Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/17/1990 WCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN THE MATTER OF: GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN PUBLIC WORKSHOP of May 17, 1990 Heard by the Board of County Commissioners, commenc 7~00 p.m., Wednesday, May 17 1990, in the auditorium of Golden Gate Community Center, Golden Gate Parkway, Golden Florida 33962 PRESENT: Chairman Max A. Hasse Vice-Chairman Michael J. Volpe Commissioner Anne GoodniGht Commissioner Butt L. Saunders Commissioner Richard S. Shanahan Robert E. Blanchard, Senior Planner Ronald M. Lee, Senior Planner Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Barbara Cacchione, Staff Representative Reported by: Connie S. Ports, Notary Public, State of Florida at. LarGe. Deputy Official Court Reporter 000 10001 RALPH G. CARROTHERS, OFFICIAL Collier County Courthouse, Naples Florida 33962 IDENTIFIED/REGISTERED SPEAKERS: Mr. John Cummings Mr. George Risher Mr. George Keller Mr. Neno J. Spagna Mr. Timothy Constantine Mr. Ross McIntosh Mr. Jim Melchore Mr. David Ritchie Mr. Tom Grant Mr. Alan Moniz Ms. Kathleen Remms Mr. Don Pickworth Mr. Donald C. Beacraft RALPH G. CARROTHERS, OFFICIAL seat. (Whereupon, the herein matter having been duly scheduled and announced to be held this date and time, the following proceedings were had.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Seven o'clock. Ladies and gentlemen, would you please take your (Off the record remarks between commissioners.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Would you please come up here in front and sit down. Would everybody rise. We'll pledge the flag. (Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ladies and gentlemen, this is basically one of the last meetings we're going to have that is a basic workshop. I would like to set a few grounds rules. Incidentally, there are slips in the back. If anybody wishes to speak on the Golden Gate Master Plan, they should get the slip and turn it in here to the staff on the left side of this table. While I'm speaking in this way, I would like to compliment our staff, Bob Blanchard and Ron Lee, who are the senior planners with the Collier'County Planning Department. I would also like to thank this committee that put in so much work under the direction of the Chairman, Jim Colett&. I would like to now name a few of these people who served on this committee, and I will tell you that they had twenty committee and staff meetings throughout the year since the start of these workshops that started, I think it was in May, '89 -- no, I'm sorry. It was October, 1988 when we first began meeting with the staff and the committee. The committee members are: Jim Coletta, and I wish they would stand and just be acknowledged. Jim Coletta. Frank DelleCave. Bruce Dilges. Phil Giofrida. George Keller. Carol Lamb. Norm Hatcher. David Ritchie. And Geneva Till. We owe a great deal of thanks to these people for contributing so much of their time to try to come up with a workable plan for the Golden Gate Master Plan,. and I think they have come up with a pretty good plan. We have differed. The fact is the staff has agreed with the committee a hundred percent all the way except for one area, and that's open for discussion, and that will be brought about. We have an agenda plan today. First, we will have a staff presentation about the estate commercial, provisional uses, 951 commercial and Golden Gate Parkway. Then we will have a presentation by the committee. Jim Coletta, I believe will do that. Will you not? MR. COLETTA: (Nodded head in the affirmative.) CHARIMAN HASSE: And then the Board of County Commissioners will make whatever comments they wish or questions they have to ask. The public comment will follow that; and after that, I trust we will come to a meeting of the minds and adjourn. Who is going to speak first on the staff? MR. BLANCHARD: Ron. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ron Lee will lead off the presentation by the staff. MR. LEE: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record my name is Ron Lee. I'm senior planner with long range planning staff. Our staff -- what I would like to do tonight is give you an update on the Golden Gate Master Plan, and what I'm going to do is try to accomplish this through providing you some background information, outline the contents of the plan and then detail our future plans. O0 t O005 And also I would like to mention that the contents of the plan as presented tonight will be presented to the PlanninG Commission unless we received further direction from the Board as a result of tonight's workshop. Now I would like to move on to how this plan evolved and how we Got to the stage we're at right now. As most of you -- most of you know, county-wide Growth ManaGement Plan was adopted in January of 1989. Due to the unique characteristics of the Golden Gate area, the plan committed to developinG a Master Plan specifically for the Golden Gate area. As a result, a nine-member committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners began work with the staff in October of 1988. The committee met approximately every other week. Work began by identifying issues and hosting informational meetings with key personnel from utilities, environmental, transportation and development services. The major issues that were identified by staff are as follows: Provisional uses, commercial in the city, commercial in the estates, and commercial along 951. After all the issues were identified, we went through the alternative phase. So for each issue, we identified various alternatives. In most cases, it was three or more alternatives for most of the issues. The key part for planning for a sub area such as Golden Gate is to receive public input. To that end, staff developed a mail out brochure which outlined all of the issues and the alternatives. As part of that brochure, a questionaire was included to receive feedback from all the residents from the Golden Gate area, and these results from the questionaire were used to finalize the alternatives. In addition, we held two public meetings in May of 1989. One was at this Community Center and the other at the Big Cypress elementary. After the questionaires were received and public meeting held, the staff prepared a draft and distributed it to the committee in August of 1989. Staff and committee have met several times since then and have prepared this final draft that is in front of you. And what I would like to do right now is briefly highlight the key points of the plan as agreed upon by the committee and staff. The first issue I would like to discuss is estates commercial. And if you will look at the map, what we have done is created what we're calling neighborhood centers oo¢£1 o7 within the estates at major intersections, and each one of these circles is a Geographic representation of a -- twenty acreas of a neighborhood center. And what we're proposing within each neighborhood center is five acres of commercial and these commercial land uses will have various development standards to protect the residential integrity of the area, primarily buffering and access. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ron, may I suggest you turn the plan the little bit so the people can Get a look at it. MR. LEE: (Speaker did as requested.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's better. And perhaps it would be advantageous if you mentioned the corners you're talking about when you're talking about centers. MR. LEE: All right. I'll Go through the neighborhood centers that we have identified. The first one is at Everglades and Immokalee Road. The second one at Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, and at Pine Ridge and 951. This activity center right here (indicating) is only OOO£1OOO8 ten acres in size, but it is still allocated the full five acres of commercial. As I was stating, we have developed fairly stringent development standards for these commercial uses to protect the residential integrity of the surrounding areas. And we also envision with the fifteen remaining acres in each of these neighborhood centers to permit provisional uses. The second point in estates commercia~ (ind~cating) is the area identified as the Randall Boulevard Commercial District. This is a seven-acre commercial tract, and due to the unique geographic constraints and surrounding land uses, we felt that this was an appropriate designation in that area. Commissioner, would you like to address questions on each one of them or do you want me to go through the whole? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Why don't you go through it and then we can direct questions after that. MR. LEE: The next issue I'd like to cover is provisional uses. This is one area where we received the most comments and concerns. They felt there were too many, and they were commenting on the proliferation of provisional uses in the '¸0 10 neighborhoods. What staff has done is developed a way to attempt to control the location of these provisional uses, and we have come up with three mechanisms to control the location of provisional uses. The first one is that no provisional uses will be allowed on Santa Barbara -- excuse me -- on Airport Road between Santa Barbara and Airport Road unless they are bounded by a provisional use on both sides. CHAIRMAN HASSE: On the parkway, you're speaking of. MR. LEE: Right. On the parkway between Santa Barbara and Airport. The second provision is that they may be located within a neighborhood center. And the third mechanism is if they are -- provisional use may be allowed next to a commercially zoned or commercially developed area as a transition from a higher intensity commercial to a lower intensity residential. The next issue I would like to discuss is the 951 commercial area. We have identified two areas along the 951 corridor that would be appropriate for commercial land uses. The 00 £10 i0 11 first one is a ten-acre tract south -- Just south of the FP&L substation, and the second one -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Can everybody hear? (Indications and verbal negative responses from the audience.) CHAI~fu~N HASSE: It's necessary to pick it up. MR. LEE: The first one is a ten-acre tract south of the FP&L substation, and the second commercial tract is Golden Gate Parkway and 951. Again, due to the unique development patterns, existing land uses in both of these areas, we felt that it was appropriate for a commercial designation in both of these spots. And once again, we have developed specific development standards for commercial uses in each of these areas to alleviate any concerns about commercial and close to residential areas. The next issue I would like to discuss is commercial within Golden Gate City. The current Growth Management Plan calls for growth activity centers at key locations throughout the county. And in Golden Gate City there is an activity center at Coronado and Golden Gate Parkway. 12 Currently that activity center is a square configuration consisting of a hundred and sixty acres, approximately, covering that area (indicatinG), and what we have done is Gone in and refined the boundaries of that activity center in recognition of existing land use patterns and also the existing commercial in this area. We felt that it was more appropriate that the activity center in this area be consistent with the commercial zoning within this area. The next issue I'm Going to discuss is the area that's been the most controversial and the area that staff and the committee have discussed a Great deal, and this is the area that is between the existing shopping center on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. Staff had originally come up with a specific recommendation, and in light of some comments and further discussion, we felt that it may be appropriate to recognize a second alternative. So at this point, I would like to present two alternatives for this approximately twenty-acre strip along Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara up to the existing shopping center. If you could turn to page twenty-two in the plan. I 00 C10O12 13 think it's important that we discuss the specifics of this district. What we have is what we're calling, the first alternatives is, the Golden Gate Parkway residential district. And basically what we're trying to do is maintain the residential land uses in this area; however, instead of the small parcels that already exist, we are attempting to aggregate the properties into two-acre PUD's, and on page twenty-two through twenty-four are specific development standards for the multi-family residential uses that would be permitted along that parkway. Specifically, what we're trying to do is limit the nurmber of access points, provide adequate buffering, control sinage, provide good landscaping along the parkway consistent with what's in the median currently, and we're trying to get a good integrated type of project along the parkway. The second alternative that has been discussed -- and Bob will pass this out -- is what we're calling the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial District. Essentially, the development standards for the residential and the commercial are very much similar. The 000£10013 14 only difference is that it permits low intensity types of professional office in this area, still requires a two-acre PUD, and all of the other development standards that were previously mentioned still apply. While we're at this point, there are a couple concerns that staff has with this recommendation. I would like to point them out. The first one is that staff conducted an analysis of commercial needs throughout the Golden Gate area, and what we have found is that there is sufficient commercial zoning to accommodate the future population through the year 2000 and beyond. And secondly, we have a concern with internal consistency with our Growth Management Plan county wide and what we will propose for Golden Gate. As you know, the county-wide plan encourages concentration of commercial uses at our activity centers, and at this commercial (indicating), if you want to call it strip, is approximately half a mile to a mile long and is inconsistent with the concepts that have been promoted by the Growth Management Plan. And we have fears that DCA will review and find this to be internally inconsistent with our county-wide Growth Management Plan, but at this point we are 000f 10014 15 leaving the option of these two alternatives open and we will present, as such, at the Planning Commission and at the Board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS, Ron, on option number two, how many acres are you talking about? You said one half mile. MR. LEE: Approximately twenty acres. I guess right now I would like to point out the future schedule. The Golden Gate Master Plan will be heard before the Planning Commission on June 29th, on a Friday, at a special meeting with all the other plan amendments, and this will be heard before the Board on July 25th, also as a special meeting with all the other plan amendments. I guess in closing, staff believes this plan is representative of the desires of the community and provides a balance between preserving the residential integrity of the area while providing opportunity for support services. Throughout the process, staff and committee have worked conscAentiously and diligently toward a common goal to produce a plan that is workable and will enhance the quality of life of Golden Gate residents. 00 Cl0 15 16 I would be glad to entertain any questions. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Are there any questions? Do you have any questions that you want to present to this committee? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Could I Just ask Ron a couple questions? Did the staff consider the concept of future activity centers in the estates commercial area? MR. LEE: Similar to what we have in the current Growth Management Plan? I guess the commercial designations or neighborhood centers that we have take that into consideration, realizing that some of those centers will not develop immediately but are for future use, and we have not really considered, you know, future designations or other designations for activity centers. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What happens -- if it's all right with you, Commissioner Volpe, we could have a presentation by the committee. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Fine. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Coletta, the Chairman of the Committee, please make a presentation. 000£ 0016 17 MR. COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Hasse. I want to -- first, I want to thank you for allowing me to be a small, have a small part of this government process. It has been a very educational experience, and I'll guarantee you, I've gained a lot from it. Basically what staff has come up, we are in agreement. We have come up with these proposals over many, many meetings. They are the result of working with various civic groups. We have worked with all fraternal organizations. The committee itself is a cross section of the community and represents all of the different groups in ~tself. We have realtors, a fire chief, we have a planner from the highway department, businessmen, retired people. We have done considerable research, both within our own group and outside the group, to try to meet what the needs of this community are going to be. We have talked to them at great lengths to them, and wherever there has been opposition to what the main goal has been, we have gone to the organization and talked to them. We have gone to the individuals and talked to them. We have had this luxury, other than -- where you people haven't, we've been able to take one issue at a time, one person at a 00 £10017 18 time. And it boils down to the fact that we are in agreement with staff on just almost everything except the parkway. The parkway has been a very sore point for this community for a long time. It's the entranceway to Golden Gate and as you drive down there, the first thing you see is housing that is substandard, it leaves a lot to be desired, and does not speak well for our community. We have a beautiful parkway, the greenery going down the middle, a big welcome to the community, but on the outside fringes of it, we have the horrible multi-family housing. We don't want any more of this! we have our fair share. And I think you're going to find out when you talk to the people tonight, they're going to share this particular viewpoint. What we're looking at, the term strip zoning. The word is evasive. It depends, I guess, wherever you want to say strip zoning is and where it begins and whether it's twenty acres or five acres or Just a corner. But this is what our community needs. County staff mentioned that there is sufficient commercial already in Golden Gate. Well, I beg to differ 19 with them. The business association paid $4,000.00 to have a survey done, and we found that over fifty percent of this area travel into Naples to do their shopping because they say there is not sufficient shopping available in Golden Gate. Because of the base lacking, these people are forced to go across the roads, causing more traffic, making for conditions that are deplorable as far as crowding goes. W~nat we would like to do is be able to form something for them at their home base, right here, to keep them within the community and meet their needs. This is another reason too for the activity knolls out in the estates, to try to meet their needs a little closer to home and save time on county roads. So I ask you that when you are considering this plan, that you keep in mind that the citizens of Golden Gate are strongly behind this particular plan of not residential, but commercial along the parkway. If anyone has any questions about the process that we have gone through, I would be happy to answer them at this time. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Well, we weren't going to pose any 20 questions at the present time, but perhaps you could tell the people why the people are opposed to single family or duplexes and that sort of thing on the parkway. Why did the committee -- MR. COLETTA: Well, if you stop and think about it, the parkway is a four-lane highway that carries a tremendous amount of traffic. I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to live on a highway like that. If you have children, there is a real danger there. If you're a landlord, because of the conditions that exist, you can't get a rent that would be enough to sustain your property, so a lot of them run down for this reason. That's the basis for the whole thing. It's Just -- it's not something that is compatible with the area that it's in. The only thin9 that will really work on the parkway is a limited amount of commercial, something that would have the right kind of greenery around it, the right size, right kind o£ access to it, that will fit in into the present highway, and I don't see where it would present some problem. 21 Staff itself has some proposals, and possibly we can Het them to show you toniHht, of what commercial would look like as far as access from the parkway. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. MR. COLETTA~ Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ron, is there anything else you have to say in response to that? MR. LEE: I failed to recognize this drawing that we have compiled from planning staff. And this is what we envision one of these two-acre PUD's to look like if those standards are implemented. What you're looking at is approximately two acres. You could fit three buildings on there, meet all your parking requirements, only have one driveway. You have shared parking, good landscaping along the perimeter, and you would also control sinage. I think this is what we're trying to envision for the parkway; and whether it be residential or commercial, this is -- still would be a fairly representative drawing of what you would see along the parkway, and it's within -- I Just want to point this out to everybody. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That would indicate either 00 £.[002i 22 commercial, residential, whatever way you want to go? MR. LEE: Right. The only difference would be the type of land uses that would be permitted. Ail the other land development standards would be the same. CHAIRMAN HASSE= Does the Commission have anything they would like to say? Questions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERSI Yes, sir. Mr. Lee, a couple questions on the Golden Gate City commercial, the second alternative, of the professional office district. In your list of uses, Just a question about the limitation on those. Assuming that we agree that this is the type of district that we want to establish, what would be the problem with some limited retail and also restaurants and cafes and things of that nature? There is nothing in here that would provide for that. MR. LEE: I guess this was per direction of the committee. They were looking for more of a professional office type development along the parkway; and also one of the considerations in allowing commercial on the parkway is the amount of traffic that would be generated, and these types of professional offices would be much lower traffic 23 generator than your typical retail and restaurant type of uses, and that was also a consideration. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. In reference to financial institutions, you have an exclusion of drive-away facilities. What would be the rationale for that? MR. LEE~ Along the same lines. Drive-in type facilities tend to generate two to three times the amount of traffic a standard bank would generate. So all of those types of use limitations relate back to traffic generation concerns. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And in reference to access to the projects exclusively via the Golden Gate Parkway, if you have potential access off of side road, off one of the streets that lead into the Golden Gate Parkway, would it not be advisable to have some access there also? MR. LEEz I think the access requirements that are now in the subdivision ordinance would preclude that, the distance from the intersection. And we also discussed having access off the back alleyway, but we discovered that there is a FP&L easement and it would be quite a process to get that easement removed 24 and allow access off the back. So we felt that it would be the best approach Just to allow the access and provide accelleration and decelleration lanes and control all your traffic movements at one focal point, and that would facilitate traffic movement and relieve some of our concerns. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If things could be worked out on the FP&L, on their easement, would staff then consider the advisability of access along the alleyway? MR. LEE: And the second concern is the setback from the roads. It would not -- you would not be able to fit the buildings in if you put a road in. Because the dimensions the lot are only a hundred and twenty-five feet deep, we have a lot of constraints to work with. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. There are some communities -- and Ron, I don't know if you're familiar with any of these or not. But there are some communities that have a general architectural theme that was established very early in the development of those communities. So you drive into them and there is a uniform theme along the entire roadway, and it seems to me that this 00 Cl0o24 may be a situation where that opportunity may exist. And I donCt know if the committee gave any thought to not Just simply your development restrictions, which I think are fine, but also perhaps the development of some type of an architectural review committee with certain parameters so that there would be some unique theme to the project that would front the parkway. Is that -- have you given any thought to that or is that somethin~ that you might want to look at? MR. LEE: That issue has not been explored. Would you like to see something Just for the Golden Gate area? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me give you an example, and this is not necessarily one to copy, but over in the Ft. Lauderdale area there is a small city that you approach as you approach from the west. I can't think of the name of the city, but they have developed a western theme for the city, and all the buildings have the western -- COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Davie. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Davie. Ail the buildings -- it's been a long time since I've been there, but all the 00 ¢[0025 26 buildings have a western theme, and it's unique and it's kind of interestinG. I am not suGGestinG a western theme for Golden Gate, but there may be some architectural theme that might be appropriate, and I would suggest to the Golden Gate Committee and to our staff that if we do look at this office, professional office community cor~nercial district that now we have an opportunity. If we want to develop some kind of a theme for that in an architectural review committee, we can do that now. It has been done in other places. Secondly, I think the uses -- I understand your situation in dealing with traffic, but just to Give you an examples If you have twenty acres of office space and real estate offices and things of that nature, at noon when all of those people decide they want to Go someplace for lunch, they're Going to be on the roads anyway. So I think it would be nice to blend in very nicely to have some other uses. I think the list of uses is too restrictive. If you understand that there is some architectural theme or some strict development standards. 00 0026 27 So I would like to -- I think the idea of this commercial area is a good one, and I would like to see some further refinement of perhaps those two concepts. And I guess as just a closing comment, and then I will turn the mike over to Mike. The -- we're in a -- kind of in a situation here in Golden Gate that the community really is emerging. There are obviously a lot of people living here, but we are just beginning to see a rapid increase in population in Golden Gate. Most communities do have a main thoroughfare. The City of Naples certainly has one. Perhaps 41 might be the main thoroughfare through Collier County perhaps at this time, but there is a main thoroughfare through most communities, and it seems to me that commercial on this main thoroughfare through Golden Gate would be appropriate. I would certainly like to see us develop it into something that's unique and nice and make people want to come to Golden Gate to have their offices and perhaps even to have lunch at these restaurants. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE= Thank you. '¸0 28 Commissioner Saunders, I might mention that the chairman of your commission, maybe just last night, was talking to you about how effectively you all -- and I think Review Board, and I think it's not at all, not impossible for us to do it. I have spoken to the county manager about it and we have talked about handing it up to the commission, and I think it's an excellent idea, not only for here, but for all over. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ I'm sorry, Commissioner Hasse, perhaps -- we were advised that that may not be legally permissible? CHAIRMAN HASSE: No, no. I said I think it's an excellent idea. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE: And not only that, but I'm not talking only Golden Gate at this time, but in the entire county, because that would eliminate some of the highway parcels that we have around. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the one thing that we would have to be very careful about in establishing some type of architectural review is that we cannot delegate 29 zoning and approval authority to a citizen committee. It has to be handled at staff level. Citizens committee perhaps could develop standards~ the actual approval would have to go through the county. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Advisory is what I was thinking of. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ That's as far as I think it could go. CHAIRMAN HASSE: But nevertheless, I think it's a good idea. Many communities that I know of have this kind of a citizen committee that assists the Commission in looking at and focusing staff. Commissioner Volpe. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Mr. Lee, how many individual parcels are included in that parcel that we're talking about along Golden Gate Parkway? MR. LEEs It's be~n a while sincs I've handled that. MR. BLANCHARD: Eighty. MR. LEE: Somebody said eighty. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: MR. KELLER~ Fifty-four, fifty-six. Fifty-six? No. EiGhty. Eighty, I think. 30 VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE~ Okay. Within that twenty acres, have we calculated how many square feet of commercial can be developed? MR. LEE= We used a typical figure of ten thousand square feet per acre. CHAIRMAN HASSE: So that's two hundred thousand; is that correct? MR. LEE: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Two hundred thousand square feet commercial. Are there plans for the future six laning of Golden Gate Parkway, and if so, when? MR. LEE= I'm not familiar with that. I don't think there is enough right-of-way in there to six lane it. The lots right now are a hundred and twenty-five feet deep. If you expand that to six lanes, you would be taking up too much of the residential. MR. BLANCHARD: It's not in the work program. There is no plan at this time to six lane. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: ten-year program? MR. BLANCHARD: Five. Are we talking about five or 31 VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE: You don't know about -- MR. BLANCHARD: I don't know about that. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. Was there any consideration given to perhaps retiring this property with the thought of having a passive park in this area? MR. LEE~ We had considered the thought of a linear park, and we contacted the Parks Department and Kevfn ° O'Donnell's office, and what -- now they're into the regional park mode and they're Getting away from the neighborhood park concept. ;{nd we discussed it with them, and they rejected. They took that idea to the Park Board, and they rejected the idea as well. So that idea was explored as an outright purchase. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Oh, I'm not talking about an actively recreational area. I'm talking about passive park. And as Commissioner Saunders commented, this is the Gateway to Golden Gate. MR. LEE: That's what we were talking about, a linear passive type of park that the county would purchase, but actually we had no interest in that at all from the Parks Department. And also the expense of the property was a 32 consideration in that. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Well, the expense will go up if it's designated on the future land use map as commercial, won't it? MR. LEE: Correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I had asked before about any consideration being given to some of the activity centers that you have designated in the estates area as being designated future activity centers. MR. LEE: Rather than permanent and current right now? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: We have done that within our Growth Management Plan in future land use map, and I think we have recognized that there would be some that would be appropriate for commercial development but would be out in the future. MR. LEE: Let me give you an example. I guess what you're suggesting is some of these activity centers or neig]~orhood centers may be premature and we should reevaluate their status. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I'm really not suggesting. I'm Just asking through the process whether there was some 33 discussion. If we're talking about internal consistency -- I don't think this is really a consistency issue, hut it seems to me that by designating these area as activity centers, there is a recognition on our part that it would he appropriate sometime to develop things commercially, and it may not be appropriate today. MR. LEE: I guess I have a hard time finding a mechanism that would automatically put that into effect like we now have where if Vanderhilt Beach Road gets extended then it becomes an activity center. We're trying to work on what type of mechanism you would use to upgrade the status, and we thought about population, but then it got a little complicated. $o we thought it would he best to approach this, to designate it, and let the future take care o£ itsel£. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE: Within those activity centers, you said that there would be the full range of commercial uses on five acres. MR. LEE: I believe the plan allows C1 through C3, not the full range. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I thought you said the full 00 £ 0033 34 range. But you're saying C1 through C37 MR. LEE: If I did, it was a mistake. through C3. acres. It was C1 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Just a couple more questions. The provisional uses within the remaining fifteen MR. LEE: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: What type of provisional uses? Within the C1, C3 districts, then? MR. LEE: All the provisional uses that are currently allowed in the estates. Churches, child care, nursing homes. All those provisional uses that are currently a/lowed within the estates district would be directed towards these neighbor centers. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. MR. LEE: And then we also would be allowed residential uses as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: So is the concept, then, essentially the same as what we have in our future land use map that we will have mixed uses -- MR. LEE: Correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Within the activity centers? 35 MR. ~EE: Uh-huh. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Densities. In certain of these areas as provisional uses, we've got a density of twenty-six units per acre on some of your adult congregate care facilities, group homes and some of the others. I think one of the discussions that we have had, you know, relates to density. That -- it seems to me, that's fairly intense. MR. LEE: Yeah. We looked at that, and the main consideration in density is the amount of traffic that is generated. And when you look at ACLF's, trip generation is not equivalent to twenty-six typical dwelling units. It's quite -- I'd say it's probably about a tenth of that. So we felt that the trip generation would Justify that amount of intensity. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: In any other area of our community, what would I have to do to get twenty-six units an acre? MR. LEE: Currently, the plan allows for twenty-six units per acre for ACLF's right now. So that's consistent with the county-wide plan. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Other than ACLF, is it 36 consistent? M~. BLANCHARD: Ne have a maximum o£ sixty residential dwelling units per acre in urban area o£ the county. So ACLF's are permitted higher, mainly because of traffic impacts. And we address motels and hotels as transient, which we allow higher density also. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Ail right. The only other question that I had related to the provisional uses. And I understood you to say that one o£ the controls that would he put in place would he that there would be no provisional uses from Santa Barbara along Golden Gate Parkway to Airport Road. MR. LEE: Corect. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Unless there was a provisional use on either side? MR. LEE: Correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: So are we talking about estate size lots for residential development? MR. LEE: Right. All of that property along Golden Gate Parkway is zoned estates. And we felt and there was a pretty strong comment that they didn't want any more provisional uses along the parkway, and we felt that this 37 was a way to control that. Unless you had provisional use on either side, it seemed that that would be appropriate. And given the size of the estates lots, if you're already next to a provisional use, you would have sufficient space to create a buffer. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE: quarter acres? MR. LEE: and a quarter. yOU. Those lots are two and a Typically. Some are smaller. Maybe one Some of the lots are. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Ron, I may have misunderstood On the provisional uses, I thought you said originally that you could not get provisional use on the parkway unless you were bordered on both sides. MR. LEE: Correct. On both sides. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You mentioned either side Just then. So it is both sides? MR. LEE: I meant to say you have to have it on both sides. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I guess I've Just -- considering if what we have said is that residential development along Golden Gate Parkway is inappropriate 00 C10037 38 within the City of Golden Gate for the reasons that Mr. Coletta mentioned, in terms of traffic, major highway, the thought process is with the size of the lot here -- and I understand, you know, the idea of not having those types of provisional uses. I'm Just wondering if there is anything that would prevent those lots from being subdivided. You know, we can subdivide those acre lots into two, and you could end with a -- MR. LEEs (No verbal response; indicating.) VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. So they're limited to the acre size lot? MR. LEE: Those lots can no longer be subdivided further than they currently are. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. So you end up with good-size lots on that area. MR. LEE: Most of those lots are six hundred and sixty feet deep, and so we feel they could be set back from the roadway a sufficient distance. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Those are all the questions I have. MR. COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner. 00 [[0058 39 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commissioner Volpe. Speaking on that, the intensity of the provisional uses at the present time on the parkway to the west of Santa Barbara Boulevard is very intense at the present time and I'm not really -- I don't think it's conducive to add any more to that, unless there was a lot with two provisional uses with one in between or something like that. But I still think it's intense enough, what we have there, and I like the idea of the lower key of a provisional use next to a commercial area on these knolls that you have out in the estates or any other place in the Golden Gate area. That sort of buffers the residential area that is adjacent to it, so I think it's a good idea and makes good sense here. Commissioner Goodnight. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: On the ACLF's. This plan does comply with state law, because you know there was a law that was passed last year about ACLF's and they couldn't have provisional uses if there was so many in the house, I think six or seven or nine or something like that, a~ long as it's a residential area. 4O So you need to make sure that this complies with the state law on that. All right? MS. STUDENT: Yes, Commissioner Goodnight. I haven't looked at that. I am aware that there is a state law on ACLF's. I haven't looked at it recently, so I can't quote chapter and verse what it says, but we will definitely make sure that it complies. MR. KELLER: What's an ACLF? COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Adult Congregate Living Facility. My next question is that, the proposal that Burr was talking about. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: That Mike was talking about. It's really not a question. It's Just a statement. The commercial area along Golden Gate Parkway. I concur with Burr, and I would very much like to see a restaurant or small type restaurant that would meet in with the criteria. I could envision an outdoor type with umbrellas to where they could come in and have soup and sandwich during lunch, and it would be very nice during certain times of the year. oOOC[OO.,IO 41 Right now it's getting a little hot, but I think that would be something that needs to be added. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Commissioner Shenahan? COMMISSIONER SHENAHAN: No questions at this time. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I think what Commissioner Goodnight mentioned might be something to look at in any sense of the word. As you're eating out there, you can feed the mosquitoes of course. At the same time, it's an excellent idea to give a little thought towards that. Are there any other questions from the Commissioner? W~ly don't we -- how many slips do you have up there, Mr. Blanchard? MR. BLANCHARD: CHAIRMAN HASSE: About five or six. All right. Why don't we let the people put some questions to the staff now. What's the first name? MR. BLANCHARD: John Cummings. MR. CUMMINGS.. I would like to pass. CHAIRMAN HASSE: John Cummings. MR. CUMMINGS: I would like to pass for a minute. All right, I'll come up. Do you want me to come up 42 there? CHAIRMAN HASSE: Please. M~. CUMMINGS: My name is John Cummings. I'm a resident of Golden Gate and lived in the estates for about twelve years and I attended most of the committee meetings with the steering committee and I want tO compliment them generally on the work that they did. They put in a lot of time and effort. I have some questions for commissioners or the staff as to what effect the groundwater protection ordinance is Golden Gate to have on these sites you have out here? I understand that there will be no possibility of any of those sites or the ones on Everglades, anyway, having underground fuel tanks and constraints also as far as sewage plants or whatever. And I would like to under -- an answer from you on what the real feasibility of developing any or all of those. I understand that the way those things are going to be drawn up that it will prohibit any realistic commercial development in any of these three here (indicating). CHAIRMAN HASSE: Each one of those is comprised of 43 what is it, how many acres? MR. BLANCHARD: Twenty. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Twenty acres, that's five on each corner, and the feasibility of them going in or when they can go in, I imagine the demand will be the answer to that. As far as the -- MR. CUMMINGS: I mean as far as them being able to meet the constraints of the groundwater protection ordinance that you all are supposed to have in by October. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: He's talking about the well field protection. MR. CUMMINGS: Really, those are in close proximity to the well fields. MR. BLANCHARD: Margte can could expound on that. Because it's a -- goes to outside legal review and determination. MS. STUDENT: Well field protection ordinance is to limit certain types of uses that will have a severe impact of potential impurity on the aquifers. So there would be certain types of uses that may be prohibited, but they also draw zones around the well heads, and with different limitations in different zones -- 00 C1004 44 obviously with the most intense limitations being directly adjacent to the well head -- with the size of the lots. And I believe the first zone around the well head, the way it's proposed right now, is about a hundred feet in diameter that there would still be adequate space for what we see as the type of development that would occur in these neighborhood centers. So in partial answer, it will restrict the types of uses, but it's solely dependent on the type of impacts that those would have on the aquifers and the well. MR. CUM~4INGS: Thank you very much. The other question that I have is I think there is a disagreement with the staff on the adequacy of certain types of commercial areas in the Golden Gate area. I think there should be more places. I know that I have many, many friends that can't find a place to park their trucks that is legal. They can't find a place that they can run a small business that requires some kind of fabrication of screen enclosures or things like that without going all the way over to -- I talked to one man who lives in the estates. Most of his work is in the estates. He has to go all the way over to the V and -- C ¸,0. 45 and J park to fabricate, and then he has to haul it all the way back out here to put it up because there is no place in the Golden Gate area where he can do that legally. And I think they need more property that is zoned so that these types of things can be done. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ I think you're going to find that there is a commercial zone off 951, off to the east. Would you like to speak to that Mr. Blanchard. MR. BLANCHARD: City Gate was recently approved as a commercial entity. Just north of 951. And the Growth Management Plan also has some provision for the expansion of the existing industrial districts in the immediate perimeter around there. So I believe that in that case, you have to go through a plan amendment, but the potential is there for I think adequate industrial space for this type of use. It's Just -- it's not located in the estates, but it is located adjacent to the area and certainly a lot closer than when you have to drive to C and J. MR. CUMMINGS: Right. for right now. Thank you. Well, that's about all I have 46 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. Who is next Mr. Blanchard? MR. BLANCHARD: George Risher. MR. RISHER: You answered all the questions I had. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Good. Next? MR. BLANCHARD: George Keller. MR. KELLER: I wanted to thank each man of the committee for the work on this. They have been very cooperative and done a commendable job. We had to make some concessions, and I think we agreed on most of the things. There is one question that I've got here, and that's on the activity centers in the estates. I think you said something about you could have intensity of twenty-six units. type? MR. LEE: ACLF. MR. KELLER: Of KEL or KLE residential or of some MR. LEE: ACLF. MR. KELLER: And confined to that type of things. Some of the people in the estates have been wondering and worrying that we would have apartment type houses out in some of these deals, you see, and we don't want that. I 47 mean most of the people in the estates do not want that. So if it's Just to take care of older people or something like that, or semi-retired clinic type thing, but whateYer that is, but it's not a residential deal. COM~4ISSIONER SAUNDERS: My understanding of an ACLF, and I'll -- there are no medical facilities in the adult living. MR. KELLER: It's living for some type of people that need some type of you support. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS, The meals and things like that, but no medical facility. MR. KELLER: But we want it very well understood. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There is or isn't? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There can be. MR. KELLER: They could have. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What. MR. KELLER: They could have dining rooms and things. We would have to go have -- CHAIRMAN HASSE: Perhaps Mr. Blanchard could answer that. Barbara Cacchione (previously identified as Cashone). MS. CACCHIONE: There are different types of ACLF's, Adult Congregate Living Facilities. Some of them do include 00 £B0 7 48 congregate eating areas, dining rooms where the people come and take meals. They vary in size as to the type arrangement or facility available. Some don't have eating facilities in the unit, some do. Some can be very small size inside each unit, and some are larger. They can also include medical care, some types of care, housekeeping area care. They really do vary a lot. But they can have all or some of those elements. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Ms. Cacchione. Youth Haven is a group home, if you will. MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: And so is David Lawrence, falling into little different category. On the question of density, the way that we determine density in Youth Haven, for example, was based on one number per acre. There are very various ways of determining the uses. Are we in fact changing that, I hope? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. As you recall, last July we were directed in our plan to adopt -- change our facility for adult and group homes, and we did prepare an ordinance for you last July. The legislation that is pending, that 49 Commissioner Goodnight spoke to that was adopted by the legislature, caused us to pull that from your agenda at that time and make some provisions to it. But you will be seeing some change to the adult for the ACLF, group homes and how we calculate. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Just one last question. Under the proposed Golden Gate Master Plan, where could these types of adult congregate care facilities, group homes, be located? MS. CACCHIONE: In the activity center. MR. LEE: The ACLF's would be limited to the neighborhood centers that had been identified. They also could fall under one of the other mechanisms for provisional uses. The first one being if you were along Golden Gate Parkway and you were in between existing provisional use cases and the adjacent one is -- if you were next to an existing zone for commercial area, you could apply for commercial use adjacent to it. So there are three different areas that -- where you could apply for provisional use. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Could they also be placed in the twenty acre area that we're talking about along Golden 50 Gate Parkway. MR. LEE1 That would not be one of the permitted uses as outlined. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. MR. KELLER: I also would like to clarify one point. In this activity centers you are allowed five acres but no one activity more than two and a half acres. So thi would prevent one -- anybody from taking one five-acre corner and making it one very heavy commercial, and I wanted the public to know that. They -- each one activity in the plan goes for a limit of two and a half acres, so that there would be an opportunity for more than one commercial operation in this activity center, so that one person couldn't buy five acres and sit there and hold it hoping to make a fortune because that's the only one to be put there. So I think that's a very had good point that we had. As far as Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara, that stretch from fifty-six to eighty units, one time it was ninety units. I would hope that -- we have to do something with it. I fully recognize that triplexes with all those cars and trucks sitting out in front are very unattractive. 00 £1 9050 51 There happens to be one triplex on that road on the parkway that is a very, very desirable type thinH. Unfortunately, some of those triplexes are being commercialized in the sense that they take almost anybody in and, unfortunately, maybe that's the only kind of tenants they can Her, and some of them are in terrible shape, and they are not conducive. If someone comes to visit me in Golden Gate Estates, and they ride down that road and see the mess that it's in, they wonder what kind of outfit I'm living in. So I'm not in favor of the present junky situation. However, I would hope that we -- if we would do that it -- some type of low intensity or professional, that we would follow the plan similar to the plan that the staff has suHgested so they have so many curb breaks and well landscaped so it will be -- we have a beautiful part of that parkway, that we spent quite a bit of money on putting the meridian in, and it doesn't make sense to ha'.~e a beautiful median and have shacks on both sides. And strip zoning is out. I don't think -- if we put that into straight strip zoning like the rest of the Growth Management Plan, I don't think the state would accept it 00 3£10o51 52 because it's now no longer considered good planning. So anything we do, please, let's follow staff's advice and have -- have those properties combined in some way and have less curb cuts and have some adequate, adequate buffering in the front so that those things look like something when we come into Golden Gate Estates. Secondly, I will say this: That there is a problem with too many little stores. We're going to get a K-Mart, and the reason why people go from Golden Gate Estates to the city -- I haven't been down on Fifth Avenue for ten years. And years ago -- I have been here over twenty-one years. Years ago, if you wanted a hardware store, you had to go down to the hardware store. That was the hardware store. we have developed so that we have a number of shopping centers with stores like K-Mart and Wal-Mart, so that people I think when we get the K-Mart -- I hardly ever shop out of Golden Gate City now. Even if I'm in Naples and come back with groceries, I would rather go uo Winn-Dixie or Florida Choice in Golden Gate than give them the business in the city, so I wait until I Get home. And if we have a K-Mart, and that K-FArt is, incidentally, is a pretty big piece of property. That's 53 going to be a big shopping center, not just K-Mart there. We're going to have pretty much all the adequate shopping we need in Golden Gate. So if we put too many little strip stores in there, what is going to -- what you're going to find out is they're vacant, a mess and then take in anything, used furniture stores in there, all kinds of Junk, Just like there is in Anderson Avenue in Ft. Myers. So we have to be very, very careful not to create a problem that's going to be a problem in the future. MR. BLANCHARD: Neno Spagna. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Mr. Spagna. MR. SPAGNA: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Neno Spagna. I'm a sole planning consultant here, and I represent four individual property owners as well as the property owners along Golden Gate Parkway, and I too have attended all of the meetings that the committee has held, and in the very beginning I had many concerns with respect to the way the area was being planned, and -- that is, I did not personally, but my clients. However, during the process of the hearings that were held, we were able to work almost all of them out to the 54 satisfaction of people that I represent. There were some cases in which I withdrew certain considerations which I was asking the Board to look into or which I was asking the Commission, and there were some concerns which were eventually incorporated into the plan that we have before us this evening. There were two main concerns that I had that have not been addressed satisfactorily to the class that I represent. One of them is the Golden Gate Parkway. I think there has been enough discussion on it, and I can simply say that I too and the people that I represent believe that that should be rezoned or should be designated for future commercial use of some type. I would say that I did hear a plan from the staff this evening, alternate number two, in which I believe they were considering combining commercial with professional use, and I'm not familiar with the details of that, but I think that something along that line would be satisfactory with the property owners along Golden Gate Parkway. The other parcel of lands that I represent is the parcel of land that lies immediately north of the Florida 55 Power and Light distribution station, and currently zoned E estates. It's going to be very difficult to develop this into a home with the amenities that a property owner would expect to gain as a home owner living on that lot, and we have repuested -- and at one time I believe it had been accepted by the study committee -- to have that designated for future commercial use of some type. We have never asked and the property owner does not intend to put a very industrial commercial use in there. He understands and he knows too that there is residential property north of it. Our feeling has always been that it should be used either as a very limited type of commercial use or some type of transitional use that would fit in and be a good buffer between the Florida Power and Light station and the residential to the north of it. And I would like to suggest and ask that the Board consider that this be designated for some type of a very limited and restricted commercial use and that a condition of that designation be that it would require a PUD proposal at the time of the request for the rezoning, so that there could be no question and the Board could place whatever restrictions they felt were necessary on there to allow that 56 parcel of land to be a very desirable transitional area between the Florida Power and Light and the residential area to the north. And the last comment that I had was a very general comment, and that is: Throughout this report, I see such verbiage as shall be consolidated with adjoinin9 commercial developments and shall be subject do workin9 out agreements with the abuttin9 property owners and such wording, and this makes me very uncomfortable because it puts the property owner at the behest of his neighborhood or property owner, and I don't think that's fair. I don't think a person should have -- he should be able to develop his land without 9oing with his hat in his hand to the Commission. So I would like to su99est two followin9 solutions to that. The first solution would be that the county staff work out some type of a plan whereby everyone who came in and petitioned would know beforehand where the access was going to be and where you could put his project so that he could draw his plans accordingly. And the second one, which probably would be somewhat easier, would be simply to add a few more words on the end of those requirements to make it read, for example: 006£1 056 57 Driveways and curb cuts for projects within the commercial infill area shall be consolidated with adjoining commercial development. And then add the following: Unless provided otherwise by the county. And I think this would allow the staff to achieve what they are attempting to do by making the -- by restricting the access and by creating some uniformity. But -- but at the same time if the petitioner working with the staff and the adjacent property owner is not able to work out any kind of a solution, well, then the Board would have the option of reviewing it and perhaps waiving some part or all of that requirement. Like all of others, I feel that there is not enough commercial property out here. There may be enough to the year of 2000, which I question, but when Mr. Lee said "and beyond," that made me a little bit nervous. I can't in any way see that there is enough commercial at the present time, much less and beyond. So I certainly agree with the rest of the people who feel that there should be some more commercial, and in my mind -- in my mind, it's not a question of whether we need 58 commercial or not and whose measurements you're going to use to make the determination, but to me where should we put it. And the sooner it's put somewhere, the better off we will be because then it will be there and everybody will know about it. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Mr. Spagna, where is that property that you said is immediately north. MR. SPAGNA: Immediately north of the power station on 951. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: How big is it? MR. SPAGNA: I believe it's a lot and a half, which would be seven and a half acres. MR. BLANCHARD: Timothy Constantine. MR. CONSTANTINE: For the record, I'm Tim Constantine, president of the Golden Gate Civic Association. First of all, I wanted to commend the staff on coming up with a second option. I know they have been out and talked to our chambers of commerce and a number of groups, and they have heard that over and over. And I look forward to seeing that. A couple of quick comments on the parkway. The 59 aesthetics are one thing that concern me. People come in to the community, we want something pleasing to the eye, and somehow owners of an operating business, in my mind, would tend to be more apt to keep up their property so it's aesthetically pleasing than renters from typically absentee owners. I think if you look up and down the highway at some of the du and triplexes, it pretty much speaks for itself as to how they are kept up. But the real comment is on growth out here. The comment was made that we have enough commercial to last through 2000 and perhaps beyond, and I have to disagree. I'm sure you're familiar with a 1988 study, I believe it was done for the county, by the Plan Tech Corporation, of Growth Throughout Collier County. And that projects that the city of Golden Gate will have over thirty-eight thousand people, and if you combine the estates with it, forty-six thouoand four hundrod and n~noty poople are projected to bo here by the year 2005. If the business association's survey holds true, fifty percent of the people are already going into Naples for business now. Certainly if we double the size of how many people are here, we do not have enough commercial use. 60 So I just want staff to perhaps go back and look at those numbers. If we're going to have forty-six, forty-seven thousand people here, we certainly don't have enough commercial use for them. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. CONSTANTINE~ MR. BLANCHARD~ MR. CONSTANTINE: Do you have a -- Anything on that? (No verbal answer; indicating.) Okay. MR. BLANCHARD~ Just one comment on that, Mr. Chairman. Not to be argumentative. What the staff has said is not that there is enough commercial development out there, that there is enough commercial acreage. The problem is that you find people going into Naples for the type service that does not exist here. The opportunity for development is there, in the staff's opinion. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. BLANCHARD: CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you. Ross McIntosh. Mr. McIntosh. MR. McINTOSH: For the record, my name is Ross McIntosh. I live at 2746 66th Street Southwest. I want to 61 address two issues. The first is the progosed multi-family or commercial along the 9arkway. My sense of it is that the community is best served by the ogtion two. And with all due respect -- but with all due respect to Commissioners Saunders and Goodnight, I would like to reflect just for a moment on the discussion we had about the absence of additional right-of-way for widening the 9arkway. The comments that we have just heard about the burgeoning population out here. The likelihood is that where we're going to end up getting this property for the right-of-way is from the median that everyone thinks is so attractive, and the fact that that process will be accelerated decelerated from whatever develoTs alongside of the parkway. So I simply want to caution the commissioners, when we begin to talk about intensity of the commercial activities in there, that the down side is that which are Comprehensive Plan was designed to avoid. You know, we talked about concentrating the commercial at intersections so the traffic could flow freely between them, and now we're dabbling with that or at our 00 3 10061 62 peril. So I'm simply here to support the staff's recommendation relative to low intensity commercial, the option two, with the emphasis on low intensity. The second area that I would like to address is the matter of the activity centers, the multi -- multi-use activity centers. I thought for a moment that Commissioner Volpe was following my train of thought when he talked about future activity centers. My thought is really along the lines of what I would call tiered activity centers. My understanding of the Comprehensive Plan as it's currently set up is that if I'm a church and I need a site in the urban area and I looked towards Golden Gate, I can be on the parkway between existing provisional uses or I can be in one of the identified nodes. ~ The difficulty with that concept is that I'm now -- relative to these nodes, I'm now in competition with the commercial users~ so when I go out here, there are property owners on four corners and until there are two active commercial entities there, the seller is holding out for a commercial buyer rather than my institutional use, my quite appropriate community use. 63 So my inclination is to -- that leads me to the idea that maybe what we need are, yes, these multi-use centers, but what about a second tier, a provisional use actively center, if you will. One that comes to mind immediately is Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. For example, we have Grey Oaks. I think they Just -- you were there, I wasn't. Did they get commercial in the southwest quadrant of that intersection today? MR. BLANCHARD: MR. McINTOSH: at any rate. It hasn't been before the Board yet. I'm sorry. They are asking for that, And we have Florida Power and Light on the other corner, and we have Wyndemere which is, whatever it was, their sales center. And then there is a five-acre tract that sits at that corner, and some day that will be very busy as crossing the bridge Getting to the canal. That strikes me as a potential future use. I'm not suggesting commercial, but a future professional actively center. Another one that comes to mind is actually developed and might as well be designated as such is Oaks and Vanderbilt Road, where we have a school and a park and a 00 C 0063 church within the estates and a home that has been constructed. You know, that just -- as a matter of fact, emerged as an activity center. We have Oaks Boulevard where it crosses Vanderbilt and runs into the Harvey Brothers Farm which is some day going to be, obviously, a major PUD. We have 951 and Vanderbilt Road, 951 is being four laned. Again the Harvey Brothers Farm. So I begin to see -- what I'm looking for is opportunities for the uses that the community needs that should not be -- legitimately be in competition with commercial uses. That's why churches spring up where they do and not at the corner of Pine Ridge and Airport Road, for exampl e. And so I suggest to the Commission that what we might consider ~s a secondary, no commercial, secondary activity center. Take a look at the intersections. By the way, I think most of them are well west of 1-75 or -- I should say 951, and they are the result of roads that used to be local roads through the estates that now have been linked into the county network. Santa Barbara, after all, used to be a short road extending 65 through the estates and now it will go from Rattlesnake- Hammock -- from 41, in fact, all the way to Immokalee Road. It has changed in character and all the little intersections have changed in character. And so I would like to propose that we consider a tiered secondary center, so that churches, daycare centers, ACLF's, are not competing with circle. MR. LEE: We did explore that use. Secondary neighborhood center. And we received quite a bit of opposition to that concept from the committee and from the general public. They wanted to see a limited number of these types of neighborhood centers and were very adverse to permitted provisional use at inter -- at every interser~tion, and that's primarily one reason why we didn't include it. It wasn't in our -- it has filtered out from committee and public comment. So that idea was considered at one time. MR. McINTOSH: I hope that we don't conclude that it's a bad idea, but merely that it's an idea that has fallen by the way side. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That was a consideration, what was 66 looked at very carefully, so we wouldn't have a hodgepodge of them. Because after all, the area that you're talking about is the estates, and they're trying to preserve the character of the estates. MR. McINTOSHt MR. BLANCHARD= MR. MELCHORE: Thank you. Jim Melchore. For the record, I'm Jim Melchore. Chairman, Advisory, Beautification of the Golden Gate Parkway. The comment was just made previously to this -- inferred, I believe -- that indeed the parkway beutification m~ght be wiped out by the enlargement of Golden Gate Parkway. This is not true. As given to me by George Archibald. Yes, indeed, there is six laning of Golden Gate, but only two at Santa Barbara. Now we are very much concerned Golden Gate City, we who are paying for the beautification of the parkway. So we certainly have interest in what's going in there. To date, it appears to us -- at least to me -- that indeed what we have is a hodgepodge of activity along the parkway. We have two gasoline stations and accompanied by 67 convenience stores to go with it. We have squeezed in a car wash. We have squeezed in a Jiffy quick oil change, and what's worse than that, we have just most recently put in a drive-throuGh liquor soda store which is now up for sale, and the configuration of this particular store, I cannot see is going to become anything but an eyesore, because I can't see what else can go in that place. So, indeed, I do concur with what's being said. We do need to confer with a review committee, particularly for other part of the parkway which is going to make it commercial. I do not like to see duplexes. They do not add anything, but this does not add to it, what we have out here nOW. It's sad that it has gone by. Thank you. MR. BLANCHARD: is Alan Moniz. MR. RITCHIE: David Ritchie. Following Tom Grant For the record, my name is Dave Ritchie. I am a committee member. The first thing is, I just want to restate what Mr. Coletta said. The majority of the Steering Committee is in favor of commercial to the parkway. No offense, George. 68 I wanted to ask Ron and Bob~ The two public meetings and the survey that went out, what would you say the public's input was regarding the parkway? MR. LEE: I can check the results of that survey. Do you want me to state the percentage of the people that were in favor of that concept? MR. RITCHIE~ I'm trying to determine -- let's say with the survey. Was it a majority, was it less than a majority that was in favor of the parkway? MR. LEE= Within the whole study, including the city and the Golden Gate Estates, forty-three -- there were three options. Alternative two was the commercial, and that alternative received forty-three percent of the response. So I would say that based on the survey, a majority of the people within the total study are in support of the commercial along the parkway. MR. RITCHIE: Would you say in the majority of the public meetings that the people felt they were in favor? MR. LEE: This is a result of the brochure. COMMISSIONER SHENAHAN: Did you mention a number of percentage? I didn't hear it. MR. LEE= I said forty-three percent. 69 MR. RITCHIE~ I Just wanted you to be aware of what we were told through this whole process. Thirdly, I guess the Golden Gate Parkway, I would hate to see it look like a third world area. If you see the proliferation of brand new not too long ago and now run down, defiled and dirty. And you see all the old cars there. Not terribly attractive. I don't think -- I know staff raised a question in the past about nobody wants to -- on a road that, the size of the parkway -- do anything that would increase traffic flow. That was a concern. I don't think we want to. I think what we want to propose is a type of commercial which is only going to serve us the needs we have now but into the future and based on the population figures. So it's not going to increase -- Just serve us now and what our needs are now. The last comment is the -- the staff refers to DCA in Tallahassee almost wanting them to give them what they like. I would hate to see you give in or the Commission vote to give DCA everything they like instead of what the public likes. You know, it's overwhelming support for the 000(;[0069 70 commercial on the parkway. Civic association, Chamber of Commerce, the business association, surveys, businesses, all want it. So I would hate to see the DCA intimidate us. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We will not let them intimidate us. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. MR. BLANCHARD: Tom Grant. MR. GRANT: Good evening. I was one of the original people that got this thing going on the parkway. I have lived in Collier County on and off for over twenty years. I have published phone books in Golden Gate and Golden Gate Estates and Immokalee for over ten years. I feel I know the area. I know the people. The only reason basically that I got [nvolved in it is because I bought -- I bought it for a multi-family -- a four-plex on the parkway. But I talked to some of the people in there after I bought it. I thought about putting a duplex up or a triplex, and they basically discouraged me~ tough time renting, keeping people there, basically a revolving door. And because I knew business people, I started doing my own survey. And does it make sense. O0 }CIO0?O 71 And by tr&velinq with my father since a kid, I got a chance to see what made a good or bad city and usually when you have a qood downtown district, well maintained and kept, I think the pride of the business people filters down through the Dride of the community -- pride of the community back to the pride of the business peoDle. I think it's Just a hand in glove situation. And especially now that the parkway is beautified. I don't think there is any prettier parkway or median in Marco Island or wherever in the county. But basically some of the statistics, just so that you all know. I'll Just quote a couple here so all of you understand. Roughly over five thousand Golden Gate residences would be constructed in Golden Ga~e City. You're talkin~ already ninety blocks of multi-family property. According to a study done, fifty hundred, and twenty-seven lots can be used for duplex, triplex dwellings. More than twenty-five percent has been set aside for duplex and triplex. I think that's quite a bit for the community of this size in this type of area. Ail to~ether, we're talking about thirty-five and five thousand -- units can be possibly built on for O00CIOo?I 72 multi-family units, which a city like this. Five thousand residential units. Also -- I did my own little survey, because of doing this, to tell you how many lots there are. There are basically not eighty. There are fifty-four. The lots are a hundred and twenty-five by a hundred and twenty-five. We're not trying to put a K-Mart on every piece of property. I'm a small businessman. I used to own my hometown restaurant and I was very proud of it, and my lot was eighty feet wide. I don't know, for a hundred and twenty-five. I guess for Florida, a major grandeur, a major complex here. Can a small business person like me cope with a hundred and twenty-five lot. I'm saying, to me that's more than enough for what I want to put on, for my small business. But there are forty-four lots there. We have talked about the property owners. We have talked for six years. This is the third set of commissioners I have been in front of. The staff, I don't know how many staff people I have gone through, since they switch jobs quite a bit. The point is, I did this survey on the faith. At one 00( ( 0072 73 point, there were thirty-eight percent of the multi-family units up for sale. That's sixteen out of forty units on the parkway. Why are they selling? Why do they want out? They can't maintain it. Because they can't maintain a good enough clientele in there to keep it painted and keep the beauty of the place to get the renter in there. So that's why. Some of these statistics, I feel are very very important. And Just a couple others. We went out and we took petition names. We have close to -- over eight hundred, close to a thousand petition names. Golden Gate people. Not Marco people. Not North Naples. Not Naples. Golden Gate residents. And they are all signed. We all have forty-six property owners on both sides of the highway, within three hundred feet, which is a criteria which commissioner had me go out and -- Alan and myself -- instructed me to go out and talk to these property owners, because they are the only people who would possibly say we don't want this done. So this is the criteria of the county to do what we have done. We have basically done it 74 over the six years. But -- we want staff and county to let us go ahead and develop this and do it in a proper fashion like you're saying. But forty-six property owners on within three hundred feet of both sides of the street. They all agree. They don't want multi-family. I don't know of anyone else who wants multi-family on the parkway, but -- and that's concluded. We don't want a hodgepodge either. We want to comply with the county. I can show you a hundred and twenty-five building lots, commercial, that make unique and very desirable type looking buildings and parking for small business people like myself and like a beauty shop and that type of thing. But the point is -- and I feel very s~.rongly about it. This is your entryway, and you better believe it, downtown street, and we have one shot at it. And if this property develops with more multi-family, you're not going to want to drive through to go to the K-Mart or to our nice new shopping center either. As far as commercial, I don't know where you guys come up with your statistics. I won't get into it all, because I'm so flustered through the years with what we're 75 trying to do, but basically the community is behind us. Ail the property owners are behind us. We have had different commissioners behind us. But it seems like every time I miss a window of opportunity. Now we Just missed another window, and I'm afraid I'm going to miss another window where we don't get you who have been out here to listen to the people. We want some action. We don't care what Tallahassee thinks. We're the ones who live here and be here. That's more important to me and, I think, to the community. Because I don't care what's going on in Tallahassee. We're having a tough enough time here. But I appreciate your time, and I do have more statistics, but there is no sense in beating a dead horse, so to speak. Plus, I didn't have all the materials. I didn't realize this was going to be such a formal situation. Otherwise, I would have brought some of my renderings that we have already had done. And one of the things that we did propose for the property owners. On the one in and out for two hundred and fifty feet. That's quite a bit of difference. If property 76 owners split that -- say I own that one driveway. I can split it with the guy next door. That is good business sense. And aesthetically, too, because basically, he would be on the same theme that I would be. W~atever you come up with, I appreciate your time, and I pray that we can get a vote from you before anything else changes here. CHAIPJ~AN HASSE: Mr. Grant, I thank you for steering me in the right direction. That's been a number of years, and quite frankly, I have been working on this for a number of years to see what can be done. One only has to go take the drive and see the triplexes that are a little bit east of here. I don't hesitate to say that. We see our code enforcement. And Mr. Clark, I would like to talk to you and take you up the block here. There must be a whole household of furniture on the curb, and I'm trying to figure out what to do about it now. And so before you leave. In any case, I support what you're saying, Mr. Grant. I know the work that you have done, and you have done a fantastic job. And if I had looked at what is being proposed by the committee and listening to you now, it is as 77 though your dream has come true as far as this goes, because it's absolutely the right way to go. And I assure you, I'm going to push for that. MR. MONIZ: My name is Alan Moniz, and I have worked with Tom for a while on this project too, for about six years. And although Tom is a business person, I'm Just a concerned citizen. And I started out -- I lived on Golden Gate Parkway for six years, and I can tell you some personal experiences, one of which motivated me to start working on this project, and I was talking with one of the tenants on Golden Gate Parkway. And her little three-year-old daughter was right there as she was talking with me -- and the daughter couldn't reach the pedals on the tricycle -- and even though it seemed like a fraction of a second, that child rolled out into the parkway and was almost killed by a car. And I thought, "I've got to do something about it because this is no way for people to live," which is one reason they can't keep tenants on the Golden Gate Parkway. It's no place to live, bring up a family. And I got ahold of Tom, and we started off in the direction of the -- and I 00(IL10O77 78 thought, what better way -- because I deliver mail -- than to talk to people that know. And Iow and behold, I have over eight hundred people that were glad that somebody took up the issue because they felt the same thing that I felt along Golden Gate Parkway, and these people -- I don't know about you, but I wouldn't give my telephone number to a stranger. But all of these people not only gave me names and addresses but also telephone numbers and said, "Go on, go to it." These are concerned people like myself. I have a regular speech here, but I'm not going to get into it because it has been rehashed and I don't want to go over it again. But these people are very concerned about what happens to their community. In Golden Gate, we are working people. We cannot make these meetings that are in the morning or afternoon. Sometimes I have waited a whole day there waiting to be heard, and I can understand the frustration. Some of these people are holding two and three Jobs to keep a family Going. It's not that they don't care. They are busy earning a living for their family. That's 00(IC10O78 79 what Golden Gate is, a bunch of average ty]~e families. And what I have heard is, time and time again, is they work hard for their property and property value, and they feel that what's going in on Golden Gate is bringing their property value down. And this is the biggest asset that they have, and of course their livelihood. And I was really surprised and taken by talking to these people and wanted to convey this to you, to Commission and to staff and to the planning. I don't understand a lot of legality, but I can tell you on a layman's term. That making a pleasing aesthetic theme, low density, whatever; not duplexes, not single family, but something commercial. I would like to see Golden Gate, you know, have a downtown area. And it may be make this an -- a part of the downtown area along with your activity centers. I'm so glad that so many people are for it. And I thank you, too. I thank the committee who have worked very hard. I have been to most of their meetings, and they have gone over it with staff time and time ago again. And I thank you and I know you have dedicated your time, and -- because you are concerned citizens, and I truly 8O applaud you. And I thank you for hearing me out. MR. BLANCHARD: Kathleen Returns, followed by Dick Clark. MS. REEMS: My name is Kathleen Reems. 18th Avenue Northwest. I live on I'm also here to speak in favor the Master Plan. I think the county staff have done an outstanding J ok on this plan, but I would also like to say that I and most of the people that I have spoken to, and that's quite a few -- my neighbors, members of the Estates Area Civic Association, consider this plan to be a compromise that we can live with. We're -- I think most of us would be happy never ever to have to hear the word provisional use again. And the same with commercial. We did not move -- I did not move out to Golden Gate Estates to find myself next door an asphalt parking lot with two hundred cars, which is something that just recently happened to me, with a church that was that is going to go up on Oaks Boulevard. So the concept of the neighborhood, the areas for 81 provisional uses is a good one. And I also think that, with regard to the gentleman who spoke before who wants a secondary of provisional uses, we really already have that because, as I understand, there is provision for provisional uses to Go in next to -- as a buffer, next to the, between the commercial or provisional uses, another provisional use and then the residential. Is that not correct? MR. LEE: RiGht. MS. REEMS~ So we really already have that. So I don't want to hear that I need commercial, that I need the conveniences, that I need stores close to me. If I wanted that, I would have moved into Golden Gate City. So I want to thank the committee, and I would also like to thank the County Planning Staff, and I hope that when the time comes to pass this plan that you would, you will do it with no tinkering and tamperinG. MR. BLANCHARD: Dick Clark. And then the last speaker registered is Donald Beacraft. MR. CLARK: Thank you. I would like to say that obviously, I know the planners quite well. I have a great deal of respect for them. They are extremely knowledgable 00 £ 0081 82 and very honest individuals. The issue I would like to address, if I may, is somethin9 that Commissioner Hasse has addressed, and the issue is the Golden Gate Parkway. I can tell you from enforcement viewpoint -- I have a little knowledge about that -- that it is impossible, the 9rearer you have of a concentration of multi-family on a busy thoroughfare, the more improbable that you're going to get a high-class renter. If you have a duplex and triplexes on a highly traveled area, you're going to get a high transient type renter over and over and over and over again. When you have that, you have couches thrown out; you have furniture thrown out; you have people who don't take care of their property. You have property owners, many of them get very discouraged, they realize that they bought into something that they're not going to get their money out, so they don't put much money in. That creates further deterioration in the appearance, the aesthetics of the property. The ones around -- the same thing happens. Why put more money when the nextdoor neighbors don't. It becomes a very down turn economic burden. 83 I would encourage a lot of study, and I know there has been some, and I know there has been a lot of study in it and new theory. I know what the books say, and the planning books and the theory is fine. But in fact, I'll tell you~ The probability of us -- and it's mt money, your money, all of the taxpayers' money paying enf~ rcement people out there to keep this looking nice -- in the end, if all of these property kuild up to duplexes, I would be -- frankly, I would have to probably assign at least two more enforcement people Just to that area to keep it looking halfway decent. That's my -- that's probably the -- Just half of what I have to say, but I would urge very much if -- and I'm not being factitious in saying it. If we have to have an alternative between multi-family, duplexes, triplexes, et cetera, along the parkway, I would much rather see the county buy it and turn it into a passive park, because what we're going to get -- and Commissioner Hasse is absolutely correct, we have several on the parkway that over and over we have sent people to court, we have fined them, we have done about everything else. But once you get that person to court, you fine that 84 person, you get that next thing done, you have to continue over and over and over. I will tell you, you can't keep up. It's impossible to keep up with that type of transients turnover. And to have that part of Golden Gate, a very desired, nice part of Golden Gate, exposed to that probability -- and it's more than a possibility, it's a probability -- I would like to encourage some other thoughts. Thank you. MR. BLANCHARD: MR. BEACRAFT: Donald Beacraft. Ladies and gentlemen. I would like to speak in support of the existing zoning provisions for provisional use, not only as existing in today's zoning laws but particularly in the new programs where you were setting aside areas adjacent to commercial properties for provisional uses zoning. I think this is something that we need very very badly. Nobody wants to live next door a big supermarket and have a nice seventy or eighty or ninety or $100,000 home. There has to be that transition from the commercial venture down to the residential area. And so I would so request that we continue the 85 provisional uses that now exist and particularly as the program is presented. CHAIRMAN HASSE: MR. BLANCHARD: here. Thank you. That's the last one. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That was the last one. I'm very thankful for all of the people who came This was an informal meeting for the Commission, and it's not a formal meeting wherein we can take a vote or anything, but when it comes before the Planning Board, and understand and I hope the staff has got a message here tonight in regards to the two areas that there was a option on, of commercializing as has been presented here tonight, by many of the people and the committee. Commercializing, which was the only ~]ifference that the committee had, if I recall correctly, Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: No difference. CHAIRMAN HASSE: What? MR. KELLER: We were at pretty much in accord with number two, that we looked into the commercial with the curb cuts. So there was no diversion. CHAIRMAN HASSE: There wasn't, except that the committee, the staff has looked at the other end of it. And 86 so the staff has heard people from Golden Gate area, and I trust that we can move forward in that direction. Mr. Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Before we break, I think we probably can give the staff some direction in terms of preparing for the next series of public hearings, and I would like to see if there is just a general consensus on a couple things. One is it sounds like we have a consensus on developing the downtown office commercial district. I would like also to see if there is any consensus for taking a look at expanding some of the uses, and I think Commissioner Goodnight and I mentioned the possibility of a restaurant or things of that nature. I would like to see some discussion of some expansion of those uses. I don't know if the Com~ission would agree to that. And also I would like to see if the Commission agrees with the discussion of an architectural, some type of a theme for Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Basically, I think that's a good idea, Commissioner Saunders, and I don't know if we can do 87 it here and now or not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just in terms of general consensus. CHAIRMAN HASSE: In terms of general consensus, of course. I can assure you that we won't take a motion on it, but would everybody be in accord with looking to the possibility of, architectural review sort, of an area such as we're looking at in Golden Gate? COMMISSIONER SHENAHAN: I certain would. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I certainly would. MR. DELLECAVE: Is it possible -- is it possible to put in an amendment to work in with their architectural review -- to give it a little more. Working with some of staff? CHAIRMAN HASSE: I think that might be a good idea. And work with the staff and come up with that, Frank. I think would be a good idea. Now the other one you thought of was the possibility of adding something that would be sort of compatible with the kind of buildings that we're talking about. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the limitation of 88 uses may be a little restrictive, and I would like to see some more thought on some additional uses. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ As long as we know that there is MR. KELLER: No gas station. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: On Commissioner Saunders idea, I think that's well made, but under the proposal we've got, there is some discretion with the development, develop designee to allow for additional uses. So it's not Just those five. I think we ought to proceed cautiously. COMMISSIONER SHENAHAN: Flexibile. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Yeah. The clause there that allows the flexibility that %~,.'re looking for. I guess the one thought, the restaurant or a cafe. thought the suggestion that that Commissioner Goodnight made, the outdoor cafe, that's sort of a low intensity use as opposed to an I -- you know, some sort of a fast food restaurant. So that's just some cautionary words. That may be in keeping with what the staff has come up with. There may be sufficient flexibility to allow those provisional uses that 000CI10o88 89 I have identified. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ I think what is happening here is basically we are giving staff a lot of things to look at, and I think they'll come forward and take into consideration what Commissioner Goodnight suggested. I'm sure she wasn't talkinq about a fast food restaurant or anything. She was talking about a quiet luncheon place. And I see nothing wrong with that. And it was -- you have that lattitude here to add that kind of a thing into it. I'm directing staff -- if they're listening. All right? COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: I think what I was looking at was something with a minimum amount of seating of not in the -- and I would think that you should have some type of a maximum amount of square footage, also. Say, possibly anywhere from fifty to seventy-five total occupancy, and that may be too much, but -- and no drive-through or anything like that. It wouldn't be a fast food, so to speak. It would be more a place that the people in that area could go and have lunch without having to get in their cars 90 and get on the highway and drive somewhere to eat. CHAIRMAN HASSE: That's an excellent idea. And I think you would take that into consideration. You will probably pass this by the committee again or will you have any more meetings with the committee at all? MR. LEE: I think the committee -- staff would like to reconvene. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Why don't we do that and forward it to the Commission and then bring it on to the Planning Board. Okay? MR. LEE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Okay. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: One of the other things. When Mr. Spagna talked about that zoning next door to FP&L. I would like to see a high type -- low type commercial. I say high because I'm talking about maybe one, two, commercial type that would be in there that would have to be a PUD so that we could make sure that we had plenty of side setbacks and everything. Because the way that I'm looking at it, that was abutting the road on the north side, and then anything past that would be a good residential 91 area. And I don't know, maybe you need to think about that for a little bit. But if and when, whatever is going to the north side -- south side and the north side is in there, there is not much of a buffer in there. I don't know. I don't know how much acreage it is, but we ought to think about it. Especially if we can think of lower intensity commercial. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Commissioner Goodnight, how about something that is being proposed along the parkway in here, some type of a professional office uses? COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: That would be if -- he suggested that it would be in a PUD so we could have some restrictions as to what was going to be in there, the setbacks, the landscaping and everything so the Commission, when the PUD was approved, would have a little more flexibility than we would have Just zoned that way. MR. BLANCHARD: I'm not sure of the physical description of the property, the road and everything. It's important to determine if this is one of the transitional sites already where we would allow provisional uses alonG. 92 COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ That would be fine, too, as long as the property owner knows. I didn't understand it as being that way. MR. BLAANCHARD: W"nat it does not allow is commercial. It allows the provisional use. But we will connect the physical strips of the property along the road. CHAIRMAN HASSE: But Just so we don't have a strip zoning up there. We don't need any more of that along 951 going north there. At the present time, we're dual laning 951, and let's keep it that way. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: And there is one other thing. On the group homes. We need to make sure that everybody understands that group homes can move into residential areas if they meet that criteria of the number, according to state law, without any type of provisional use or rezone or anything. So we need to make sure that everybody understands that part of it and make sure that that gets into the Master Plan so that people that are coming in in the future that at least will be able to see that this is part of the plan. MR. BLANCHARD: We can do that. 93 CHAIRMAN HASSE: Ail right. I want to thank everybody for being here and having an input here. I would like, speaking personally and for the Commission, and I would like to once more to thank the committee for the fine Job. And George, we're in good shape. (Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.) 0O0(]]OO93