Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/25/1990 S Naples, F/or/da, July 25, 1990 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners ~n and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(e) of such special districts as iii-~i have been created according to /aw and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Ellie Hoffman and Annette Guevin, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Mar3orle Student, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator; Barbara Cacchione, David Weeks, B~ll Laverty, Ron Lee, Elly Soto, Michelle Edwards, Patty Sikowski, Planners; Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; Robert Wiley, Engineering Project Manager; Jeff Perry, Chief Transportation Planner; and Deputy Scott Barnett, Sheriff,s July 25, 1990 ~;"-' Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on ~ July 17, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Commissioner Hasse stated that the amendments to the Density g System and the Transportation Circulation Element will be pre- sented first. Commissioner Volpe advised that he will be excusing himself from the meeting for about an hour and a half this morning and questioned i(' .the number of votes that are required with regard to the amendments. Assistant County Attorney Student advised that this is the preli- minary transmittal stage, and three votes are required. Planner Laverty indicated that this public hearing is to consider amendments to the Growth Management Plan for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He noted that after the 90 day ~!i! review period by DCA, another public hearing will be held in January, ~ 1991, as an adoption hearing. He stated that the Plan provides for a ~publtc petition process to request amendments to the Growth Management and 5 requests for amendments have been submitted, but one has been withdrawn. ~. Mr. Laverty requested that Petition CP-90-4 be heard after Item 'III G, since this is contingent upon the Urban Industrial Land Use iDes/gnat/on amendment. ;-'.:'' Chief Transportation Planner Perry called attention to Page LU-I-31, Future Land Use Element, Density Rating System, Roadway Access. He recalled concerns that have been expressed during the past '..several months with regard to Rezone Petitions and the Density Points have been granted when connections have been provided to existing iproJects and future access connections to agricultural lands that have ~ot yet been planned, or may not be planned in the future. He advised that the Density Points granted, under the current Plan, allow ! unit per acre when a connection is made to an existing pro- Page 2 Suly 25, 1990 "ii~.~ect or when a future connection is provided. a: Mr. Perry stated that after reviewing the Commission's concerns, ~ Staff recommended that the additional unit not be granted and require the connections, but if they were not provided, one dwelling unit would be taken away. He noted that Staff felt that this provided an incentive to keep the 4 units per acre and there would be a benefit to -. the County by having interconnections to the adjacent projects. Mr. Perry explained that the Collier Gounty Planning Commission (CCPC) did not agree with Staff's recommendation, and they recommended · the 1 unit per acre bonus density be reduced to 1/2 residential dwelling unit, but if the interconnect/on was not provided the density _ would remain at what the Comp Plan allowed. He reported that the CCPC i~ felt that there should be some incentive to have the developers pro- vide the tnterconnecttons. Commissioner Volpe related that many times the tnterconnecttons are meaning/ess because the petitioner has no control over the pro- perty which adjoins his project and it does not connect to an existing i~... road and there is no commitment that he can provide this at some later point in time. He stated that if the tnterconnectton is to be pro- ~i~i;-!vided at some later point in time, he agrees that there should be some ': type of an Incentive, i.e. 1/2 unit per acre. Commissioner Saunders concurred with Commissioner Volpe s remarks and noting that there have been situations when the Plan required that ~' the developer be provided with an extra unit per acre for the inter- connect which was absurd. He stated that there needs to be some ~incenttve to the property owners for providing interconnections without getting into the density issue. ',. Mr. Perry indicated that other incentives could be examined. He noted that many times the connection ts provided to a future undeve- ':loped, unplanned tract of land and ~t becomes Staff's responsibility when the in-fill project comes tn that there is an Incentive for the ]nterconnectton. He stated that both of the developers receive the : The developer who provides the stUb to the adjacent vacant Page 3 comes in for develoD- ~,~:: Commissioner Saunders stated that he woul d rather see a require- /i~: ': merit to provide an interconnect unless there is some showing of a ituation where it would create an unreasonable hardship to the pro- perry owner, as opposed to havin a g n incentive. Mr. Perry noted that there are certain instances when a physical ..' connection may be impossible and that would be left to the Board's -discretion as to whether the property owner would be penalized for not being able to provide the interconnect. Commissioner Goodnight indicated that she has a problem with man- dating that the developer provide the ~nterconnection since it will not allow him the opportunity to have the type of community that he is planning, i.e. a closed gated project. She stated that she feels that that if an interconnection is not provided, the base density will be reduced by ! unit. He noted that it must be reco~nized that there will be those instances when there are physical constraints which pre- vent the developer from providing the interconnections. Mr. Perry advised that Staff,s original recommendation included a sentence which said: "...and fails to provide lnterconnection with all future ad~acent pro~ecte when physically possible..." Commissioner Shanahan suggested the possibility of a 1/2 unit bonus and a 1/2 unit disincentive. Attorney George Varnadoe voiced his concern that a developer will not have the ability to provide a private community if desired. He -'~remarked that he believes that a ~ unit per acre disincentive is quite ~/':: 'harsh, when looking at the location of the congested traffic zone: anything west of Airport Road to the County line. He recalled that the CCPC felt that the current base densities are fair, and they iW~nted to encourage the interconnection where practical and provide an Page 4 July 25, 1990 incentive as opposed to the disincentive situation. He mentioned that in the Urban congested area from Rattlesnake Hammock Road south, the base density is presently 3 units per acre, and the disincentive would reduce the density to 2 units per acre which would only allow the very expensive type establishments, i.e. Quail Creek. He urged the Commission to proceed with caution. Commissioner Saunders indicated that it may be a better approach if there is the opportunity for an interconnect and the developer does not provide same, that the Commission would be given the authority ~u~der the Comprehensive Plan to reduce density by 1/2 or 1 unit per acre. Mr. Perry stated that Staff is suggesting the amended language to read: "If the pro,eot fails to interconnect with all existing pro- Jects when Physically possible and fails to provide interconnection with all future adjacent projects, when deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners, 1 dwelling unit per gross acre may be '~ 'subtracted". Attorney Varnadoe suggested that the language "when deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners,, be moved to the end of the sentence to make it very clear that this applies to both tests. He also suggested that the language "up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre" replace "1 dwelling unit" to allow the Commission the flexibi- lity of less than 1 unit per acre. Mr. Perry stated that he has no problem with Mr. Varnadoe's language. The consensus of the Commission was to accept the suggested language provided by Mr. Perry and Attorney Varnadoe,s amended language to same. Mr. Duane stated that he feels that the 1 unit per acre bonus is too generous, but there does need to be a bonus. He indicated that he believes that 1/2 unit per ecre ks fair, and supports the recommen- dation of the CCPC. i!!.~i' ~%~ Mr. Fred Thomas advised that the CCPC felt that the 1/2 unit e was fair but d~d not want to penalize a property owner for Page 5 m;~i.~? not providing the mean/n less in g terconnects. C--''i°n'rS'under'moved, aecondedbyConisaionerVolpeand i ly. to accept the language as provided by Mr. Perry ma provided in III Page 5, and III Page 35 striking, the language relative to the incentive, and replacing with "up to I unit per acre, and~ovtng 'as deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners- to the end of the sentence. Co-missioner Volpe left the meeting at this time ~ts to +h~ Traffic Circulation Eleaen! Planner Stkowskt advised that the majority of the changes are housekeeping Items: updating dates and data from 1988 to 1989; upda- tes to reflect the new 5 and 10 year planning horizons; correcting scriveners error; and revisions to the document for clarity and con- ststency purposes. She explained that the Staff Report identifies page by page changes that have been made to the document. Ms. Stkowskt reported that changes have been made to the Existing Traffic Circulation Map to illustrate the existing urbanized area and the transition urbanized areas. Sh~ stated that these map revisions are In conjunction with the changes to Policy 1.4 to be consistent with the Levels Of Service (LOS) standards for state roads as iden- tified In the Florida Department of Transportation,s 1988 Highway System Plan. Ms. Stkowski advised that Page 29 of the Staff Report reflects the Existing Unacceptable Conditions on County Roads noting that 4 road- way segments have been In added in 1989 due to the dally volumes being ': below the adopted LOS: Bonita Beach Road, West of Vanderbilt Drive; Immokalee Road from U.S. 41 to Airport Road; Radio Road from Airport · Road to Kings Way; and Rattlesnake Hammock Road from U.S. 41 to · Charlemagne Blvd. Ms. Stkowsk! called attention to Page 37, which lists the Existing .table Conditions on State Roads. She stated that the Tamtamt Trail. from Solana Road to Laurel Oak Drive has been eliminated due to completion of that pro,eot in 1989. She related that the Tamtami Page 6 July 25, 1990 Trail North from Immokalee Road to Laurel Oak Drive has been added; and Davis Blvd. from Airport Road to Kings Lake Blvd. has been added. Ms. Sikowski reported that Page 42 reflects the Future Traffic Circulation Improvements through 1995, and noted that revisions have been made with regard to the proposed Capital Improvement Element on the annual update and inventory report which was presented to the Commission in June. Me. Stkowskl remarked that there is a scriveners error which U.S. 41 from Vanderbtlt Beach Road to Immokalee Road is a part of Project #45, and it should reflect a "dash line". Ms. Stkowskt pointed out that Page 46 ts the Future Traffic Circulation Map for 1995 which is being revised to be consistent with the Capita/ Improvement Element Annual Update. Ms. Sikowski expressed that Page 51, Future Traffic Circulation Map for the Year 2000 is being revised to be consistent with the County's Five and Ten Year adopted Work Program. Ms. Stkowski announced that Page 5§, Future Traffic-ways Map for the Year 2015 is being revised to be consisted with the County's Five and Ten Year adopted Work Program. She noted that there ts a scrive- ners error with regard to Wtggins Pass Road (C.R. 888), which should be identified as a four lane facility rather than a two lane facility. Ms. Stkowskl explained that Page 87, Policy 4.1 is being revised t o reflect the anticipated date of the completion of the 5 Year Blcycle Ways Plan. She noted that the date is being changed since Plan. Ms. Stkowskt reported that Page 88, Policy 6.5 ts being added to reinforce the need for an Interchange at 1-75 and Golden Gate Parkway. ::In addttlon, she Andicated that Page Pollcy ?.1 ls being revised to ~ref'lect the anticipated date of the Access Control Policy (July 1 1991). Page 7 JuJy 25, 1990 Co~e/ssLoner Saunders ~oved, seconded by CouLssioner Shanahan and · carried 4/0 (Co~aissioner Volpe not present), to approve the amend- ~ents 'co the Traffic Circulation Element as recommended by Staff. Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on July 17, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication fl/ed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider the Immokalee Master Plan. Planner Edwards advised that Policy 6.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan ts the regulatory measure that i~?i}'reclutres the development of the Master Plan for the Immokalee com- munity. She explained that the Policy states that a detailed sector plan for I~unokalee be developed and incorporated Into the Growth Management Plan by August, 1990, but that date, as part of the amend- . Ms. Edwards reported that the consulting Firm of Link, Walters & Associates, formerly Planning Services was hired In October, 1988, to develop the Master Plan. She Indicated that a Technical Advisory Committee was also established to assist Staff and the consultant with the Goals as set forth in Policy 6.4. Commissioner Hasse commended the Committee for their diligent approach, and complimented them for the manner In which they conducted themselves. Ms. Edwards stated that meetings have been held since February, 1989, and In addition, a series of public participation community meetings were held In various neighborhoods in Immokalee. She explained that many Issues were Identified during these meetings, n~ely, that I~okalee ts one of the major agricultural areas wtth=n a county region ~d there Is a tremendous tnfl~ of mi rant la the country throughout the year. She advised that the o ~~X~okalee As ~Ake ~he popula~Aom o~ ~he coastal por~Aon o~ ~he Couty, tn that the median a e rou s g g p t 24 and the community ts very and at the same time there ts the need for major Page 8 July 25, 1990 i~?~'~; i transportation improvements to accommodate the agricultural truck traffic traveling in and out of the community daily. ttftes four residential categories: Lo~ Residential ~hich allo~s a density up to 4 units per acre, single family duplexes and multi- which allows a density up to 4 units per acre, and mobile homes may . exist on a lot by lot basts with single family development; Mixed Residential allows for a density up to 6 units per acre, and is simt- Center. Sh~ indicated that Mixed Use category allows for residential ~d couerctal uses as w~ll as Institutional uses; and the Industrial s~ctton allows for the exp~ston of an employment center for the I~okale~ co,unity. Ms. Edwards stated that the next category ts the Commercial Subdtstrtct which ts identified tn "red" on the map and intended to service the ~eneral co~erctal traveling public and may include McDonald's, gas stations, hardware stores, hotels, etc. Ms. Edwards reported that the next category ts the "Industr~a" [l~'?:..wh'ch '8 'dent'fied as "g,a,. on the .ap. She pO,hied o~t that this a=ea is an e~s~on of the CC-I and the same uses a=e me=mitred. She ~~ Page 9 lar to the Vtllage Residential Zoning District which allows for single family mobile homes and duplexes on a lot by lot basis; High Reetdenttal allows a density up to 8 units per acre, and mobile homes will be permitted as long as they are within a subdivision or a park. Ms. Edwards explained that the Neighborhood Center concept is Identified to function as a center of activity for each tdentiffed neighborhood, and these will be anchored by a school and park and may include churches, day cere centers and convenient conunerctal. She indicated that residential development would be permitted within the Neighborhood Centers up to 12 units per acre. Ms. Edwards stated that there are two components to the Commerce the dark green depicts the South Florida Water Management District's land cover information, and the "dotted" area reflects the con- :~:. Ms. Edwards advised that a r/nc m:i~.~ ,. p iple commitment beina made I~:" ~' Master Plan is a request for an Assistant to the Oounty :anager:: ." p si~on ~n I~okalee ~o serve as an ~chor between ~he coastal region : Ms. Edwards stated that a n~ber of Polices re~irin~ additional · ~ ' legal review were /dent m.., /f/ed at the Collier County Planning Commiss:on m,[::< (coPo) meeting. She pointed out that Assistant County Attorney m~. Student and Technical Advisory Oo~ittee member, Maureen Kellerher "' worked together on the modXfXcations as recommended in the side · ~ ~ sheets. July 25, 1990 Ms. Edwards explained that another area identified on the map is the Reservation area, which recognizes the Indian Reservation pro- perty. She indicated that there will be a minor change to this area to reflect the true boundaries. Ms. Edwards expressed that the last designation is the Environmental Over/ay which is identified in "green". She stated that Ms. Edwards called attention to Po/icy III.4.3, and noted that Staff is recommending that "procedure" be added after "refund" Assistant County Attorney Student noted that "and" should be inserted after ".adequate housing". With regard to the refund procedures in Policy III.4.3, ,Commissioner Saunders indicated that this would also apply to ~.~Water/sewer impact fees, and noted that the County does not have the authority to waive those fees in the Immokalee area. Attorney Student stated that this relates to the refund of impact fees where the County has the authority to do so, and suggested that for purposes of clari- fication, language w~ll be included which states "for all impact fees /.:'leVied by Collier County". , Ms. Edwards stated that Policy IV ~.! was not discussed by the TAC,. but Staff did discuss this with Committee Chairman, David Land. Page ~ii:~,', Suly 25, 1990 ~:j:: She expressed that the following additional language was recommended at the CCPC meeting: "However . this will not be to the detriment of low to moderate income groups unless proposed development activity can be '~'~!"~!.',~ demonstrated to violate State or Federal laws as they relate to environmental protection." She indicated that other recommended l~age was offered as follows: .... or unless exemptions from local re~lat~ons can be demonstrated to be detrimental to the overall envtro~ental health of the County and the sustatnabtltty of that environment. In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts between merit, the County will identify and purchase or have an incentive for o~ers to protect key habitats in the I~okalee Urban Designated Area. She reported that Staff prefers that no additions be made to this Po/icy, and that it remain as orig~nally recommended, without any chan~es. She advised tha~ ~f the Co~ss~on desires revisions to this Policy, Staff is reco~end~ng that the underlined lan~age at the top process of preparing ordinances which affect all of the natural resources within the County. She noted that Staff would rather see a ?varl~ce procedure instead of ~ overall exemption of Policies or envtro~ental re~lattons. Tape ~Z Commissioner Saunders stated that he concurs with Staff that Policy IV 1.1 should remain as originally written. Commissioner Goodnlght related that she would like the Commission and Staff to have some flexibility, and feels that the lan ua e g g as offered by Staff, at the top of Page 5, would provide the latitude for the Board to dec~de whether a var~ce would be acceptable. Assistant County Attorney Student stated that she had a problem w~th the waiver of these prov~sions, but did not f~nd any reference lth Staff. ~?~jj' ~ Ms. Edwards noted that Staff ~s reco~end~ng that a surve be con ~'- ' Page ~ I~ July 25, 1990 ,that area be designated as High Residential. Ms. Edwards called attention to the Commercial Subdtstrtct along SR-29. She noted that Staff is recommending the deletion of commer- cial along the east side of the road from Lake Trafford Road to ,ducted in the Immokalee area to identify where the environmental lands actually exlst so that future purchasers of property would be aware of any restrlcttons on those properties. Ms. Edwards stated that the next issue deals with the changes to the Future Land Use Map. She advised that Staff does not agree with the land use designation of the Low Residential Mobile Home Overlay since this is a mirroring of the Village Residential Land Use, and it encourages the expansion of that District. She reported that concerns have been expressed that this is an undesirable use and the residents did not want to see this use continue in the Immokalee area. She reported that Staff is recommending that this area remain Low Res~dential at 4 units per acre. She indicated that the area South of Ms. Edwards explained that the next change on the map ls in the South Immokalee area, between Eustts Avenue, South 9th Street, South 1st Street and Boston Avenue. She reported that Staff is proposing that this area be redesignated to HR rather than MR as recommended by ',lmmokalee Drive, and on the west side from Lake Trafford Road to 8th Avenue. She provided copies of several letters in support of the I~..~;'~'strip commercial; and letters in support of Staff's Conserv -- elate tO the '~Pages ~ ~d 8 of he~ memorandum. She ~nd~cated that the TAC recom- ~mends that Items ~ and 2 be /eft as written, but Staff ~s recommending theee items be s~r~cken. : ' Co~ss~oner asunder, stated that ~t appea=, that the two ~jpara~aphs that Staff ts reco~endtn~ for deletion merely contain ~;.~ ~: Page 12 descriptive language. Ms. Edwards concurred with Commissioner Saunders' comment, noting that there really ie no support for some of the comments that have been made in the first paragraph, and Staff is ~comfort~ble ~tth 8ome o~ the lmpltcsttone tn the oecond paragraph. Co~issioner Goodnight called attention to the "MR" Zoning in the middle of Immokalee that Staff ts recommending be changed to High ~esid~nttal. She indicated that the area that is outlined in "black" i~ ~ere a special etuay ~lll be conauctea auring t~e next year aha 8ugge~tea t~t t~e ~" ~rea be incl~aea in t~e ~t~ay rather than ch~glng this 8rea to ~R~, in oraer to cle~n up Hhst is there no~. ~s. ~a~ra~ st~tea t~t Folicy 22.2.7 ~aar~ t~ issue aha reade as follows: "By 2993, the Growth Planning Department will ini- tiate redevelopment efforts for the South I~okalee Area bounded by South 9 Street, Boston Avenue, South 2nd Street, and Eus~is Avenue. These efforts shall include, but w~ll not be limited to, upgrading of subst~dard st~ctures; rev~ewin~ land use patterns; providing Co~tssioner Saunders voiced concerns that the lan~age as con- tained tn Policy ~.~.7 may obligate the County to do some of the construction as described, and suggested that verbiage be included which indicates that the Growth Planning Department will review and t~e steps to "encourage" the redevelopment effort. Assistant County Attorney Student concurred with Commissioner Saunders, and suggested that language be included which states that "the Growth Planning Department will review and take steps to encourage redevelopment efforts" and also that "these efforts shall encourage the upgrading of substandard structures; reviewing land use patterns; encourage sidewalks, street lighting and community beautifi- cation." Commiss~oner Goodnight stated that several letters have been received with regard to the Commercial area being changed to Low :.Residential. She noted that Page 6 of Ms. Edwards' memorandum states -~that the CCPC has recommended commercial along SR-29. She explained Page 13 July 25, 1990 '::that if the development criteria is included, it will upgrade that : portion of Immokalee. Commissioner Goodntght called attention to Page 7, Item V, noting that Staff recommends the language remain in the Subdistrict to ensure the development of residential. She stated that Immokalee definitely needs another super market, and cited concerns with regard to the requirement for 30% of the residential before construction may com- mence on the Publix and the theater. Ms. Edwards stated that the 30% commencement of construction also refers to infrastructure. She advised that this Subsection contains a clause which states: "No commercial in the commercial designated area shall be allowed until 30% of the project has commenced construction un/ess otherwise authorized by the Board of County Commissioners... Commissioner Hasse explained that he has concerns with Policy III.5.2 which indicates that $0% of the revenues from ad valorem taxes will be set aside to establish a farm worker family housing trust fund. Assistant County Attorney Student replied that after a thorough research, she found no precedent with regard to this point, in the CD State of Florida, and noted that the language "will consider', has been ~ placed in the Po/icy, but it does not actually commit the Commission CD' -.,,., -,,4, ~' Reglaa 11:20 A.M. - Reconvened 11:30 A.M. Mr. David Land, representing the Technical Advisory Committee, stated that there are approximately 6 or 7 positions that Staff has raised that are different from those of the TAC. Mr. Land called attention to the issue of the Assistant County Manager in Immokalee. He reported that during the slow period of the year, Immokalee is a community of 15,000, and $0,000 during the peak season. He indicated that a large portion of the population is unsophisticated, and they do not know how to work through the County system. He explained that Commissioner Goodntght does an excellent ~,~.~ob in representing the community from a policy standpoint, but there Page 14 ~*",. ' July 25, ~990 ~L,' needs to be a focal point for administrative matters on a day to day ~*"' basis He stated that he believes that the TAC would be comfortable v~:~ with changing the language from "Assistant County Manager and ' ~'~>~">' dinating Immokalee issues" ~'<' Commissioner Saunders'stated ~!~'" that he does not believe that it is ~., appropriate to p/ace that t~pe of language n the Comprehensive Plan ~:.~, He noted that the County is required by /aw to corn .~%~,.:' .,. ply with the Plan, ut he does not believe it is appropriate to include language relative to staff positions Mr. Land called attention to the Natural Resources language reported that this language may result in Immokalee becoming an '~; environmental wasteland, and therefore the TAC recommended additional ~: language as indicated on Page 4 of Ms. Edwards' memorandum He 'ii ' related that the Conservation Element contains a Policy which states that 25~ of the native vegetation shall be preserved on a project in ~?. the coastal area provided the pro~ect is greater than 20 acres. He · ~;" indicated that an arbitrary standard is being established which cannot ;'~!'~J be demonstrated to actually be critical to the environmental health of ~'i the County. : Mr. David Enting stated that the intent of the TAC is not to r.duce protection th. -nv ro.m..tal a...ts but to provide the same · level of ener~, concern and protection to human assets. He indicated that this is particularly important for the /ow income people in Immokalee, and in situations that involve affordable housing for these people, those assets should be balanced. ~ ~,- Sister Maureen Kellerher stated that the TAC is asking for $~.. tJons. Mr. Land called attention to the issue of clustering in the rural areas. He noted that the Committee is requesting clustering on a e~aller amount of land providing that the balance is left pristine. ~e requested that Staff explore this issue more fully and report back Page 15 July 25, 1990 Mr. Land pointed out that the 30% set aside of ad valorem revenues and agricultural lands is not inappropriate. He noted that the first portions of the sales tax goes to the State and some comes back to the Oounty. He requested that tn the future, that the next penny of the sales tax be earmarked for this purpose. With regard to LRMH area, Mr. Land reported that there is a spe- cial situation tn Immokalee. He stated that there are Jndiv~duals who ~rchase a lot, place a trailer on it, and then as their financial ability allows, they eventually will upgrade that trailer. He noted that the "red" in the West Roberts area indicates 31 trailers, or 40% of the housing units. He related that g0~ of the units in the Little iLeague area are mobile homes. Re explained thai these areas are appropriate for LRMH. . Ms. Edwards advised that there is a Policy within the Housing sec- 'tton of the Master Plan which speaks to Staff initiating a rezone of those areas that are predominantly mobile homes, to a zoning designa- tion to accommodate that use. Mr. Land spoke to the "tn-fill commercial', on SR-29. He indicated that there is strip commercial from Farmworkers Village up SR-29 through the middle of town. He noted that on the east side of the road, there are 2-4 retail establishments sitting in the middle of the area that is currently zoned "Commercial", and "in-filling. from there north to the Baptist Church, and from the south to "Popeye's. He explained that even though this Is a pretty area, the TAC believes that tn-fi// commercial ts appropriate since lovely single family homes will not be built along the second busiest street in Immokalee. Mr. Fred Thomas, Immokalee resident, stated that most of the pro- perry owners from both sides of the roads are present today, and sup- port this area being commercial. Mr. Land called attention to the last two paragraphs on Page 7, Item VI, which Staff ts recommending for deletion. He reported that the TAO voted to keep this language, noting that the most critical of Page 16 July 25, 3990 the two is the second paragraph. He affirmed that the key point that the Committee desires to be left in the Plan is the fact that Immokalee is different from the coast, and because of that, a two pronged approach may be needed. He related that the language in the second paragraph focuses on the significant differences between the coastal area and Immokalee and the need for the different approaches ~;Jl; ,to meeting the needs of those areas is essential and should remain in Sister Maureen Kellerher indicated that the TAC's recommendation relative to South Immokalee on the west side coming into town, differs from Staff's recommendation She pointed out that there is a high density of mobile homes. She recalled that earlier in today's meeting, Commissioner Goodnight suggested that this area be included in the intensive study that will be conducted for the area North of Main Street. She related that this may be the solution. Ms. Edwards stated that Staff does support Commissioner floodntght's suggestion. Mr. Fred Thomas, representing the Collier County Planning Commission, reiterated that Immokalee ts very different from the coastal area of the County. He mentioned that the coastal area is attempting to control growth, and Immokalee ts attempting to encourage growth for those urban professionals who are currently working tn the community. Therefore, he noted that certain types of commercial deve- lopment, upscale housing, and affordable housing for the vast work force is needed. He explained that the CCPC's recommendation is that the Little League area and the West Immokalee Road area two locations that should accommodate those persons who wish to purchase and place a mobile home on a lot until they can afford to build their house and then remove the mobile home. With regard to the Commercial Subdtstrict' '<' ,Mr. Thomas stated that personally spoke with the property owners on the West side of ~iij July i~'i'~!~:i' Mr. Thomas affirmed that the CGPG recommends the deletion of cri- teria "d}" under the Planned Unit Development Commercial Subdistrict. He stated that urban Professionals need to be attracted to the Immokalee area. In addition, he reported that a hospital Publix, theaters, and a bowling alley are needed so that people will be attracted to th~s area. Mr. Thomas called attention to the last two paragraphs on Page 7 Item VI., and indicated that the CCPC reco~ended that this language remain ~n the Plan. Ms. Edwards stated that Staff felt there was no .~pporttng documentation within the doc~enk to support these state Y, mmokalee res/dent, stated that she salutes the TAC for their Incredible Job. She requested a osittve r W~th re~ard to multiple k~nds of f~nanc~ng opportunities for affor- ~ dable housing in I~okalee, and noted that the Commission needs to f~nd divers~fied ways to f~nance development. S~ster Maureen Kellerher Indicated that there will be a great number of cutbacks upon adoption of the next budget resolution from housin~ for people who work ~n the service industry. She stated that she believes that ~t Is a fair proposal to consider a certain set aside from the ad valorem taxes from Agriculture. Co~tssioner Saunders remarked that he ~s w~lltng to consider this ' prov~sion with two modifications: that the Board of County Co~tsstoners will consider budgeting up to a 30~ set aside from the revenues Collier County receives from ad valorem taxes from agri- ~e wou~d no~ be approprt~ke ~nee t~ wou~d ~mik this to the ~ :' ". Ms- Edwards stated that this could posslbly be handled through an ~endment to the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan, and Page 18 ~;:"' July 25, 1990 .~,,, . Commissioner Volpe stated that this Is an Item that should be '~J..' Identified by Staff to be considered at the beginning of the year at the time of strategic planning. A discussion took place with regard to the LR/LRMH designations. !' ,Planner Cacchtone reported that the difference between the LRMH and ~}~,'the LR that Staff Is proposing ts that this would allow single family, i~;'mobtle home development, and duplex development at 4 units per acre, ~, but they would need to be zoned by distinct districts. She explained ~, , that the LRMH designation allows inter-mixing on a lot by lot basis: ;~;. single family, mobile home, duplex, and mobile home She noted that -~. ,.~,,. the density levels are the same. Mr. Lincoln Walter of LWA, consultant for the Immokalee Master Plan, offered the following language for consideration: By January, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners shall incorporate as part of ~ ' their strategic planning effort, an investigation to establish a Farmworkers Trust Fund. A 30~ set aside from revenues that Collier ." County receives from ad valorem taxes from agricultural uses each year shall be considered. r Ms. Edwards requested a consensus relating to Policy III.4.3, Page 2, referring to the refunding of impact fees. Co~i~sioneT Saunders ~oved, seconded by Co~issioner Goodntght to m~ the l~aa~ tn Po/icy III.4.3 u follows: By January, 1993, the Com~t'y ~ha/1 t~ple~ent m refund procedure for al/ Collier County 'le~ ~t fees for developers of affordable unite for low or very l~-~um=o~ ~eholda in I~okalee. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Edwards related that the Commission will have the option, as part of the procedure that ts ~establtshed, as to whether the refunds are to be prospective or '~:,'retroactive I! ] ~' ' Commissioner Saunders stated that the intent of his motion is to g allow flexibility when the policy ts developed. He related that ~everal pro~ects have been approved and he Commission has indicated that they would attempt to refund impact fees, when possible, and he Page 19 July 25, 1990 still like to have the opportunity even if it is one year from the PUD hearing, the Commission informed Sister Pat that if and when the day came when impact fees would be refunded for Affordable Housing, they would be reimbursed. She questioned why this policy is needed. Mr. Entlng indicated that in pre//m/nary conversations with the County Attorney's office, he understands that the only opportunity that the Habitat For Humanity has with regard to impact fees, is that one year after ownership of the homes application may be made for a refund. He advised that at this time, a relatively high amount of the pro,eot is being paid in impaot fees. Planner Laverty advised that both the Parks and Library Impact Fee Ordinances have provisions for reimbursements, but there is no waiving procedure. He noted that the funds are reimbursed to an applicant, after they apply for same after one year, and the funds are paid back to them over a period of ? years ~i~= Volpe ~e~, seconded by Commissioner Hasse to strike t~e~ -!~F 3~nnar~, 1993, the ConntF shall cons/der a waiver of ~11-/m~mct ieee fo~ developers of affordable un/ts for low or very ~ ~ ~olda tn Immokalee. Commissioner Goodntght stated that she has a problem with the Commissioner Shanahan noted that he is not looking to exclude any that the Commission has committed to. Commissioner Volpe related that he has no problem if a project has been approved within the last year or two, and the Commission has made some type of a commitment as part of the approval process. Commissioner Goodnight stated that to her knowledge, to date, there is only one project for which the Commission has not waived impact fees: Immokalee Non Profit Housing. She recalled that during :, mot/on. She explained that Habitat which is a good organization and I~' ~'~ '~; ~' Page 20 July 25, 1990 not eligible for reimbursement since the provision of the ordinances Indicates that this Is for non-profit organizations that are sub- sidized from other government entitles. Commissioner Yelps noted that there appears to be a question as to waiver as opposed to reimbursement, He stated that possibly the ordi- nances need to be amended as they relate to Impact fees to address ~+~i' other developers of affordable housing that are not subsidized by :~ ';' state or federal funds. Attorney Student stated that the Road Impact Fee Ordinance Section "~i,' f Nine, Affordable Housing states: "The County shall exempt from '!:~ [ payment of the road Impact fee any road impact fee construction which qualifies as affordable housing and which the construction of such is funded in whole or in part by money received pursuant to a direct grant or subsidy from the United States Department of Housing & Urban or County created to assist in the construction of affordable housing." She further advised that there is a procedure set forth where a person may seek a refund through the County Manager's office. ]!?She reported that Section B states: "The County shall reimburse to .:;~? ' ~ the applicant, the road impact fees for any constructed facility which '~::':i i will be sold or rented for an amount which qualifies as affordable housing." ?:~,~':.:Mtsl'~'dtsc~mston of the ~otlon, Co~atssloner Yelps reallz~ t~t -~ ~t~ ~t stat~ ~ intended. He cl~tfied his ~tton as foll~ ~t ~ J~, 1993, the Co~ shll consider a waiver of all ~t f~ fo~ d~elo~rs of affor~ble ~lts for 1~ or ve~ 1~ ~ ~~1~ in I~lee. Second reafft~d ~ Co~tsstoner ''' ~ Clerk ~tn replaced ~ Clerk Hoff~ Ms. Edwards asked for clarity on the motion, that "implement a refund procedure" was stricken and it ts now back to "consider a waiver" and also adding "all Impact fees levied by Collier County" to Page July 25, 1990 which Commissioner Shanahan replied in the affirmative. Ms. Edwards referred to Policy III.5.2 on page 3, which addresses the 30~ set aside for the housing trust fund for farm workers. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that the Board will try to put this policy into the Housing Element. Cm~issioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and -=~XTied ~nani~ously to delete Policy III.5.2. Commissioner Volpe noted that for internal consistency, Policy III.5.3 of the master plan should also be deleted. Ms. Edwards explained that Policy iii.5.4 establishes a modifica- · ion of provisions in the Collier County Housing Code already cove~ed by the State of Florida Environmental ~ealth. " ' ~~r Vol~ ~, ~co~d ~ Co~tss~oner S~ers ~"~t~ ~ly, to a~r~ Polt~ II1.5.4 with the incl~lon of Ns. Edwards called at~en~ion to Polic~ [I.3.1 on page h~d~t which refers to the clustering of development within the rural area. Assistant County Attorney Student commented that pursuant to Rule 9J5, urban sprawl is prohibited and the Board needs to be aware that clustering has an Issue beyond the urban designated area and Immokalee may be considered urban sprawl by the State. Oommi~ioner Standers moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and ~iedunanimously to delete Policy 11.3.1. Ms. Edwards then referred to Policy IV.I.1 on page 4. Commissioner Shanahan stated that Immokalee has been identified as being different and he accepts staff recommendations to omit the first two sections but encouraged the Board to consider including the lanffuage on the top of page 5. He indicated that when talking about affordable and /ow-cost housing in Immokalee this will give the Board some leeway. J'!i'-' ' Commissioner Gooclntght agreed that the Board needs flexibility in J~i:?'dealing ,ith this issue. Page 22 Commissioner Saunders stated that if a variance ts developed from the environmental provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, than the same ,variance procedure for every class of development will have to be pro- [ vided.  ! ~ Commissioner Volpe remarked that there may be other avenues available to provide incentives to encourage development of affordable C~l~ner Saunders moved, seconded b~ Co"""iesioner Volpe and =aXT~ed 3/2 (Co~esioners Goodnight and Shanahan opposed) to adopt Polic,F IV.~.~ u originally recommended b~ staff. Ms. Edwards explained IV.2 which is Low Residential-Mobile Home Subdistrict. and a manufactured home, to which Ms Edwards replied that there is a classification for each type which is included in the zoning ordi- Commissioner Goodnight indicated that she does not agree with staff recommendations but does accept both the Collier County Planning Commission and the Technical Advisory Committee to allocate those two Commiss~oner Hasse commented that he is opposed to intermixing these developments and that mobile homes, duplexes and single-family dwellings should have their own districts. Commissioner Goodnight stated that more problems would be caused by changing the two areas already there, and residents who do not wish to build houses but want to buy mobile homes to put on these lots will not be able to do so or make a mobile home park out of it. Planner Cacchione indicated that those areas are legal under the LR designation because the properties are zoned A-2 Mobile Home with ~¥~ ~ the overlay which means they can build a sing/e-family or a mobile :J,home. She sald the request here is to further subdivide that into 4 i..~$ts per acre and have a sing/e-family and mobile home development. Page 23 July 25, 1990 Commissioner Goodntght asked If they subdivide into 4 units will they need to get a rezone? Planner Cacchtone answered that they will need a rezone, adding that before the plan is adopted staff will go through the rezoning category and Identify which zoning changes will be necessary. She said this is not identified as an area that will need a rezone as a result of the plan '' C~i~ Goodnight ~ to accept the recmmendattons of the Co/lie C~ty Planning Com~tesion ~nd the Technical Advisory Committee m~d not those of staff. The motion failed due to lack of a ' Ce~t~ton~i- Volp~ ~oved, ~conded by Coalselonar Sal~uders and ~[:i:;,-' em~z.J~d 4/1 (Co~-/utoner Goodntght opposed) to accept the recouen- Planner l.~dwards referred to South Immokalee on page 5 of the han- dout (Policy II.l.?J. She said that staff0s original reco~mendation was to designate this area as HR rather than ~R, but subsequent discussions have /ed to proposing this as a redevelopment area. ¢cr~mtsstoner. Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and c~rrted m~ni~ously to approve the following language for Policy II.1.1: "By 1993, the Growth Planntn~ Department will review and take srtwl~ to m~cour~g~ redevelopment efforts for the South Im~okalee area ~ bT ~uth 9th Street, Boston Avenue, South 2nd Street and Bu~'cts ~. ~ efforts shall encourage upgrading of substandard strll~cu~ reviewing land use pattern~, the encouragement of the pro- vi~iem of stdmmlks, street lighting and cmmuntty beautification-; ~nd this ~rea to re,tn d~eignated Nixed Residential zoning. Planner ~-dwards explained the next tree, Commercial Subdlstrict She said the question Is whether to leave this area along SR 29 commercial development or to accept staff,s recommendation to take a ~.i!~. portion of that area off. -, . m~at~toner Goodnight served, seconded by Co''isstoner Shanahan, 1:o dem~gnate th~s area u cosmerc~al and add the criteria listed by Page 2 · CD. July 25, 1990 'v start sad ~qn~nmd by the Collier County Planning ¢o---tsston as part .~m.': of the c~tte~t~ fo~ develolment. ." Commissioner Volpe questioned the limitations on SR 29 in terms of 'r?. :. length? Planner Edwards replied this would include al/ the areas in red along SR 29. ~'call for th~ question, the notion carrt,d unanimly. Planner Edwards referred to V., on page 7 of the handout. C~sst~r G~tght ~ed, sec~ed ~ Co~tsstoner ~i~ ~tmly, to accept staff recognition. Planner Edwards brought ~orward items VI.1 and VI.2. ~~i~ S~ders ~d, secon~d ~ Conisstoner Vol~ ~d c~t~ ~ly, to ~lste ~th p~a~ap~ ~ reco~Med ~ Plier Edwards referred to Policy VIII.3.1 . ~~ ~~ly, to a~r~e all other staff rec~tto~ for Commissioner Saunders ~oved, seconded by Couisstoner Volpe and candied unanimously, to approve the l~okalee Master Plan for transmittal to the Department for Community Affairs with all above eeo Recess 1:35 P.M. - 2:00 P.M. *** Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on July 17, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider the Golden Gate Master Planner Lee said his purpose Is to give the Board of County Page 25 July 25, ~990 Commissioners an update on the Golden Gate Master Plan and to provide staff recommendations. He indicated that a nine member citizens' committee appointed by the Board began working with staff in October, 1988. Mr. Jim Coleta, Chairman of the Golden Gate Master Plan Steering Committee, thanked the other members of the Committee for their hard work of I 1/2 years: Frank DelleCave, Bruce Dilges, Phil Gtofrtda, George Keller, Carol Lamb, Norm Hatcher, David Ritchie and Geneva Till. He said the Committee and County staff has done a tremendous :' Job tn presenting the plan to the public by seeking public opinlon through meetings and mailings. He remarked that the Committee feels that this plan is a reflection of the largest majority of Golden Gate residents. He indicated the Committee is ~n agreement with staff recommendations except the Golden Gate City commercial, which may be too restrictive. He recommended having an option to go back in the .. future in regards to small restaurants, open air cafes special theme etc. ~e concluded by thanking the Board of County Commissioners for the opportunity to be involved in the government process. Commissioner Hasse commented that both the Steering Committee and County staff has done a fantastic ~ob in coordinating public opinion ., with what staff feels is for the betterment of Golden Gate. Planner Lee explained the outstanding issue is commercial within Golden Gate City. He said the existing activity center is square but ~' has been reconfi~ured to be consistent with existing zoning within the · City. He indicated the second change will designate Golden Gate ~.. Parkway as Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office District, which /: limits uses to professional offices. He said as a result of the workshop, those uses have been expanded to include sit-down restaurants. He stated that the workshop also resulted in creating Policy 4.4, page 16 of the Master Plan, which commits staff to eva- luating the creation of an architectural review board for Golden Gate '.~ Parkway. He said staff will research and bring this issue back to the ~i, Board for direction. Page 26 July 25, 1990 Commissioner Saunders commented that within the Commercial Office District staff has recommended only 2 uses, offices and sit-down restaurants, but other uses which are not specifically offices are being permitted. Planner Lee replied that page 22 lists all uses permitted which are consistent with C-6 zoning. Commissioner Volpe indicated his concern that if it takes one year to implement this policy, the ability to establish an architectural review process may be lost, and suggested not allowing development in this area until that committee is in place. Planner Lee replied that this plan will not be adopted until January, 1991, therefore no one could apply for commercial rezoning until then. Ne added by that time staff will have researched the issue of an architectural review process. Planner Lee stated that the Collier County Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan and their recommendation was for approval with 2 changes. He said on page 18, the CCPC added language "~p to 16 Planner Lee then referred to page 42, Item c., stating the recom- mendation of staff that Transitional Provisional Use sites be 2.5 acres or less. Me said the CCPC recommended 2.5 acres or more to pro- vide adequate buffering between commercial and residential. He reported that staff is in agreement, but suggests language: "the site should be a minimum of 2.5 acres and shall not exceed 5 acres" to pro- vide a cap. Planner Lee explained that two staff changes on page 25, Item n. and page 26, Item o., were made to reflect language that will be internally consistent with landscaping codes within the proposed Unified Code. Planner Lee added that a second change on page 26 will provide a .variance procedure for those lots that cannot aggregate more than 2 Page 27 July 25, 1990 Doctor Nino Spagna stated he is present on behalf of 2 property owners of 2 1/2 tracts of land immediately to the north of the Florida Power & Light (FPL) distribution station. He reported that these tracts consist of 12 1/2 acres of land and due to their proximity to the transmission station, the property owners do not feel they will be able to utilize this land as currently zoned. He said the owners are asking for some type of commercial use that would fit in with the rest of the estates area and also have provisions included to protect '.'" surrounding residential property. Commissioner Volpe questioned the size of the parcels? Doctor Spagna replied they are approximately 840 feet in depth and both front on 951 at 330 feet, with another half parcel of tract 102. He said they are asking the Board of County Commissioners to consider this be designated as commercial with the provision that when they decide to use the property, the owners will come in with a PUD to pro- tect surrounding owners and at the same time allow them to use this land manner consistent with FPL. He suggested a 75 foot buffer be required around the entire parcel and that access be from C.R. 951 so that traffic will not be added to 13th Avenue Southwest which is a ~' residential street. He said that with those protections, this pro- perry could be developed compatibly with FPL and also provide protec- tions necessary for surrounding properties. Commissioner Volpe asked who are the owners of the property? Doctor Spagna indicated that one owner is John Cummings, et al, and the other is LDJ Associates. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Doctor Spagna said they are not asking for a specific classification, that the owners are open to discussion for what ie compatible with both the FPL and the surrounding area, possibly a C-3 category. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if the property owners can pet1- . tion the Board for a Provisional Use (PU) for commercial /n-fill due i~ to the transit~onal area between FPL and their property? i,~" Planner Lee replied that they would be able to apply for any of Page 28 July 25, 1990 the PU's outlined in the zoning ordinance. Doctor Spagna commented that in reality no one would want to put the permitted uses on that property because of the FPL. He said any of these uses would provide a buffer for the other properties, but the owners would like to provide their own buffer and also be able to get diversified use for their own property. Commissioner Shanahan asked if there are responses from all the agencies involved? Planner Lee answered that the Steering Committee, the CCPC and staff all agree that they do not support any more commercial develop- merit north of FPL. Assistant County Attorney added that because of the activity center concept, the Department for Community Affairs may view this as an inconsistency in the Plan. Mr. George Keller, member of the Golden Gate Master Plan Steering Committee, stated that a problem being faced with all commercial in Golden Gate is to avoid strip zoning. He requested the Board to approve the final recommendations of the CCPC and the Steering Committee. He concluded by thanking Commissioner Masse for working with the Steering Committee and thanked his fellow Committee members as well. Ms. Lee Layne commented on the memo from Planner Lee to the Board of County Commissioners dated 6/12/90. She said that page 2 gives the standards for PU's and the language proposed may not allow the action taken yesterday on the Sheriff's training facility, specifically the possible acquisition of two parcels of land on 70th Street Northeast and Oil Well Grade Road. Planner Lee indicated that may qualify under Essential Services Provisional Uses, located on page 41, C.1, of the Master Plan. .... C~mni~n~onm~ Volp~ ~v~d, s~ond~d by Con~tss~oner S~mders and c~xTt~dun~ni~ou~ly, to approv~ for trs~ittal to the Department for ..... Co~anityAf£airm th~ ~old~n Gate Naster Plan u presented, tncor- poratin~ those ~stton~ of staff contained in Planner Lee's me~o to " thm~:~d of County Oon~tsstonerm of ~uly 10, 1990. Page 29 July 25, 1990 .,~ ~ USE ~n~M~NT (FLU~} PUBLIC PETITION~ PRTITIO~ CP-90-2, ~0RGE L. V~E, ESQUI~, ~S~ING NOR~ ~C~ ~TI~S OF SO~ ~RIDA, INC. ~Q~STING ~~ TO ~ ~ - Planner Lee brought forth Petition GP-90-2, George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, representing North American Properties of South Florida, Inc. requesting Amendment to the Residential Density Band and the Traffic Congestion Boundary for property located in the southwest corner of the Intersection of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and County Road (C.R.} 9§1. He said this will amend the FLUE and also the map. He referred to a map which outlined existing conditions in the area of the request. He said that this request will open another 500 acres of land that will be eligible for an additional density bonus. However, he added, 400 of the 500 acres are committed to the Lely Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and another 40 acres is within the activity center, leaving 60 acres of A-2 zoning which will be eligible for an increased density of 3 units per acre, for a total of 7 units per acre. He commented that the additional bonus Increases potential dwelling units by 240 units. He stated that staff agrees with the Petitioner's analysis which ~ndAcates this will not have a significant impact on roads or change the level of service, including U.S. 41 where lower densities are encouraged. He concluded that staff and the CCPG have recommended Petition CP-90-2 for approval. Co~tssAener Shanahanm~v~d, seconded by ConissJoner Smunders to ~ P~t~t~on CP-90-2 b~ed oil the recommendations of staff and the CCPC. Commissioner Hasse questloned if there will be any impact on the Lely DRI? Attorney George Varnadoe rep/led that the 60 acres back-up to the institutional uses in the Lely DRI, l.e., the Edison Community College, the elementary school, the cultural center and the church. He stated that to be allowed more housing will provide a better blend i~ ~[?~ Page 30 July 25, 1990 , ~ ~'.and integrate better than building a single-family low density pro- Ject, Commissioner Volpe asked if the reconftguratton tn the traffic congested area ts supported In fact or being done to accommodate this request? Attorney Varnadoe answered that the traffic congestion line was established by basically choosing arbitrary roads that would protect or be far enough away from a protected road to provide a buffer. He said in this instance, U.S. 41 is the protected road and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road was chosen. He explained that this request will redefine the boundary to follow the outline of the density band around an activity center, which will allow that activity center to have the Intense commercial uses, then the higher Intensity residen- tial, then transition down to lower density residential. ~ ga/1 for the question, the motion carried unanimously. PETITION CP-90-3, ALAN REYNOLDS R~PRESENTING R. J. SCHMITT AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUESTING ~ TO THE DENSITY RATING SYSTEM - Planner Soto stated that Petition CP-90-3, Alan Reynolds repre- senting R. J. Schmttt and Associates, Inc. ts requesting an amendment to the Density Rating System conditions of the FLUE. She said the tntttal petition proposed allowing a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per gross acre for property within the coastal urban fringe area with a conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning. She indicated that subsequent conversations between the petitioner and staff resulted in modifying the request to only include the Marco Is/and area being allowed to convert commercial to residential. She explained that this has been approved by the CCPC with all revisions but staff has one major concern. She reported that, in going through the inventory for zoning re-evaluations, staff recognized there might be a possibility of 15-20 acres of commercially zoned property that could take the opportunity to convert to residential at 8 dwelling un/ts per acre. She said that going from 3 to 8 dwelling units per She said that Collier Page 31 (iD. the review by the Collier County Emergency Management Director". July 25, 1990 County's Emergency Management Director has reviewed the modified request and has no problems with it. She indicated staff's major con- cern is that approval of this petition will result in eroding the integrity of the coastal urban fringe area, al/owing a precedent setting increase in density from the Comprehensive Plan directions. Commissioner Volpe asked if it is policy to direct population away from coastal high hazard areas? Planner Soto replied that is true, however, the increased density being proposed is a minimal amount. She reiterated that Ken Pineau, Emergency Management D~rector, has reviewed and does not feel that this request will impact evacuation times to a point of concern. Commissioner Volpe stated his concerns about a domino effect, hurricane evacuation in terms of other vested projects and the overall po/icy directing population away from coastal high hazard areas. Planner Soto stated that staff shares this concern, but couples that with SR 951 being widened so that there will be 3 lanes rather than ! lane out of Marco Island and ultimately by the year 2000, SR 951 will be 6 lanes. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if traffic circulation staff has any problems with the additional units to which Ms. Soto replied they do not, in fact this might help sell the bicycle program on Marco Island. Mr. Alan Reynolds, representing the petitioner, stated that the original amendment would have allowed the coastal area to enjoy a similar density bonus as the rest of Collier County. He said that two changes have been made to address staff's concerns. He reported one is to limit the request to Marco Island which will change the total acres from 280 acres to approxlmately 19 acres, making a tremen- dous reduction in the potential use of the bonus. Secondly, he said, the petitioner added a provision in the bonus which says that "any project qualifying for such a bonus shall prepare and implement a hurricane evacuation plan for the project which shall be subject to He Page 32 July 25, 1990 stated the combination of those two changes resulted tn staff support aa well as unanimous approval by the CCPC. He addressed Commissioner Volpe's concerns, stating there ia no precedent being set because any action changing density will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He concluded by asking the Board to support the CCPC's recom- mendation to approve thin amendment. Commissioner Volpe asked if this commercial property is subject to zoning re-evaluation, to which Ms. Soto rep/led in the affirmative. ***Deputy Clerk Hoff~an replaced Deputy Clerk Gu~vtn at thin times** Commissioner Volpe atated that in order for Mr. Reynolds to take advantage of this conversion, he needs commercial property which is subject to zoning re-evaluation and it nay not c/ua//fy for an upfront ':' exemption. He questioned whether he will be able to achieve what is ,!'~i~.' desired by his client. Growth Planning Director Blanchard reported that with regard to zoning re-evaluation, nottcea will be nailed out next week but until :. the Commtsaton acta on the Zoning changea, the commercial zoning on · the subject property will be retained. He noted that there ts a 120 day period in which applicants need to apply for an exemption, and the final rezone hearings will not take place until the January 10th deadline. Hr. Reynolda advlaed that hta Intent Ia to provide for an alter- native which would allow Initiating a down-zoning of the property to a residential land use which would be consistent with the Plan. ~ton~r~ S~ noved, seconded b~ Co~ntmatoner floodntght andca~edunani~ou~ly, to approve Pet~ttonCP-90-3, as recomaended by Staff and the Collier County Planning Connlaaion. ..e Conac[onioner Volpe left the room at thin tine :.,I~TI~ION CP-~O-4 TO BE ll~D LATER I~THE Planner Laverty requested that thin item be heard later in the meeting since ira approval Ia contingent upon approval of certain anendments to Polictea contained in the Puture Land Uae Element. PETITIOI[ CP-90-5 GEORGB L. VARNADOE REPRESENTING ~NTAP~IAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., REQUESTING AN S2~ENDMENT TO TH~ FUTUR~ LAND USg TEXT AND THE CONSERVATION AND COSTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO CLARIFY Page 33 July 25, 1990 · ~T~H-D~F~NDENT A]~D WATER-RELaTED USES WITHIN ~ ~ DESIGNATION Planer Soto advised that the intent of this amen~ent is clarify the permitted uses that are a/lowed w~th~n the Urban Designated Area, specifically, water-related and water-dependent uses. She indicated that the Plan currently allows for these uses in the Urban area, bu~ does not c/early outline how the development of the projects will be achieved. She noted that the water related land uses as proposed are compatible and consistent with the ~ntent of the Urban Residential Subdistr~ct. She reported that Staff be~eves that this ~s a land use ~ssue and ~s appropriate to be clar~fed within the ~ture Land Use desi~at~on descri~t~on Ms. Soto called attention to the Land Use Element, Page LU-I-2?, ~d recessed the lnclus~on of the phrase that would include "water-dependent ~d water-related uses within the Urban Designated Areas" . Ms. Soto pointed out that Staff ~e re~est~ng that certain cr~terla be included on Pa~e LU-I-28, for "water-related and water- dependent uses." Ms. Soto indicated tha~ the CCPC reco~ended approval of this ~tltlon, with one minor modification: adding "principal uses" to clar~f~ what Is required to ~a~f~ for ~ter-related/water-dependent u~es. C~s~r ~tght ~, sec~ ~ Co~ss~o~r S~~ ~ c~r~ 4/0 (Co~lee~o~r Vo]~ ~t), to a~r~e Petition CP-90-5, ~bJ~ to t~ r~~tt~ of Staff ~ the CC~. pOLICY 4.4 - AM~WD~DAS RECOMMF~DED BY STAFFAND THE CCPC Planner Lee called attention to Page LU-I-22, Policy 4.4 and noted that th~s commits to the development of Access Management Plans. He related that real~zlng that the Aug~lst, 1990 deadline cannot be met, Page 34 July 25, 1990 Staff is requesting that the dated be extended for one additional year. He affirmed that the CCPC has recommended approval of extending the date to August, 1991. Co~aS~loner Goodnight ~ove4, seconded ~ Co--testier Sa~ers ~ ~i~ ~~ly, t~t ~li~ 4.4 ~ ~d ~ receded ~ ' ~LI~ 5.1 - ~~ N ~y ~1~ 1990 Planer Lee Indicated that as a renlt of the implementation of Zoning Re-Evaluation, Staff feels it ts necessary to remove a portion of this Policy. Attorney George Varnadoe stated that he ts tn the midst of a discussion with the County Attorney relative to this Policy, and requested that ~he Commission hear the next proposed amendment and then come back to this item. At the conclusion of the meeting, Cowry Attorney Cuyler suggested that the public hearing on this specific policy be continued to the Board of County Coutsstoners Neettng on July 31, 1990. ~si~r S~n n~d, ecoad W Coatsstoner Vol~ ~d ~e~ N~tt~ to ~ltq 1.1 ~ c~ttn~ to July 31, 1990. DLI~ ~.l - ~~ ~ ~C~ED ~ ST~ ~ Ya~ CC~ Ire ~I; d. ~LI~ 6.4 - ~ ~ ~C~ED ~ ST~ ~ Xaa CC~ Planner Lee reported that Page LU-I-27, proposed amendment for Poltq 6.4 changes the date for adoption of the I~okalee Master Plan from Au~st, 1990 to February, 1991. C~sst~r ~mrs meal, second ~ Coatssioner S~ ~d C) ~ 35 JUly 25, 1990 cat-tied lmm~n~-m~l¥, that Poltc~ 6.4 ~ ~d ~ receded ~ CC~ Planner Lee pointed out that Page LU-I-33, reflects proposed amendments to Commercial Under Criteria to better define exactly what qualifies commercial under criteria. Mr. Alan Reynolds voiced concerns relative to the amendment as it relates to the C-6 District. He noted that the current language in the Com~rehensive Plan allows C-6 which is the lowest intensity com- mercial zoning relief from the requirement to bounded by other commercial zoning. He stated that the proposed language would now require that in order to have a C-6 District, it would need to have one side bounded by improved commercial property or consistent commer- cial zoning, and this reduces the ability to utilize the in-fill com- mercia/ zoning in Collier County. He suggested that the Commission consider eliminating the requirement that C-6 be bounded on one side by commercial zoning. Planner Cacchione advised that the commercial under criteria shall only apply in areas that are already substantially zoned or developed for commercial uses. She noted that kt ks dkfficult to imagine an area that would not have commercial zonkng on one side that is an area that is substantially zoned or developed for commercial uses. Mr. Robert Duane, of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., indicated that the intent of the C-6 District says that it ks only applicable to properties that are no longer suktable for residential development. He noted that to h~s knowledge, there have only been one or two rezon- tngs to Ce~aBd~to~x- Shanaha~ ~oved, seconded b~ Coa~aissione~ Saunders and ca, Tied m~n~ousl¥, that Commercial Unde= Criteria be a~ended a~ r~c~ b~ Staff ~nd the CCPC. · Ite~ ,I.g. URBA~ I]~D~IA~ DISTRICT - AMENDED AS P~COg~4~NDED BY STAFF AND THE CCPC Page 36 July 25, 1990 Planner Lee indicated that Page LU-I-41, reflects amendments to the Urban Industrial District. He explained that the definition has been changed to allow direct access for projects that are in the Urban Industrial District. Re noted that the current Plan states that there must be direct access to exclusively an arterial, but Staff realizes that there are some projects that may be appropriate for industrial uses but cannot meet the intent or provide direct access. He stated that the definition has been expanded to say that there may be direct access to a collector and a local road that does not service a predo- minantly residential area. He affirmed that the CCPC has reviewed and recommended approval of this amendment. Commissioner Volpe ~ved, seconded ~Co-.-~ssioner Shanahan ~d carrA~ ~A~ly, To a~r~e t~ ~t to the Urb~ In~strtal DistrAct ~ rec~d~ ~ Staff ~d the CC~. It~I.h. AGRI~~/~M~ US~ DIStil- PRO~SED tA~OA~E D~IED Pla~e~ Lee sta~ed tha~ Page LU-~-42 reflects amendments to the Agrlcultu~al/RuFal Mlxed Use D~s~c~. He noted ~hat cumrently th]s Dlst~lC~ allows co~e~cial ~de~ c~e~a. He revealed that staff has added one additional c~te~a: The p~o~ect shall be located outside of the Area of C~cal S~a~e Concern. He Indicated that Staff does not feel that co~erc~al uses a~e appropriate in ~his area. Co~sslone~ Goodn~ght sta~ed ~ha~ she has a problem w~th the pro- posed amendment. She explained ~ha~ Chapter 380.055 F.S. ~ndicates that 2.5 ac~es of the ~d or less may be used fo~ commercial, and ~he next p~o3ect canno~ be close~ ~han 5 m~les. She revealed that on SR-29 there ~s only one othe~ a~ea where ~h~s ~s possible, but on CR-846 ~he~e ~s a good possibility fo~ co~e~c~al. She noted that Staff's l~age ~s mo~e restrictive ~han ~ha~ of ~he State, and questioned why additional restrictions are being placed on these p~o- pe~ty ~e~s when the~e ~s very l~e ~hat ~hese land o~e~s ma~ do wlth ~he~ p~opert~es. Co~ss~one~ Vo/pe ~ecalled ~ha~ one of the concerns ~hat had been Page 37 July ;ressed by Staff and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was the possibility of a "domino effect" tn this area. ~, . Commissioner Saunders noted that when the Commission evaluated the ..Price PUD, a commitment was made to revisit this issue, noting that he no problem with restricting the commercial use tn this area. .!~:'' Mr. David Land declared that he is not suggesttngi'that there should not be site review criteria on any commerctallincluding the rural area. He recalled that at the time the Comp Plan was discussed Commission voted to permit commercial on 2.5 acres every § miles. He noted that the Area of State Critical Concern encompasses approxi- mately 600,000 acres and there could only be Of 75 acres in <this entire area. He indicated that when taking ation 'the road frontage that is currently in private hand~ reduces the to 25 acres; removal of the Price parcel, Port .the Islands, · Copeland roughly, leaves ~5 additional acres wht~ actually commercial. He stated that he has no problem with Staff conducting ~ore extensive reviews, but he does not feel that Policy should be :'' ~r. Jack Price advised that he lives tn the Area'of State Critical ilConcern (ASCC) ~htch Staff is recommending for additional restrtc- 'ttons. He noted that he ~as present at the Cabinet ~eettng in 1974 · the lSCC ~as outlined, to oppose the Issue and ts opposing it ~. ~e related that he has had 16 years of this and it is dtf- to live ~tth. He explained that he recently went through the process, and he had to put in 2O acres, in order to get 1.a acres .out since his property ts an ASCC. He requested that no addi- regulations be put on this area. Attorney George Varnadoe reported that the.regulations for the ~.Very encompassing tn-addition to the County's ~egulattons ~:to.the locattonal criteria for commercial in any rural area, .~alS that the area tg'~ade~tely protected. ~e stated that ,'s cUrrent Growth Nanagement Plan, there ts no chance Page CD, July 25, 1990 for the "domino effect" to occur. He revealed that there is an ini- t', rial clearing letter from DCA with regard to the Pri PUD which ~ indicates that the project appears to be consistent with the ASCC ' rules. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he is convinced[-that the CCPC ¥?~ recommendation to deny the proposed language is the right thing to do. Comm~one~ Shanahan moved, seconded ~ Couissi~r S~i~t ,Z,., ; :~ ~i~ 4/1 (CmIsst~r Sanders o~sed),, to acc~t t~ recom- ~'~~ ~ ~ State'o restrictI~ Plannes Lee stated that Page LU-I-43, reflects amendments to the Rural Industrial District. He explained that there are two parts to the amendments: modifying the language to expand the direct access requirements to include co/lector or local roads; and that industrial uses not be allowed in the Area of State Critical Concern. Commissioner Goodnight questioned why this is needed since there · ts no designated or zoned industrial area in the ASCC. Planner Lee concurred. Planner Lee reported that the CCPG approved the language with regard to expanding the definition for direct access, but denied the language relative to locating industrial in the ASCC. Planner Cacchione explained that F.S. are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that even though there are no existing zoned or designated industrial areas in the ASGC, a petitioner could request an amendment to the Comp Plan and request industrial designation in that location. She indicated that State regulations address site alterations, drainage, transportation, and structure installation, but do not address land uses. She recalled that based on discussions that were held during the Price !{':.PUD, Staff ia presenting the proposed language. David Land stated that he supports the languag~ as recommended July 25, 1990 by the CCPC. Mr. Alan Reynolds pointed out that he has addressed the Commission in the past with respect to this language as it relates to the posst- blltty of siting an asphalt and concrete batch plant.lin Collier County. He suggested additional language that would alleviate problems that he has encountered in the past and would allow the opportunity for consideration of a rezone. He offered the following verbiage to the second paragraph of Page LU-I-43: "...the proposed site must not be "spot industrial" and therefore must be ad3acent to existing land designated or zoned industrial" and then adding, "designated, zoned, or utilized for a similar industrial purpose without regard to intervening rights-of-way or easements". Mr. Blanchard stated that he has been working with Mr. Reynolds with regard to this language. He noted concerns that, in the rural area there are typically earth mining operations but~they are really temporary operations since they end up with a reclamation plan that suggests some type of land use that is consistent with the land use designation on the Plan Map. He indicated that without the time frame consideration, there could be an industrial project that proceeds beyond the length of time that the operation was originally placed next to. He suggested that if the Commission is inclined to consider this type of language, the ad3acent useage needs to be addressed as to whether it is permanent use versus temporary use, and should include a timing mechanism. Mr. Reynolds stated that the time frame issue would be appropriately addressed at the time that a rezone is being considered. In answer to Commissioner Goodnlght, Mr. Blanchard advised that earth mining ts not an industrial designation on the map, nor is it typtcally zoned "Industrial", noting that they are Pr°~tsional Uses within the rural area. ' ': Commissioner Saunders stated that he does not concur with the 'prospect of the possibility of industrial uses in the Area of State !i!}i'! icritical Concern. Commissioner Goodnight concurredw~th Commissioner Page 40 July 25, 1990 Saunders. Mr. Brian McKenzie, representing Collier Resources Co., stated that his firm manages the severed underground mineral state for the Collier families and the primary thrust of the business is oil and Gas exploration. He related that the language as it now stands allows Collier to explore, drill and discover oil, but not produce same, and this is a potential problem. He explained that he has met with staff on numerous occasions, and Mrs. Cacchione has supplied him with a letter interpretinG the Comp Plan which indicates that none of the amendments in'this portion of the Future Land Use Element are appli- cable to this activity. He provided language which clarifies this role, as follows: "No new industrial land uses shall be permitted in the Area of Critical State Concern. For the purposes of interpreting this amendment oil and Gas exploration, drilling, and production ("oil extraction and related processing,,) shall not be deemed to be industrial land uses and shall continue to be regulated by all appli- cable federal, state, and local laws." C~mi~ioner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co--=tsstoner Goodntght to ~ppr~v~ Th~ CCPC'e x*eco~ndatton to approve the Rural Industrial District with d~letion of the lan~ua~ prohibiting tndu~trial land ~ ~n th~ ~ of Critical State Concern. Commissioner Saunders stated that there is some potential for industrial uses in the Area of Critical State Concern, and he would rather have an "overkill" as opposed to having industrial uses. Open call for the question, the motion failed 2/3 (C~iesionere Volp~, Samx~dera and Hasse opposed). Commfsai~n~r S~unders moved that Staff's language for the Rural .Industrial District be approved with the addition that oil and ga~ is not c~n~id~r~d an industrial use for the purposes of that Section; and th~ trion of Nr. Reynolds language to be included after 'spot indll~t~-, "m~d therefore must be adjacent to existing land ~'":":-d~ig~tmt zonad, or utilized for the same or similar industrial pur- ~)~:~::pmmeiwttlmut regard to intervening rights-of-way or e~semente, pro- July 25, 1990 .;,~1~1~;-~ th. ti~ Tra~ of such uae Is addressed at the time of Commissioner Volpe stated that once the earth mining shuts down because the resource is exhausted, there will still be a batch plant. Mr. Blanchard indicated that this Is one of the issues that he is concerned with relative to the timing requirements on that use. ~f~ Saxmders a~ended his motion to Include lan~age t:::"'-"~t~.~t t~ ~trtal ~e c~ mly ~ist ~ long ~ the Ms. Lee Layne suggested that agriculture related uses be deleted. She indicated that someone who desired to have a packing house on pro- perry that was owned by a farmer with ten acres would not be allowed this use since it is an industrial use. ~o~issioner Saunders ~tated that he is attemptinG to find a way to prevent industrial uses in the ASCC, and this is also combined with the Rural Industrial District. Co~tssioner Volpe suGGested that Staff draft the appropriate language that would embody the remarks made by Messrs. McKenzie and Re,olds since there is a consensus with regard to industrial uses in the ASCC. '~': ..... *** ~ 4:40 P.M. - Reconvened 4:55 P.M. *'* Co--missioner Saund~rs left the meeting at this time PETITIOI[ CP-90-4, ALAN ~OLDS OF WILSON, MILL~, B~N, SOLL, ~, ~~I~G ~R CO~TION ~ ~ TO ~ ~ USE ~ ~ ~ESI~ATING ~ 144 AC~S LOCATED AT ~ 1-75 ~ C.R. 951 ~ ~ ~ID~TI~ TO I~US~I~ - ~PR0~D Commissioner Volpe disclosed that he has a conflict of interest with respect to this petition. He advised that the Power Corporation is a client of the firm by which he is employed. Planner Lee stated that this item is a request to designate 144 acres from Urban to Industrial for property located at the northeast quadrant of 1-75 and CR-951, and immediately south of City Gate. He advised that by virtue of the language which was adopted for direct Page 42 July 25, 1990 access, this request is now in compliance with five out of the five criteria required for industrial land use designation within the Urban Area. He reported that Staff has concluded that much of the industrial land use, County-wide, is undeveloped due to the small size and substantial infrastructure. He explained that the County lacks large, unified tracts of industrial zoned areas to meet the demand for new industry and the industrial land use proposed for this site is compatible with surrounding land uses by being ad3acent to an industrial zoned area. He advised that Staff and the CCPC have recom- mended approval of this Petition. ~i~i~ner Shanahan~ved, seconded by Co~missioner Goodnight C~XTi~d 3/0 (Co~issioner Volpe abstained and Commissioner ~s ~nt}, to approve P~titton CP-90-4, as recommended by Staff Collier Count~ Planning Commission. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he has been informed by persons who wished to speak on Policy 5.9, that they were out of the room when action was taken, and they would like the opportunity to speak. Assistant County Attorney Student advised that since the public aspect of the entire meeting has not been closed, and if a Commissioner desires to open that portion of the hearing again, it may be done. Attorney Bruce Anderson called attention to problems with the proposed change in Policy 5.9. He noted that the deletion of the last sentence will prevent an owner of property that is developed from ren- ovating, remodeling, adding on, or replacing existing buildings. He questioned whether this is the Commission's intent? He noted that the removal of this last sentence may also discourage redevelopment in Immokalee. Planner Cacchione reported that the intent of the changes that were recommended were to clarify the Policy and and tie it to the definitions in zoning re-evaluation. She explained that "developed property" which is not defined is changed to "improved property", and the area that is "improved" is determined by lot or a unified plan of Page 43 July 25, 1990 development. She advised that Mr. Anderson's question relative to what will happen to improved properties if they are destroyed by natural disaster and whether or not they may be re-constructed, is a Policy decision. She indicated that there are provisions in the Zoning Ordinance with respect to non-conforming uses that are destroyed and how much may be re-built. She indicated that Policy 5.9 does not address re-building, and the Commission will need to direct Staff with regard to this issue and then language will be provided to amend the Plan in that regard. Attorney Anderson stated that the Policy, as currently written, allows expansion, and if there is to be something less than expansion, i.e. re-building, certainly one would be authorized to do so. He declared that voluntary and involuntary building needs to be con- sidered. Commissioner Volpe noted that it appears that there are two dif- ferent issues being discussed: an improved piece of property that is destroyed by natural causes; and voluntarily tearing down and reconstructing. Mrs. Cacchione stated that based on preliminary review, rebuilding by natural disaster could be included in the Unified Code or the Comp Plan. She explained that Attorney Anderson's issue relative to expan- sion is set forth in the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance so that when a piece of property is determined to be "improved" an area will be used that is either a unified plan of development or the definition of "lot". She stated that this particular Policy was a request for an interpretation that was appealed and placed on hold until the adoption of the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance. Attorney Anderson remarked that the Commission needs to allow the latitude in the Comprehensive Plan because when the zoning re- evaluation commences full board, difficult hardship cases will be pre- sented and the Board's hands will be tied, if this language is to be removed. He noted that DCA did no object to the language in the Original Plan, and suggested that flexibility that is allowed, remain Page 44 July 25, 1990 as is. Mrs. Cacchione indicated that the hardship cases alluded to by Attorney Anderson, probably will be good candidates for a com- patibility exception which may be applied for under zoning re- evaluation. She noted that the Commission could vote at any time during the year to institute the second cycle of amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Attorney Dudley Goodlette stated that by deleting the last sen- tence of Policy 5.9, the flexibility is eliminated. He remarked that when he reads the Justification for this. change which is a major policy issue, he believes that by omission, the major policy issue is not being addressed. He noted that he sees no sense in deleting a sen- tence to eliminate some modest element of flexibility that DCA had no problem with. Mrs. Cacchione stated that Staff will work on language to address the issue of replacement in the event of natural disaster. Attorney Anderson stated that he has a client who must decide by August 15th, whether or not to exercise an option to purchase some commercially zoned land that is presently owned by Palmer Cablevision. He noted that the property contains a radio tower, and garage type buildings, and it does not take up all of the acreage. He noted that his client wants to know if he will be able to tear down the buildings, remove the radio tower and build something more attractive under the zoning that is on the property. Commissioner Volpe advised that Mr. Anderson's client will not be able to receive an answer by August 15th. l]~pnt-FClerk ~u~vin replaced Deputy Clerk Hoff~an at this time *** ":' Im #III.J ~r:"'r~=~N' LANl)~ DESIGNATION AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE CHILD CARE CENTI~RS, :'-:' 'PAI3K'.LU-~-28 - ~ Planner Lee stated that staff is requesting a change in the FLUE ii!.i to allow child care centers to be developed in residential areas as /%- PU's and no longer require them to be within activity centers or be Page 45 July 25, lggo restricted to commercial districts. He explained that the cost is prohibitive in commercial areas, and this change allows flexibility to locate in residential areas. Commissioner Volpe indicated he cannot support having child care centers in residential neighborhoods. Planner Cacchfone reported that the concern is looking at a child care center as a provisional use, and if those uses are determined to be commercial, they can only be allowed in areas that are commercial within the Plan which will not give the flexibility to locate within a residential subdivision. Commissioner Goodnight stated her belief that this change will allow the Board to have control yet give the flexibility needed for child care centers, and will still require a 4 vote PU approval. C-~/~sioner Shanahanmoved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight ar~ ~--~XTie~ 4/0 (Co~m~ssioner Saunders not present) to accept the CCPC Planner Soto explained this is a staff-initiated petition to allow a density bonus for affordable housing in the urban coastal fringe area. She said that staff has looked at this issue very carefully and has come up with a compromise that will allow a maximum of 600 dwelling units strictly for affordable housing in the entire urban coastal fringe area, which is east of the boundaries of the City of Naples, south of U.S. 41 and including Marco Island. She remarked this will be an interim policy until 1990 census data is available to see if there is a specific need for affordable housing in the urban coastal fringe area. She said there are two major locations where there is a great need for the service-oriented population, Lely Resort and Marco Island. She stated that a recent newspaper article reported that the service industry demand in the next 10 years will expand to over 67% from what it is now. For the record, she read letters from Page 46 July 25, 1990 the Marco Beach Hilton and Marrlott's Marco Island Resort asking for support for affordable housing in this area. (Copies not provided to the Clerk to the Board.) Planner Soto concluded that staff initially recommended 50 acres be looked at for possible affordable housing in the urban coastal fringe area but subsequent review by the CCPC limited it to 600 dwelling units at a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the need for a cap when the County is being encouraged to support affordable housing7 Planner Soto replied that the entire urban residential area is still available for affordable housing and staff is specifically directing the 600 dwelling units in the coastal fringe area. Commissioner Volpe stated this is a very important economic con- sfderation that needs to be balanced with efforts to direct the popu- lation away from these areas. He asked if a needs assessment has been done in terms of numbers of affordable housing? Planner Soto replied that a study has been started but not completed at this time. Russell Shreeve, Director of Housing and Urban Improvement, indi- cated that only 3 to 4 units per acre are allowed on property south of U.S. 41 in the Comprehensive Plan and this request is tryinG to change that, because the cost is prohibitive to develop affordable housing at that density. He said the cost of rental units will need to be $4,500 to $6,000 per unit and land for single family residential will need to be approximately $10,0OO to be affordable to people making less than 80~ of the median income. He stated that the purpose of the density bonus for affordable housing is to lower the cost per unit of land. He commented that the 1990 Affordable Housing Report from the Department of Community Affairs is urging housing for workers close to where they work and in Collier County this is in the coastal fringe area. He added that he does not support any cap on affordable housing in this area because of the drastic need for it. Page 47 July 25, 1990 Mr. Robert Duane agreed that a cap will only serve as a step back- ward and that 600 units of affordable housing only translates into 2 or 3 projects when there are 1700 workers on Marco Island who would like to have housing in the vicinity of where they work. He stated that even though this will be an interim policy, there are 18,000 acres in the coastal area and to limit to 50 acres or 600 units will not accomplish the goals established. Mr. Dudley Goodlette of Cummings & Lockwood stated he is concerned with the cap being proposed because very few pro3ects will be able to go forward if it is initiated. He said t~e message ds being sent that the Board does not want to accommodate the Growth Management Plan and the incentives for affordable housing. He said that earlier in this meeting the Board reduced density from 3 units to 2, if one is subtracted due to lack of an interconnect, and this is encouraging urban sprawl. He remarked that capping affordable housing units at 600 in the coastal fringe area will create a race for permits for affordable housing. He said that the cap itself is arbitrary and the market will determine the need. He recommended if there is going to be a cap, that a deadline of July l, 1991, be imposed so that two or three years do not pass before time constraints of staff will allow a determination of need to be done. Commissioner Volpe asked when the Board will see the affordable housing land development regulation? Mr. Shreeve reported it has been submitted to the County Attorney's Office and when it is returned from there, a public hearing will be advertised. Commissioner Volpe commented on the need for that regulation and the Board needs to see what the actual needs are and what needs are not being met. He stated the Department of Housing & Urban Improvement needs to know the numbers of approved units and how many are under construction in order not to end up with too much affordable housing. He added to increase the density to 8 in the coastal fringe area because of a policy encouraging affordable housing is giving the Page 48 CZ) July 25~ 1990 message that affordable housing is a more important issue than limiting density in the coastal high hazard area to provide for ade- quate hurricane evacuation times. Mr. Shreeve explained that unless people go through his office for a bonus density, he is not aware of all the construction taking place. He said that if developers go through the Collier County Housing Finance Authority to get a bond issue, he hears about it by reading the newspaper. He concluded that the Affordable Housing Task Force is looking at that issue and their report will be available in the near future. Attorney George Vega stated that County staff recognizes the need to have affordable housing where the 3ohs are, balanced with the need to restrict housing ~n the coastal high hazard area because of hurri- cane evacuation times, but it does not make sense to set the balance at 600 without any standards. He said there is a great need for affordable housing and it needs to be opened up so that planning can begin and when the 1990 census data ~s available it can be looked at again. He concluded the County has already committed to affordable housing and the entire community recognizes the need for it now. Commissioner Shanahan asked ~f the language can be modified to provide urban coastal fringe affordable housing without a cap and put the limitation on it to see what happens? Growth Planning Director Blanchard stated that the high hazard area. was created in the first place to recognize the need for environ- mental sensitiv~ty and hurricane evacuation. He said the County is obligated to plan for affordable housing as well as the safety of residents. He ~ndicated the reason for the cap is to recognize both these needs and also to allow staff time to do a more appropriate needs analysis. He concluded that if this is becoming an issue of having a cap or not, he advises deleting this as a staff recommen- dation until additional information is available. Commissioner Shanahan inquired if the cap of 600 can be increased to which Planner Soto answered that staff will look into whatever the Page 49 July 25, 1990 Board wants to propose. Commissioner Shanahan remarked if a cap of 600 does not provide an adequate number and there are 1,700 service workers on Marco Island alone who need affordable housing, then the cap should be raised to at least 1,200 with an evacuation plan. Commissioner Volpe stated that without the affordable housing land development regulation or a needs assessment, by arbitrarily picking a number of 600 or 1,200 will begin another cycle in amending the Growth Management Plan. Commissioner Shanahan commented rather than have no program at all, this sends the message that the Board wants to have affordable housing in the coastal fringe area. He asked if the cap is set at 400, 600 or 900 will there is any relationship to the number of units per acre? Planner Cacchione replied that 600 units is the maximum in the coastal fringe area. C~mt~o~er Shanahan moved, seconded by Co~mieston~r Goodnight la~ ~ ~lati~ to 600. Motion failed 2/2 (Co~issioners Vol~ Co~inion~r Volpe moved, seconded by Com~tssioner Hasse and carried 3/1 (Co~atssionar Shanahan opposed) to accept staff reco~aen- dation of 600 affordable housing units tn the coastal fringe area. It~;III.~ Planner Lee explained three minor amendments to the Future Land Use Map: I) an area to be added as a Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge; 2) amend a mapping error for the Area of Critical State Concern and 3) amend the boundaries to reflect new City of Naples annexation. ".:' ~s~uinioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co~isstoner Gooctnight :-~M 4/0 to approve the COPC recommendation, '~:"':'.'FUBLIC F~CILITIE$ ~LE~awT {DRAIN&GE SUB--ELEMENT) AMEND~.~S - &pPkOV~t., Page 50 July 25, 1990 Robert Wiley, Water Management Department, stated this proposal is to follow-up the commitment made when the original Drainage Sub- Element was adopted. He said Policy 1.2.2.B states when the Water Management Master Plan was completed, it would be brought back to Identify the existing level of service of the public drainage facili- ties throughout the County and that Issue is addressed with this amendment. He explained that levels of service are identified in two places of Policy 1.2.2.B and in Appendix I page D-I-29. He indicated the concept utilized looks at an entire drainage basin, using the weakest link in the basin which appears to give a very low level of service, but staff recommends this conservative approach is the best way to go at the planning level. Commissioner Volpe asked by adopting that level of service in the Growth Management Plan are we committing to $90 million in improve- ments? Mr. Wiley replied that the Board accepted at the public hearing what was presented at that time and this does not commit the Board to the $80 million in capital projects that will be in the overall master plan's concept for funding analysis. He explained this establishes an existing level of service and staff will not issue development orders that will cause any decrease in this level of service. He added that currently there is a pre-development and a post-development concept and post-development cannot exceed pre-development in a discharge rate. He said that capacity must be shown in the development process. Commissioner Shanahan asked if this will inhibit implementation of a stormwater/drainage utility system? Mr. Wiley explained this is solely a level of service for existing utilities and does not address the stormwater utility concept. Com~i~sio~r Gocainight ~ovsd, seconded by Conisstoner Volp~ ar~ c~r~t~d 4/0, to accept the reconendattons of staff and the CCPC. Planner Laverty referred to Policy 1.5.6. He stated this is an addition in conjunction with the FLUE, that w~th the availability of Page 51 July 25, 1990 1990 census data, a feasibility study will be done. Co~/nioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and c~z~ied i/O, to ~pprove the ~men~nt to the H~sing Elint. Iraqi. ~TION ~ O~ SPACE EL~ ~~ - APPRO~D ~ ~GES Planner Laverty explained the first change in the Recreation and Open Space Element is updating the population figures which has also been done in the annual update and inventory report. He reported two additional changes under the types of facilities. He said the boat ramp standard is being changed to ad3ust to the study adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1988. Commissioner Volpe questioned if there is any way for Collier County to take credit for its beaches as part of Parks and Recreation? Planner Laverty reported there are only 2 categories the beaches will fit Into: one is recreational facilities and the beaches them- selves are not actually facilities; and the other category is regional parkland. He explained when constructing the concurrency management system, acreage totaled 235 park acres from beach facilities and that could be counted as regional parkland. Public Services Administrator O'Donnell stated the Collier County can use any acreage and the park facilities that are at beach sites as part of regional parkland and also use impact fees from regional park funds to pay for improvements. He reported that in the FY 91 budget there are approximately $500,000 in improvements scheduled for the Barefoot Beach facility which staff hopes to fund from that source. Commissioner Volpe advised that if we take credit for the beaches it will reduce other monetary requirements and also may tie into other items being discussed. He questioned if a regional park is required to be ?00 acres? Mr; O'Donnell answered that ?00 acres is the current standard for regional parkland and by not taking credit for the beach facilities our acreage for regional parkland is zero. He reported the Barefoot Beach facility is approximately 185 acres, the State 5,000 feet of Page 52 July 25, 1990 beachfront is another 150 acres, Clam Pass is approximately 35 acres and Tigertatl Beach ts In the neighborhood of 30 acres. He indicated that using that acreage will dramatically decrease Collier County's deficiency in regional parkland. Planner Laverty remarked that with direction from the Board of County Commissioners, staff will count that acreage as inventory. Commissioner Shanahan questioned in the event of Marco Island incorporating, who will be able to count the parks, etc.? Mr. O'Donnell indicated that all park facilities, including library facilities, will still be owned and operated by Collier County if incorporation takes place. He added that Marco Island will need to acquire its own park facilities or contract with Collier County for use of existing sites. *** l~ty Clerk Hoff~an replaced Deputy Clerk Guevin at this time Mr. Laverty advised that the bicycle trails have been removed from the inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities. Mr. O'Donnell explained that bicycle trails are normally provided in conjunction with roadways and are really not considered a recreational endeavor. He noted that his Staff works with Transportation Services if there is a preference as to where a par- ticular bike path should be placed in conjunction with the construc- tion of a new park. Commissioner Volpe Indicated that there has been a surplus of bike paths in the Parks and Recreation Element, and questioned why Staff is recommending that they be removed since credits in the Growth Management Plan will be lost7 In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Laverty explained that this is basically a housekeeping issue. He affirmed that credits will be lost if the bike trails are removed, and those dollars amounts would need to be made up in other areas. C~iesicrn~ Volpe ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and C~XTted 4/0 (Co~mtssioner Saunders absent) to approve the -~ndments to the Recreation and Open Space Element with the inclusion of the CD July 25, 1990 'f~-'th~ beach fac~[ittes, and that the bI~e paths ~e~ain in IN--AL COORDINATION ELEMENT AMENDMENTS - APPROVED Planner Lavert¥ stated that this is a housekeeping item. He reported that he moved the reference to "Telesat Cablevislon Inc." in the Goal of the Element since they are no longer in business in the County. ~i~mionex- Shanahmn moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight ~n~ =~l~ried 4/0 (C~issfoner Saunders absent) to approve the a~end- ~ to the Inter~vernmental Coordination Element. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO JULY 31, 1990 AT 9:00 A.M. County Attorney Cuyler suggested that the public hearing be con- tinued until July 31, 1990 at 9:00 A M., until such time that it is · Or set on the agenda for the limited purpose of discussing Policy 5.1 and the Rural/Industrial item. He noted that it should be understood that the Commission will not entertain any discussion from the Board or any member of the pubic on any item except these two items. Cos~misstoner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the public hearing to July 31, 1990 at 9:00 for the limited purpose of discussing Policy 5.1 and the Rural/Industrial issue. · ss Recess 6:35 P.M. - This meeting was continued to July 31, 1990, for final action with regards to adopting the Growth Management Plan amendments. The following are the minutes fro~ that July 31, 1990, ~eettng: ~ TO POLICY 5.1 - APPROVED WITH ADDITIO~Ir. CHANGES Planner Laverty advised that this public hearing is a continuation from the hearing of July 25, 1990. He reported that there will be an additional public hearing in January, 1991, to consider adoption of ~;' the all the amendments that the Commission has approved for transmit- ' tal to DCA. Mr. Laverty recalled that at the July 25th hearing, the Commission approved transmittal to DCA a boundary change relative to the City of Page 54 July 25, 1990 Naples on the Future Land Use Map and the Future Land Use Map Series. Re indicated that this will be carried forward through the rest of the Plan Elements to make them consistent with the Future Land Use Element Map and the Future Land Use Map Series. Growth Planning Director Blanchard stated that his memo dated July 30, 1990, reflects the recommended language with regard to amendments to Policy 5.1 and and the Rural Industrial District of the Future Land Use Element which were continued from the public hearing on 3uly 25, 1990. Mr. Blanchard reported that Policy 5.1 as it is currently adopted in the Growth Management Plan continues to allow inconsistent projects to develop even though suggested changes to the Development Orders are approved by the Commission. He related that Staff believes that the current language is inconsistent with Policy 31K as it was amended to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement which states very clearly that "No inconsistent Development Orders will be issued." He noted that Staff recognizes the need to provide an alternative to the "all or nothing" scenario for projects that are already approved. He indicated that all of the Policies within the Plan should contain provisions so that ~f there is the opportunity during a change application to the Development Order that the project can moved in the direction of con- sistency with the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Blanchard remarked that the proposed language, as outlined on the first and second pages of his ;~emo, continues to permit certain changes to existing inconsistent Development Orders but these changes are related to those projects that have gone through parts of the Zoning Re-Evaluatlon process. He advised that Staff is proposing that changes be permitted for projects that have received a compatibility exception or an exemption which does not contain a specific deadline for commencement of construction. He noted that the proposed language does not include the review categories that have deadlines for commen- cement of construction or continuation of construction. Mr. Blanchard stated that exemptions that have deadlines should Page 55 CD* July 25, 1990 not be considered sfnce they are based on specific Development Orders. He noted that the exemptions are allowed for building permits, sub- division master plans, final plats and site development plans. He remarked that changes to those Development Orders represents changes to what the project entailed when it was exempt, and a requested change could indicated that the project would not Go forward under the approved Development Order. Mr. Blanchard indicated that in the months preceding the adoption of the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance there was a rush in obtaininG approval of site development plans, and he suspects that some of those were rushed with the anticipation that once they received exemptions they would be able to make a change to make the project more viable and enhance it for some type of development to occur. He remarked that by allowing changes that encourage the development of projects suggests that they should go ahead and develop inconsistent with the Plan, when in fact they may be able to meet the deadlines under their current approved Development Order. With regard to vested rights, Mr. Blanchard affirmed that deter- minations will be made by a hearing officer on specific projects that have been authorized by the County and also the extent of developer commitments to that project. He stated that changes to Development Orders that are protected by positive determinations of vested rights represents changes to the data tha!: was used by the hearing officer in making recommendations for a final order. He noted that under Policy 5.1, it would be possible for Staff to change that approval to something different than what was acted on by the hearing officer. He indicated that as discussed with the exemption provision, it is entirely possible that under the existing approved Development Order, development that is inconsistent with the Plan, may not proceed. Mr. Blanchard advised that in addition to those two points, an additional change is recommended to remove the language that allows changes to Development Orders that retain the equivalent density and intensity of use. He affirmed that the new language would require an Page 56 July 25, 1990 actual reduction in density and inten~ity to move toward consistency with the Plan. He remarked that Staff is proposing that any permitted changes that do occur under Policy 5.1 should include a provision that the intensity of development should move significantly in the direc- tion of compatibility with the Growth Management Plan: a 20% reduc- tion in intensity or density is the appropriate test to meet the term "significant". In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard advised that the phrase that states "equal to or less than" relates to new zoning requests that will be presented to the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Attorney George Varnadoe stated that the problem with the proposed language of Policy 5.1 is that there will be impacts to ongoing pro- 3ects since ~t does not address improved properties. He ~ndicated that i.e. if changes were desired in Pelican Bay that may reduce the density in any amount, there fs no mechanism in this Policy to do, nor is there any mechanism to make changes unless the project is brought ~nto total compliance. Attorney Varnadoe called attention to the exemptions from the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance for those projects that may not be amended. He stated that when a project is underway in 3 to 5 years, and reasonable changes are desired, there is nothing ~n the Policy to allow these changes. With regard to the 20% criteria, Mr. Varnadoe stated that the City adopted a similar Policy which allows developments that are improved to make changes in the Development Order as long as there is a reduc- tion toward the Growth Management Plan, but the proposed language would not allow this. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Blanchard stated that Staff's proposed language addresses a percentage of the entirety of the project. Attorney Varnadoe presented a copy of proposed lanquage changes. He suggested that an "either or test" be used with a meaningful reduc- CD 0 Page 57 July 25, 1990 tion in intensity or density because large projects with a reduction would be a great amount. He stated that there will be times when the County would benefit from a change in Development Orders that may or may not reduce the density of a project, but there may be other substantial benefits. He indicated that there should be the ability for the Commission to have the flexibility to allow these projects that have been exempt for one reason or another, from having to be ~n straight compliance w~th the Growth Management Plan, and allow them to go forward to make reasonable changes that will bring them into compliance with the Plan. Attorney Varnadoe called attention to Paragraph t (b) of his language, noting that he feels that the Policy should include a provi- sion for projects that receive an exemption from the Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance that require construction to commence, but to make certain that construction fs moving forward before any changes are allowed. Mr. Varnadoe stated that Paragraph 2 ~s the same as recommended by Staff. Mr. Varnadoe pointed out that Paragraph 3 is the change that constitutes a meaningful ~eduction in the density or ~ntensity or results tn other meaningful benefits to the County. Attorney Varnadoe advlsed that Paragraph 4 gives the Commission the discretion as to how much intensity/density is required to look at the ¢ompa~ibllity with other Goals, Ob3ectives and Policy of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Blanchard reminded the Commission that if it is desired to go with the concept of other meaningful benefits, Policy 5.1 relates spe- cifically to the Future Land Use Element which deals with the types of land uses and the intensity of development that is planned for the future of the community and not to the entlre Growth Management Plan. He stated that he is hesitant to include "meaningful benefits". Mr. Blanchard stated that with regard to Mr. Varnadoe's first two points, they are actually both improved properties. He ~ecalled that Page 58 July 25, 1990 at the public hearing on July 25th, discussions were held with regard to Policy 5.9 and the language was amended to change "developed" to "improved" and also that "properties which do not conform to the Future Land Use Element but are improved or found to have vested zoning rights shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element" He noted that Staff was given direction by the Commission to address "improved property" in terms of conformity and non- conformity, and he is suggesting that it is appropriate to deal with improved property under Policy 5.9 when Staff comes back to the Board. Commissioner Shanahan questioned whether Staff has a problem with the language remaining as is, in order to afford the improved property owner the opportunity that Mr. Varnadoe is suggesting. Mr. Blanchard replied that the issue still remains as to whether it is proper to include the language or to delete it. He noted that the Commission has the option of a second amendment cycle during the year. He indi- cated that in his opinion, it is better not to include the language, but in the meantime obtain direction from the Board, and then insert the appropriate language. Commissioner Saunders asked if it would be acceptable to approve Staff's recommendation for Policy 5.1, changing the second sentence to read: "However, any change to an existing Development Order for unimproved or improved property, whether residential, commercial or industrial..." and modifying (3) on the following page with the defi- nit,on of "significant" as follows: "significant" shall mean a reduc- tion in density or intensity equal to or greater than 50% of the inconsistency. County Attorney Cuyler advised that "unimproved property" cannot be included in the language. Commissioner Saunders called attention to "significant" in terms of the reduction in intensity or density equal to a percentage of the inconsistency, and asked Mr. Blanchard what he recommends as the i' desired amount of percentage? Mr. Blanchard responded that 50% would be an acceptable amount. Page 59 July 25, 1990 Attorney George Varnadoe stated that he believes that all aspects of development should be addressed tn Policy 5.1. He cited that Policy 5.9 indicates that if improved, the property may be developed out to the extent of the lot. Commissioner Volpe mentioned that the planned and improved dwelling units or the PUD's are betnG exempt due to the dedication of a right-of-way or some other dedication with no time lines and any time in the future they can be amended and allowed to proceed incon- sistently with the Growth Management Plan. Attorney Varnadoe replied that the properties that are not included in Policy 5.1 are those that have time lines included, and they are not allowed to make any changes in the future unless they are totally consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Mr. B]anchard revealed that once exemptions are Granted, and the time line is met, the definition of the test of commencement of construction is met, but the exemptions that Mr. Varnadoe ts suggesting, falls into the same concerns that he has with improved properties. County Attorney Cuyler stated that those types of exemptions are really two part exemptions: the criteria for the exemptions is met; and then additional things must be done tn order to maintain that exemption. He explained that the County has no assurances that those things will happen, and therefore, it is acknowledged that the deve- loper will commence construction tn Good faith when tn fact he may never do that. Commissioner Hasse questioned whether Mr. Blanchard concurs with Attorney Varnadoe's suggestions7 Mr. Blanchard indicated that he does concur with Mr. Varnadoe's language with the exception of the issue of "improved properties" and Item l(b) relating to the inclusion of addi- tional exemptions. Attorney George Varnadoe stated that if Policy 5.1 is adopted, there is a certain segment of the populous that is allowed to develop but has no ability to make reasonable changes to the property and he Page 60 July 25, ~990 believes that this is a fatal flaw in the Growth Management Plan. He indicated that if inconsistencies ~n a Development Order are to be addressed, they should be handled tn one Policy rather than scattering same throughout the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Varnadoe pointed out that because Briarwood does not receive an exemption for the road dedication since it is not a time deadline project, reasonable changes could not be made to this pro3ect unless it was totally consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Attorney Donald Pickworth voiced concerns with regard to the ina- bility for property deemed "improved" to make changes, in addition to the exemption language. He cited that the Wiggins Pass has changed its original site plant to a 226 unit development and instead of 3 high rise buildings, it is now 8 or 9 lower buildings with the "RT" Zoning D~strict guidelines. He indicated that in the meantime, the County announced that it had acquired the land across the waterway and would build a boat ramp. He stated that he has concerns relative to some of the units being very closely placed to a County park, and he is interested in the ability to make some shifts in the site plan. He related that because this pro3ect is a 2.4 exemption which requires start of construction and continuing in good faith, the Policy pre- vents him from doing this. Attorney Bruce Anderson indicated that as a matter of equity, a person who has started construction on his project should be more entitled to change his building plans than someone who has done nothing at all. County Attorney Cuyler advised that Staff Js not intending to address these examples of ongoing projects, but there are hundreds of other examples which are very complex and should not be addressed in this Policy, and they should all be comprehensively done at the same time. Attorney Anderson stated that he concurs with County Attorney Ouyler, but unfortunately, he believes that the Commission is taking a piece meal approach. He mentioned that the Settlement Agreement which Page 6! July 25, ~990 was entered into with DCA is under challenge and one of the challenges is based on the Policy which is being discussed. He noted that the Commission is in litigation with the citizens group from the City of Naples, and even if the Board is inclined to change or delete the Policy, today is not the day to do so. He suggested that the Comratssion wait until December to make any changes and work out a settlement with the people who are ob3ecting to the Comp Plan. County Attorney Cuyler advised that his position is that the Commission does, in all cases, what it feels to be appropriate and the considerations as mentioned by Attorney Anderson are not part of the considerations that are being dealt with today. Attorney Dudley Goodlette remarked that he has clients with improved properties that need protection from the proposed ordinance. He revealed that this is a complex issue noting that this Policy was very seriously debated in 1987 at the Citizens Advisory Committee level and also by the CCPC. He indicated that he endorses the com- ments that have been made. He stated that he feels that County Attorney Cuyler's proposal which was forwarded to the Commission is an improvement, but the comments which were forwarded back to Mr. Cuyler by Attorney Varnadoe is a further improvement, and he encourages the adoption of same. He explained that there needs to be a vehicle to permit improved property to change, and he sees no reason for not per- mitring the 204.1 and 2.4.2 exemptions to make changes providing that the termination or exemption is not extended by vlrtue of anything that ts done today. He stated that the language in (1) (b) as pro- vided by Mr. Varnadoe accomplishes this. He noted that if people are going to be forced to build out those projects on which they have SMP's, or building permits in accordance with their terms and not per- mit them to improve those by reducing the intensity or density they will build those projects. He indicated that he does not believe that the Growth Management Act mandates that those projects are not to proceed. Commissioner Volpe questioned why the exemptions under 2.4.1 and Page 62 July 25, 1990 2.4.2 are not being addressed? Mr. Blanchard stated that in his opi- nion, these exemptions are based on very specific Development Orders, and the changes to those Development Orders basically changes the cri- teria that Staff has used to Grant those exemptions. He noted that there is no Guarantee that a project will build, based on a Development Order. He indicated that when SDP's and final plats are received, those projects meet all County Codes and in the County's view, it is a "Good project" He advised that by makinG changes to the approved Development Order it may enhance what the developer can do with the project, but by approving those changes, development is being encouraged to continue inconsistent with the Plan, and could be removing the opportunity that the Commission has to direct development into consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Commissioner Volpe noted that Attorney Goodlette expressed that by not allowinG flexibility, a project may be built out that could be a better project than the one that was approved during the rush. County Attorney Cuyler stated that Staff will be back before the Commission with regard to those projects that are going to be built out over the course of 3-10 years and the exemptions relating to same. Commissioner Shanahan stated that it is obvious that there is an impasse with respect to Staff and the development community. He indicated that everyone concurs that there must be a way to address the problems in relationship to the "improved properties', County Attorney Cuyler advised that he is willing to accept the language for Policy 5.1 (3) as follows: The Board of County Commissioners finds that the change constitutes a meaningful reduction in the density or intensity permitted by that development order, or results in other meaningful benefits to the County. C~fcrn~r Saundems m~ved, seconded b~ Colissione~ Volpe and ~r~ff~md ur~m~im~u~l¥, to approve Polic~ 5.1 aa ~eco~mended ~ry Staff, incl~in~ tb~ change aa o~tltned by County Attorney Cuyler; and Staff to expa~tte a cc~prehenstve approach to the "improved property' probla. Page 63 July 25, 1990 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED AS A~iENU~D Growth Planning Director recalled that at the meeting on July 25, 1990, there were discussions relative to the appropriateness of adding language to address the industrial type of land uses in the Rural District of the County. He stated that he is recommending that no language be included pertaining to that issue, but rather to stay with the original proposal of Staff to change the access definitions on collector and local roads that do not go through predominantly resi- dential areas for three basic reasons. He indicated that there was an error on his part since he assumed that uses were to be located adja- cent to existing industrial type uses, and that there was a reason for the probable resources in the rural earth mining area. He noted that there was an admitted attempt to amend the Plan for one specific pro- perty and one specific property owner who would not be using the resources of the adjacent mining site. Therefore, he advised that this changes his philosophy as to whether this type of amendment is appropriate for the entire rural area. He indicated that con- sideration of the proposed language is really more appropriate as a formal amendment application and would give Staff the additional time to conduct a more thorough analysis. He stated that the amendment process is always open on an annual basis to anyone in the County, and is more appropriate in this case. He noted that he is recommending that the language remain as proposed by Staff originally with the one change which was agreed to relative to clarification of the language for oil and gas exploration and production as underlined in his memo. Co~/ssioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and cmrri~d~rn~-li~ou~l¥, to approve the amended language as presented. C~sioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and c~z~z'i~lxnm~u~ou~ly, to close the public hearing on the ~end~ente to 90--399 APPROVING THE PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ~ostissioner Shanaha~ moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and ~nani~ously, that Resolution 90-399 approving the proposed Paoe 64 25, 1990 Mana~I~ent Plan A~end~ente for transmttta! to the Department of Co~munityAffairs be adopted. See Minutes of July 31, 1990, for Resolution. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair. BOARD OF COUNTY ~T ese minutes approved by ~he Board on ~~ as presented or as corrected Page 65