ingress and the egress in the way of a deceloratatlon and an accoleratlon lane to get back on and off. And you typically won't have that. So that's one of the other factors that I was wondering whether you really considered or not. It's hard. Your job is hard. My job is hard. Everybody's is, but we're trying sitting here trying to come to a good basis of evaluation of how to do this. Because everybody's got the same thing. We want to live in a very nice community. Obviously that's why we all moved here. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 137 And I recognize the fact that that's what you all are trying to do, and all I'm trying to say is before you en masse decide to vote on the rezoning, specifically the down zoning for a piece of property, consider that you consider the fact that you are taking away, at least in my opinion, the value of that piece of property in that it typically will not be able to be used or the -- rather, the price that that piece of property will bring on the open market will not be consistent with what that person bought it for. And is that, in effect, eminent domain? Are you taking that piece of property for the betterment of the county? I don't know. I guess I'll leave it at that before I go into any of the other things. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Fine. It would seem to me that if you come up with a particular, specific piece of property, we could respond to that. MR. VICK: Well, I can tell you also that a lot of decisions that are before you and that you're making today have had one very specific effect in that we are not financing raw land when it comes to commercial pieces of property. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That, of course, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 138 entire banking industry has been excessive in loaning and Collier County Commission is now responsible for the fact that you are not loaning on the raw land. I think that that's a rather remarkable statement. MR. VICK: No. I don't think that that's entirely true, because you'd have to look at each thing specifically. And you can look -- you know, we can get into a discussion of how to value a bank or what the bank's loan losses are or what the, you know, stock p=lce is or what the bank's return on equity and all that. And if you do want to go into that discussion just in a thumbnail approach, I can. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Not tonight, sir. MR. VICK: I can tell you that Sun Bank is, you know, in very good stead. But we do have a policy before us that we do not -- not because of the lending environment; because we underwrite specifically because of the people's ability to repay, but also because of the collateral involved. That's why we have the policy that we won't lend on the raw land, because we do not know what we have. We could be lending a Cadillac value on what ends up being a Junk Volkswagen. And for us, it OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 doesn't work. So that's why we don't lend on it. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Vtck. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: clear for you. MR. VICK: All those things Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Olliff, who's next? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Refresh my memory, Mr. Chairman. There was a bank officer that spoke before us. MR. VICK: that was ill. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is John Brugger. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Brugger. MR. OLLIFF: Followed by, the last speaker would be Burdette Metzger. MR. BRUGGER: Good evening. My name is John Brugger. I'm an attorney here in Naples, representing a number of property owners along US 41 who have filed for exemptions and are not subject to review this evening. But by your actions this evening, you are probably establishing your future actions and how you're going to review future properties that may not 139 That was the other chap, the chap OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 :23 24 25 140 qualify for exemptions. You're going to look back and say, well, we did this on this parcel on 41; this is what we should do. And the Planning Commission adopted a proposal that anything from Wiggins Pass on North 41 to 951 on the East Trail should remain commercial at their hearing held in Immokalee last Thursday, in which they reviewed 5.9. What happens with these vested properties we have been discussing? Can they be rebuilt? They unanimously approved a resolution that they should be vested. Vested means vested. They can be rebuilt to bomb (sic) destruction. They went so far as to appoint a member of the Commission to be here to make sure that their opinion is delivered to you that, that there was unanimous consent on that, that there was no question as to how they feel 5.9 should be interpreted. In light of that, if the properties along 41 do remain vested, they're not going to be down zoned, all of these interlocking properties that we're talking about should also have their current commercial status remain. You are, in effect, going to spot zoning. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 The banking institutions are going to be back before you on the 15th, if that's the day that staff said you're going to be reviewing 5.9, arguing that they've got outstanding commercial loans on many of these buildings, and that as soon as you reduce the zoning you reduce the value. Joel Whittenhall will be here then. He will present the numbers to show that many of these loans will be in default or they're going to call them immediately if that zoning is reduced because they're going to deem themselves insecure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Brugger, is your argument addressed more to Policy 5.9 than it is to -- MR. BRUGGER: No, it's relating to the unimproved properties, because I think by the way you're picking along 41 today, you're determining that something should be six -- C-6, something else may be C-3 depending on what's around it, and I think that we have to recognize that US 41 is going to be a six-lane commercial highway. Nobody is going to want to build residential along it. The properties that there are, they're going to remain C-3, C-5, whatever they may be, and we need to recognize that fact in dealing with the properties that you're reviewing today. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I had that thought about the development of property along US 41 for something other than commercial, and I'm trying to think. Would you want to have a single family residence there? Someone pointed out to me that we've got at least three miles of Pelican Bay that backs right up. I mean with -- MR. BRUGGER: They have room, however, for a buffer zone. I'm sure you've seen the hill. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Right. MR. BRUGGER: If you're aware of the county development standards, I think it's a three to one slope required, and with that hill they've got there, it's twenty or thirty feet high, it's going to take a hundred -- thirty feet on either side of that of width. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was thinking, though, that what Mr. Weeks had said, though, that with the proposal that the staff has made now that with RMF, RSF-3, that that's ten acre parcels or larger. So it would allow for residential development along the Trail in certain areas. Just so you understand me now. They're not Just small lots that we're talking about right now, that we're talking about RSF-3. MR. BRUGGER: I understand. That's what, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 143 three units an acre is what that converts out to? Something -- give or take little bit. By the time you put in a buffer. Nobody is going to want to live in that. Let's be realistic. The traffic; the noise; as Mr. Vlck pointed out, the curb cuts, what's going to be available. And that -- you know on a couple ten acre parcels, fine. Most of the properties we're dealing with are platted. You go out 41 East, out by Naples Manor, those are all hundred and twenty-five foot lots. You go up in Naples Park, they're all smaller commercial lots. And we have got to deal with the reality. We can't deal with a eutopian planner's world in which we sit in a classroom, as I said over at the Planning Commission, and look at what looks good on this map. We've got to look at what's out there, how that the people invested their livelihood in a lot of these pieces of property, and it's just not reasonable to think that they can turn around and sell that for a RSF-3 along 41; in fact, many places along Airport Road and Goodlette Road. And that's my general comment. What you're doing today, an enormous number OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 144 of these applications are going to be rejected. I threw them in on properties where I don't know if they apply or not because it gives us time to sit down and try to evaluate and deal with it. And I'm sure other people filed the exemptions and exception applications to see whether they qualify or not. So by the action you're taking today, you're going to establish a precedence on how you're going to deal with property along US 41, along Airport Road, along 951, and when they applications get rejected because they don't qualify with the literal terms of the Growth Management Plan you're going to be dealing with each one of those again. I'm saying we've got to recognize that we've done things in the past out there. The majority of other counties in this state recognized that and they vested the properties which existed. I think the staff will tell you that there's only -- at the Planning Commission meeting, they stated that there were three counties which attempted to change some zoning, and in some of those -- I think that Bob said that Sarasota County allows you to register your property. In dealing with 5.9 -- I don't know what they're doing on unimproved property, but they vested OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 § 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lS 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 145 the properties; they didn't attempt to down zone them all. They realized what the realities are out there, that people's livelihoods are based on this, that banks have made loans, that nobody is going to drive into a house off of US 41, and I just think we need to recognize that. I understand. It's very difficult. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Couldn't that same argument be made for all of the properties, whether it happens to be on US 41 or on Pine Ridge Road? MR. BRUGGER: Yes. I'm not saying -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Sure it could. And we went through that whole discussion when we were talking about the adoption of our Growth Management Plan. MR. BRUGGER: I'm not saying your job is easy. I'm Just saying that you have to look at what really exists out there too. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: How about the proposal that staff's come up with, sort of the middle ground, with the community facility uses to address something between the residential? MR. BRUGGER: That may be possible. Mr. MacLeod, who is my client, represents or -- owns a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 146 couple of those parcels of land made that suggestionat the last hearing we had on this matter two weeks ago. And I think it may be the answer. answer. I don't know the I'm Just saying we can't go to RSF-3, have these people have to pay to hire an attorney, to hire a land planner to go back and rezone again. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I think the only RSF-3 parcels were the ten-acre parcels, so that the smaller parcels I think may become a middle ground to address some of the concerns that you have expressed, Mr. Brugger. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we're talking about US 41, there's only three maps that we're dealing with tonight that have anything to do with US 41. The first one is 0513-S. That's the -- Dan Peck's client's property. And we didn't classify any of the frontage on 41 as residential; we classified it as C-6. The second map was 0629-S. We didn't classify any of the properties fronting US 41 as residential. Staff recon~mendation is to hold those in abeyance until they make a determination of what's going around it. There was one lot on that map which does not OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 front on US 41, Lot Eighteen, and that was requested to be RSF-3. The other map -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Consistent with what the CCPC had done? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. The other map is Map 1720-N. And staff has found that the Droperty in question on that, which does front US 41, is in the -- I believe outside of the urban area and has been designated as A-2 because it's way out of the area that's going to be developed. So I understand what you're saying in terms of we have to be very careful about how we rezone property on US 41, and I don't think we have done anything tonight that is inconsistent with what you're saying; and when we get down to parcels that are not subject to rezoning tonight, I'm sure that we're going to be very careful with those also. MR. BRUGGER: I do want to commend you. The Planning Commission when they reviewed them recognized they can't make a blanket policy of Just down zoning everything to RFS-3. And it would appear that you're making the same steps, that you realize that individual situations exist, and you're going to have to look at the property on a OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 property-by-property basis pretty much. commend you on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. OLLIFF: Metzger. MR. METZGER: 148 And I want to Thank you, Mr. Brugger. Your last speaker is Burdette I came before the Commission's Commissioners the last meeting, and I Just want to state -- I want to go on record that I have attended this meeting. And I'm talking about the property -- the commercial property between Twenty-first Place Southwest and Hunter Boulevard. They are six different -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: find a map that -- MR. METZGER: All right, sir. know? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's see if we can Sorry, sir. Mr. Weeks, do you CHAIRMAN HASSE: Can you pick one out there, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: again, please? MR. METZGER: Would you state your location That would be -- let me see. It would be Block 188, Unit Six, Lots Two and OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Three that I'm speaking on. MR. WEEKS: along -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. METZGER: MR. WEEKS: 149 You don't have that map that goes Santa Barbara? It's Santa Barbara. All of the properties on that map have applied for an application of some sort, so you don't have the map. CHAIRMAN HASSE: So we don't have the map. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: with that. We're not dealing MR. METZGER: You're not dealing with that COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, sir. MR. METZGER: I'm sorry, sir. I guess that tonight? will be coming up later, then. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. MR. METZGER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You might want to get with Mr. Weeks and find out when that's going to come back up. MR. METZGER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, sir. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all your registered speakers. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Weeks? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, you will want to close your public hearing and then you will want to pass one more motion incorporating your previous motions and rezoning all the properties in accordance with -- unless the Board has some further discussions. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I make a motion that we All those in favor? (Affirmative response.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Unanimous. Now what do we need? MR. CUYLER: You've got a zone ordinance that will be a cover ordinance as a part of your package, and staff will attach to its description of those properties exactly what the rezones are. So at this point, you'll take a motion to rezone the properties in accordance with staff's recommendation and in accordance with the previous motions that you've made this evening. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. That's on the division (sic). OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 3396~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: the recommendations of staff. Cuyler. 151 I move that we adopt COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: I second the motion. COmmiSSIONER VOLPE: I have a question, Mr. In view of my abstention on the one involving that property, how could I -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's exclude that one from the motion and take it up separately. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. We can do that. MR. OLLIFF: And I think you need to go ahead and include in that some of those motions that you made that were a little different from staff's, as well, because there was one. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Yeah. Any motions, of course, that were made different from -- than wlhat staff's recommendation was should stand as approved. MR. CUYLER: any of those? MR. OLLIFF: MR. CUYLER: improved. MR. WEEKS: MR. OLLIFF: Okay. But do you have a list of I know the property -- The one property was deemed Right. The Daniel Peck -- okay. That's the one that we approved. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: No. We approved Peck thing. MR. WEEKS: They did go with our recommendation on that. C-6 and R-6. MR. CUYLER: Okay. If you'll take a motion on everything except the property represented by Mr. Peck. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I second. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All those in favor? (Affirmative responses.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Unanimous. MR. OLLIFF: MR. CUYLER: 152 the In reference to -- And now this will be the motion on that one piece of property that was represented. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I don't know what it was. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I make a motion in reference to that parcel that the staff recommendation be adopted. That's -- MR. CUYLER: Staff recommendation on that was C-6, on those parcels fronting 41, and RSF-3. MR. OLLIFF: Yeah. It's Map 0513-S. COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: Second your motion on CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. All in favor? that. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 (Affirmative responses.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Any abstention? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commissioner Volpe. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Abstaining. MR. CUYLER: And the record will reflect that was a four to one vote on that, with an abstention by Mr. Volpe. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER SHANAHAN: I make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I second. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All those in favor? (Affirmative responses.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: And anybody that wants to stay can stay until tomorrow morning. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners. (Conclude at 8:45 p.m.) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962 1 2 3 4 13 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) 154 I, Connie S. Potts, Notary Public and Deputy Official Court Reporter of the State of Florida, and the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me, at the time and place as stated in the caption hereto, at Page 1 hereof; that I was authorized to and did attend said proceedings and report the same by computer-assisted Stenotype; that the foregoing computer-assisted typewritten transcription consisting of pages numbered 2 through 153, Inclusive, is a true and accurate transcript of my Stenotype notes of the transcript of proceedings taken at said time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto subscribed my name this 22nd day January, 1991. Connie S. Potts, Notary Public State of Florida at Large OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS Collier County Courthouse, Naples, Florida 33962