Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/28/1988 W Naples. Florida, December 28, 1988 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(a) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted busincas herein, ~et on this date at ~:oo A.M. in MORXSBOP 5&5510. in Building "F" of the GO'lernment Complex. East Naplea. Florida. with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Burt L. Saunders VICE-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse. Jr. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volpe Anno Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Dalila Mendez and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks: Toa Olliff, Acting Community Development Director; Jane Fitzpatrick. Growth Management Director; Charles Gauthier, Comprehensive Planning Manager. Page 1 DECEMBER 28, 1~88 Tape .1 Legal notice having been publiahed in the Naples Daily Hews on 1988 as evidenced by Affidavit of Pvblication filed with December 23. the Clerk. public hearing was opened to review the revisions of the proposed Collier County Growth Management Plan. Introduction: Co.missioner Saunders atated that th~ workshop is to discuss the overall Coœprehen3ive Plan and to receive public input. He noted that any action taken will be non binding, however, on January 4, a public hearing will be held at which time final action will be implemented. Growth Management Director Fitzpatrick advised that the purpose ot the workshop is to preaent the Board with the Aug':9t 1, 1988 Growth Manageaent Plan which was approved on July 26. 1988. She noted that the document has received a ~O-day preliminary review process troD the Department of Community Affaira (DCA): on November 15, a report was received with DCA's objections. and recommendations. She indicated that on December 15 and December 22, the Planning Commission held meetings to review and make recommendations. She noted that the revi- sions initiated include an addition to the responses to the DCA objec- t~on3. an Urban Boundary study and rewritten Conservation & Coastal Management Element. She indicated that a Concurrency Management System has been developed which outlines the groundwork that will be implemented. She noted that CCPC and Staff's recommendations may difter, and 3he reque3ted the Board's recoamendations. ru~. Land 0.. II...nt: Comprehensive Planning Mana~er Gauthier advised that the Land Use package Is comprised of three sections. direct responses to the State; responses to public comments received, and Staff's initiated changes. He referred to a memorandum which identities issucs on which Statt and tho Planning Commission ditfer. He noted that the maps on the wall reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations. He noted that in Page 2 1~89 3 DECEMBER 28. 1988 the urban designation between zero and sixteen reaidential units per acre aay be allowed; the rural designation allows one unit for every 5 acres; in the Estates is one unit per every 2-l/4 acres, and in the ConGervation designation it is one unit for every 5 acres. He stated that within the Urban area the approach of the 1~84 plan haG been caintained. He indicated that the d~nsity aystem is base~ on geographical and performance standards of individual developments. noted that lower densities are permitted in Coastal areas due to trat- fic congestion. and hurricane riaks, and higher densities are allowed further inland. particularly in close proximity to commercial activity centers. He atated that the Future Land Use Map provides continuity of past planning. protects natural resourceo, concentration on new development. contouring levels of den3ity and intensity within the bounda of potential public facilitiea capacities, and ample room for urban expansion without exceaaive room for urban sprawl. He noted that the greatest challenge in the planning process is to maintain concurrency. He advised that the Growth Management Act requires public facilitiea be in place at time of development. He noted that it has been Staff'a exerciae to balance exiating, committed and potential land uses against existing potential public facilities capa- cities. He indicated that it is Staff's concern that the County is out of balance in terma of roads. He noted that zoning has been approved throughout the Urban area without fully anticipating the cumulative road impacta. He indicated that the problem is par- ticularly severe in the area of U.S. 41 and the 3trategy is to lower residential densities, focus on commercial development in activity centers, try to contract the size of the urban designated areas, a zoning evaluation program is proposed, and the time frame of the road planning will b~ extended. Mr. Gauthier noted that laat July the Board requeated turther study on the Urban Boundary is3ue which has been provided to the Board. He noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Land Use Subcommittee, and the Planning Commission have met to disCUSG this Page 3 He Lj ---'--'--' I ~ ß~ DECEMBER 28, 1988 Issue. 4~ He indicated that Staff's recommendation at the Urban Boundary .~, Study relates to maximum permissible residential density. He noted th-.t the urban boundary laalJe relatea to the urb<on designated area found in the current Comprehensive Plan which extends one mile east of C.R. 3~1, aód it relates to the urban tail. He stated that the Plan~lóg Com~1ssion recommended that the fringe areao of ~tudy Area One and Study Area Two be allowed a maximum residenti,~l density of three U~it3 per acre, thUG keeping it the same. He indicated that Staff's reco~endations are comprised of two parte, the C.R. ~51 fringe area be treated at a den31ty level not to exceed one unit for e'Jery 1.~ acres. He noted that the aforemen.loned was implemented due to the Board's recommendation of the Naples Colt Estates' zoning which the Board 3uggested should be considered as a "model". He noted that the ":¡reen" area ohould reQain in a rural category and should be limited to one unit per every five acres. He stated that the recolII- mendable strategy io based on the conclusion that the C.R. 951 tringe area is suitable for low density residential use, due to water lIIanage- aent, environmental and natural reoources iasues. He indicated that the tail aection is presently premature for intensive urbanization. Attorney Varnadoe advlaed Commissioner Saunders that the grOGS d~nsity for Naplcs Golf E3tate3 is 1.3 - 1.5 units per acre. Mr. Gauthier noted that the water management approach io to deve- lop watershed master plans. He stated that estuary impacts, how much water can be discharged, what water table levels need to be main.- tained, and drainage and flQod protection must be taken into account. He noted that C.R. ~51 forma the basin boundary. Responding to Commissioner Haase, Mr. Gauthier a1vised that the 1983 Comp Plan indicates that the areaa along the C.R, 951 corridor are designated as urban and permissible den3itie3 were from 4 - 10 units per acre. He noted that laat year he had suggested that the aforementioned be taken out of the urban area and be limited to one unit tor every five acreG. He Gtatcd that the latter had cauoed a lot ot disturbance, therefore, Staff was directed to prepare a ~etailed ðGSeSsment. Page 4 5 DECEMBER 28, 1988 In regard to the watershed master plan, Commissioner Shanahan asked if Staff is on target? Mr. Gauthier expounded that it is Staff's approach to implement a County-wide master plan by 1994, and a varlet, of information will he submitted in the interim regarding same. In answer to Commissioner Hasse. Mr. G~uthier noted that Staff had moderated its position due to the substantial public input received, and the benefit of the master plan is essential before development is allG'",ed. Acting Community Development Administrator Olliff contirmed Mr. Gauthier's statement regarding the urban boundary and the Board's direction to come back with a transitional zone, and that the Naples Golf Estates project be utilized as a "model". Comaissioner Saunders stated that two other comments trom the Coa:i33ion include that no public funds be spent to enhance the drainage in the area, thus requiring that developers inGtal1 drainage, and that on-site storage requirements delineated in the code would be enforced. Mr. David Land, Chairman of the Land Use Subcommittee, advised that as a result of Staff's recommendations, the committee held a aeeting to take into consideration Staff's changes. He indicated that at the meeting the Committee had decided to support their original recoamendation to leave the fringe area along C.R. 951, and the tail in the urban area. He noted that there should be some consistency between the 1963 Comprehensive Plan in terms of keeping the urban boundary and with the proposed plan. and that some of the environmen- tal concerns be mitigated to other technJques. In regard to the con- currency issue, Mr. Land indicated that the Committee feels that it the County concurrency rules under 9J5, there would be a lot more con- cern in the area. He pointed out that a lot or the concerns will be addressed by concurrency. He noted that the Committee had determined the following: 1 . 2. A tighter concurrency language. Consider lower densities, although greater than the one unit per 5 acres. Page 5 It, DECEMBER 28, 1988 3. Lower density until water management plana have been completed. Lower densities unlcas part of a POD of certain size or greater. 4. Mr. Land st3ted that thc Committee's recoamendaticn is that the area be left in the urban area, but some changes should be implemented in teras of what ia actually allowed in the two areas. He indicated that he concurs with Mr. Gauthier's recommendations that 14 - 16 units in the area would be too high. Colonel John Beebe of the Lakewood Civic Association, advised that the Ansociation supports Statf'a recommendationa prior to the Planning Coamisaion's action. He noted that the urban area was established in 1983 without diacussion of the conaequencea of the action. He indi- cated that at thc ti~e the County was not under the obligation to improve thc infraatructure or concerned about funding it. He noted that the Growth M~nagement Act requires the Board to act in a more reaponaible manner to establiah levels of service and spending millions of dollars in infrastructure. He indicated that Staft has advised that there will bc an additional $10 million for drainage in the area. He stated that blockage of evacuation will be added if development is permitted in the area before S.R. 951 is tour-Ianed to Marco Island. He auggestcd that a water management and an environmen- tal study be conducted in the area prior to coming up with detinite figures of what should be allo~ed. He recommended that the the urban area be reduced to onc unit per five acres, and the proper studies can be the determining factor in what ought to be developed. Mr. Clyde Quinby adviaed that hc rcprcacnta about 100 people who hold about 500 acres in thc northcrn part of the "red" area of the aap. He noted that when thcac þeoplc purchased thcir land it was in the urban renewal area and ahould remain as such. He feels that the east aide of 951 will not be developed within thc next t1ve years, and there is plenty of land available on the west aide of 951, He noted that 48' of land on the wcst sidc ia wetlando. He stated that the area should be left alone, or the Planning Commission's recommendations ot Page 6 7 DECEMBER 28, 1988 three units per acre should bc implesented. He stated that the County shou11 continue to grow in a positive manner. Mrs. Betty Gulacaik, representing the League of Women's Voters of Collier County. advised that the League agreeD with S~aff s recommen- dations. She noted that the water management plan should be in place if t:.e plan i3 to be reviewed in five years. Mr. Milton Hahn of Miami noted that his statement entitled "Su~rl of Reaaons for Incluaion in the Urban Area" dated December 28, 1988, summarizes the inclusion into the urban area of all the area bounded on the East and South by Golden Gate Eotates, on the North by Iœmokalee Road and the 3cnsiti'lc area to the north, and the existing Urban boundary on the West. He read paragraphs 2 and 3 of his summary which relate to leaving a unique remnant agriculturally zoned island in the middle of and surrounded by areas controlled by ordinances, etc.. and to the three to five milea of Golden Gate Estates area which separates the urban area from most of the areas where the Comprehensive Plan is mainly directed. He noted that the summary is comprised of 18 items. but he would not go into detail of same. He indicated that Mr. Wayne Young ot the Planning Commission, who is also on the Golden Gate Fire Commission, had stated he would approve the aforementioned because the area would provide access to tire equipment and potable water for firefighting purposcs. He noted that remark3 pertaining to the latt~r were based on that this would not justify placing an area into the urban area. He stated that the aecond remark that was made at the meeting was that there is enough land, Iota and PUD'o t~ furni3h land for housing into the next cen- tury. He noted that there is an admitted shortage of affordable housing in the County due to the cost of land. He indicated that he was hopeful that the Board would consider placing some of the area bounded by the Eatate3 into the urhan area. Mr. Gauthier reiterated that the area is premature for urbaniza- tlon, and the County muat focua ita capital improvements projects in the urban area. He noted that the Planning Commission had requested a Page 1 8 DECEMBER 28, 1988 boundary report for the area to be considered as one of the first amendments of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that the County proceed on that basis and do a more detailed assessment and come back to the Board in nix months with the information. Co..is~ioner Volpe a~ked what comments were received from DCA in regard to the aforementioned to which Mr, Gauthier advised that DCA had not m~de any comments in this respect. He noted that the South Florida Water Management District. the Department ot Natural Resources, and the Department of Environmental Protection had suggested that this area not be included in the urban area, however, they were not shown as official comments. Commissioner Saunders clarif1ed tor Commi331oner Volpe that the Board had directed Staff to come back with something between urban and rural in the "pink" area, however. the issue must be resolved by the Commission in the final plan. Ms. Charlotte Gillis representing Duda & Sons, advised that a letter was sent by Duda & Sons which delineates comments regarding the urban study conducted by Staff. Shc stated that the Duda's position was to maintain the urban boundary as shown in the 1~83 plan, however, they feel comfortable with the CCPC recommendation of three units per acre tor Study Area One and Two. She noted that they are supportive of Mr. Land's recommendation and the Advisory Committee. She noted that the Duda land is located in Study Area Two: noting that concurrency and the planning for infrastructure improvements is criti- cal to carrying out any type land use decisions. She indicated that she is concerned about Staff's recommendations pertaining to allowable densities in Study Area One and Study Area Two. noting that th~ Planning Commiasion's recommenda~ion ia more appropriate, She indi- cated that noncontiguous development has been used as an argument tor urban sprawl, and allowing development in Study Area One would result in this type of development. also, that the latter is not an appropriate argument for urban sprawl. She noted that three dwelling units per acre is not considered to be "intensive type ot Page 8 c¡ DECEMBER 28, 1988 devel~pDent" and that water management, infrastructure, and quality development issues will be handled by other regulations in effect. In regard to the hurricanc issue, she questioned Qn whether or not the evacuation tiDes would bc reduced baaed on thc development proposed for the area? She concurred that a drainage master plan is essential and Staff should work with developers and planners to Imple- ment one. She statcd that the affordable housing issue should not be treated lightly, and noted that there is affordable land in the City of Naples which can be developed at a moderate income level. She stated t~at there are very few environmentally remaining areas in Study Area Two which would be addressed on a site specific basis. Mr. Alan Reynoldo advioed that he has been a Planner in CollIer County for eleven years. He noted that the land in question has always been considered to some extent appropriate tor urban develop' lent. He indicated that at the Planning Commission there was some discussion about the language on Page 3-8. Item 2b. for which he is suggesting a revision. He suggested that changes should be to the definitions of internal water management system. and addressing the pro-rata share. In regard to the density cap, Mr. Reynolds commented that the Planning Commission determined a compromise position that was reasonable and would be effective in practice. He stated that the Naples Golf Estatcs project waG used as an example ot what everyone is trying to achieve. He indicated that ~stablishing a cap in the Comprehensive Plan does not guarantee that anyone would be entitled to receive the requested density. He read Paragraph 8 of Section 3-., and noted that the languagc provides for ample opportunity to revIew input from studies that the County conducts and use to evaluate any specifics zoning proposed. He noted that it the Naples Golt Estates project is left in the urban area it would rate 8 units per acre in the proposed plan. He indicatcd that three units pcr acre is well below what would be achieved as a maximum undcr the proposed plan point rating ayatcm. He auggeated that thc three units per acre wIll not result in high density development, but would result in low den- Page 9 !Õ DECEMBER 28, 1988 sHy projects. He stated that it is incorrect to say that approving development in the are~ would burden taxpayers. He noted that a con- siderable amount of study has been conducted of the drainage area. He reiterated that the Planning Commission's recommendation be given ~eriou9 consideration. however, some language can be incorporated per- taininç to the land development regulations. Attorney Varnadoe indicated that the urban boundary has been one aile east of S.R. 951 for the last five years. He pointed that the urban boundary should not be placed in the middle ot 9~1. especially with a 20 inch water main running along the road. He concurred with Mr. Reynolds' suggestion, and added that some language should be incor- porated into the naples Golf Eotates project indicating that no public funds will be uscd for water management in the area. He suggested that public fundo not be spent on water management, until the &aster drainage study i3 completed. Mr. George Beally. Real Eatate Project Manager with Duda & Sons, noted that most of the area in "green" is owned by The Duda's. He suggeated that the urban boundary be left where it io, or would be supportive of the Planning Commiasion's recommendations. He noted t~at Duda & Sons have owncd the property for over 20 years, which has been used for agricultural uses. He noted that The Duda's are hopetul that their property will become development property. He advised that currently portions of the property are being marketed. He noted that the property is currently urban. He stated that the urban boundary is a mechanism by which the County identifies growth corridors, and noted that developero should respond to the infrastructure needs when they request zoning or during site plan approval. To clarify Mr, Varnadoe's comments about the 20 inch water main, Mrs. Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Women's Voters, noted that Hickory Bay is located weat of S.R. 951 and south of U.S. 41 for which Deltona had a large urban development plan in the area. She noted that the environmental sensitivitieo of 951 have been explained by Stat t. She gave a brief history of how the land wag acquired by Page 10 II ~-----~-- -- DECEMBER 28. 1988 Duda & Sons. In regard to the water management concerns, she stated that there should not be any problem in reviewing a mawter plan. Mrs. Westman said that the State wan greatly conc~rned about the drainage problems in the area, and noted that the date doea not have to be pinpointed to 1994. Coaaissioner Saunders advined that the Board must make a deter- 8ination to the "pink", "red" and the area described by Mr. Hahn, Mr. Gauthier confirmed tor Commiaaioner Volpe that it is Start's pos~tion that the "pink" area should be within the urban boundary but li8ited to low density at one and one-halt unita per acre, and the "green" area should be designated as rural at one unit for every tive acrea. He confirmed for Commissioner Saundera that Mr. Hahn's pro- perty should be left "as Is" and be put in the first annual review proceas for inclusion in the urban boundary. Responding to Commissioner Hasae, Mr, Olliff reiterated that Start had acted on the the Board's direction to come up with transitional language. Coaaisøioner Saundera bJggested that each area be taken aeparately and a consensus decision be made by the Commission aa to the designa- tion ot each area. CJaaisaioner Haase commented that the Board should wait until the water management studv is conducted to take action. Commissioners Goodnight, and Shanahan concurred with Statt's recomaendationa at Sec- tion One. Commissioner Saunders indicated that he too agrees with Staff'a recommendation of Section One, due to the four-Ianing of S.R. 951, to the commitment that no expenditure of funds will be used tor drainage, and to the fact that there should be some transition between the urban and rural designation. Commissioner Volpe stated that he is coKfortable with Staff's recommendation, but SOIllC clarification to the distinction betwe'}O 1.5 units per acre and the 3 units per acre should be made, specially in regard to Mr, Reynolds' comments of setting a cap. Page 11 I) DECEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Gauthier advised that the Planning Com.ission has discretion at time of zoning, however, the purpoae of the Compret.ensive Plan is to guide growth and let the public know what sort of growth is sought in the area. ~~ noted that thcrc 13 a great conaequence between the 1.5 units and 3 units an acre in regard to road impac~3. He noted that each dwelling unit would generate up to 10 trips per day, and the County ne~ds a firmer basis to do the detailed public facility planning. In reapon3e to Commisaioner Shanahan, he indicated that it is difficult to anticipate the water management needs without the -.aster plan. In regard to Study Arca Two, Commissioner Saunders advised that Staff's recoamendation is to remove it from the urban area, and the Planning Coam1saion'a recommendationa is to make it 3 units per acre. Comaiasioner Haase concurred with this recomaendation. Comaissioner Shanahan noted that he did not have a problem with taking it out of the urban area, however, he wondered if a better compromise would result froa changing the density to two units per five acres. Hr. Gauthier noted that 1.5 units per acre has been the traditional base level of dennity in the County; that all areas that are not zoned tor development type use are one unit per five acres and that the tail section is premature tor development, and one unit per five acrea would make it lea3 viable than two units per acre. He noted that the County needs time to implement road improvementa and the water manage- aent plan. Coaaiaaioner Goodnight stated that she has a problem with Statt's recomaendation a3 development that has already occurred in the area would be taken out. She noted that ahc did not have a problem with reducing the density. She 3tated that the Board ahould be consistent with the deaignation of the "pink" area of 1.5 units per one acre. Co..issioner Shanahan 3tated thar he was not comfortable with the aforementioned suggeation. Commi33ioner Saunders concurred with Staff's recommendation to leave it at one unit per five acres, recognizing that in the future the dcaignation can be reevaluated and Page 12 1:3 considered for higher density. I DECEMBER 28, 1988 , Shanahan stated that he Commissioner did not have a problem with the recommendation ba8ed on the oppor- I Commi8.ioner Volpe stated ~ that he did not have a problem with Staff's reco.80ndation. t4 Coaaissioner Sa~nders indicated that the Board concurs with Staff's ¡;~ recoamcndation which is to take the "green" area out ot the urban tunity for review as the 3ituation alters, ':'.' designation and put it in the rural designation at one unit per f~ve acres. He reaffirmed Co~miasioner Volpe's statement that any preser.~ action is subject to change. Coaaissioner Saunders noted that the next area in question i~ the area described by Mr. Hahn, and Staff's recommendation is to l~ave it " ~!'. as is and re-evaluate it in six lIIonths or in the first revirw process; the Board concurred with this recoMmendation. Co..Jssioner Volpe hi asked if the area described by Mr. Hahn should be treated any dit- ferently than the area that lies north of Immok~lee Road? Mr. Gauthier responded that both areas are being treated the same. ;,.1: Coaaisaioner Saunders read Mr. Reynolds' revision and noted that the iF. language i9 very appropriate. Mr. Gauthier noted\that the language ~.. is currently in exiptence and the only word added.as "new", to which ~ The Board did not,have any objections ¡~ In response to Commissioner Volpe's statement, Hr. Ii Olliff adviaed that Staff has to review the language proposed by Hr. he did not have any objections. to the language. Reynolds. .., F;;; 888Recess 11:06 - Reconvened at 11:16 a...... Activi~ Center. Mr, Gauthier advised that some difficulties have been encountered since the August direction in regard to Activity Centers at the 1-75 interchange. He noted that a standard size bas been established for activity centers to be 160 acres. 60' of which could be commer- cial1y zoned. He atated that Staff concluded that the on and ott ramp. at the Interstate extended almost fully to the spacing, thus credting problema. He indicated that the package contains a couple at aap. which delineate activity centers. He stated that there i. a Page 13 \L{ --.------...- . DECEMBER 28, 1988 remainin~ issue at the southeast quadrant of 1-75, and Pine Ridge Road. He stated that the Planning Commission elected that three parcels in the southeast quadrant should be included in the interchange, however, Staff feels that they should be omitted from the interstate activity center and made subject to the Golden Gate Master Plan. He stated that the issue is whether to include this section to the acti- vity center now or to include it as part of the Golden Gate Master Plan. He noted that the northwest quadrant of the Interstate contains Estates land, and there is an existing coamerclally zoned project along the Estates lots. Mr. Reynolds advised that he is representin~ the property owner ot 7.6 acres located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection ot 1-75 and Pine Ridge Road. He indicated that he is hopetul that the Board would abide by the Planning Com.ission's reco..endation. He otated that he haG adviscd the property owner that the property is ~art of the commercial activity center, but to presently request zoning would be premature. He stated that presently it is inappropriate to do site specific mapping of any ot the activity cen- ters, as Staff has not received sutficient public input, and has not had ample time to analyze each activity center. He stated that leaving the mapping to the Golden Gate 8apping is not tair or appropriate since the iosue is County-wide and not concentrated to the Golden Gate Eatates area and teels that quadrant3 should be treated equally if they have the same underlined zoning. He urged that the Board accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated that the 50' cap in the commercial land use concept in activity centers is bound to create a great deal of difficulty. He stated that the cap 1s arbitrary, and noted that every activity center will have an appropriation of commercial land use. He noted that it the 50~ cap is ad09ted the County will encourage premature speculative rezoning, will encourage competition between various property owners at activity cen- ters, will prematurely vest existing zoning, and 50~ or 80 acres might Page 14 þ ~ECEMBER 28, 1988 be too much commercial zoning in some activity centers, and too little in others. He handed out the R/UDAT report which initiated the whole idea of activity centers. He suggeated that each activity center be reviewed on an individual basis, that all quadrants be treated equally until better information is available, and that the Board not go along with the proposed cap, as it will =reate problems in the future. Mr. Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, concurred with Mr. Reynolds' proposal, stating that it is an improvement over the current language. He noted that the County's present tools and policies in conjunction with Mr. Reynolds' proposal would serve the County well and cause less problcms. Mr. Wafaa Assaad, on behalf of the Vineyards, asked Start it the ~o, cap applied to cxisting developed properties to which Mr. Gauthier responded that 50' of thc total ~crcagc in a community center may be coaaercially zoned. He noted that if the ratio of activity centers is exceeded a new limit will be established. Commissioner Saunders clarified that the Vineyards would be affected unless the 50' rule is changed. Mr. Robert Carter, Marco Island resident, provided the Board with a copy of his letter which summarizes his recent meeting with Coaaissioner Shanahan. Hc adviscd that his family owns a parcel ot land located 1.25 miles fro. Barfield Drive, and S.R. 92 activity center. He noted that attached to the letter is Exhibit "A" which shows the location of the parcel of land, and Exhibit "B" which deli- neates that their parcel io zoned RM6 and surrounding property is zoned PUD. and a part of adjacent parcels is zoned ST, which will be developed at a higher density p~r acre. Responding to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Gauthier advised that Mr. Carter wants a higher density, and activity center bans have always been structured outside of traffic congestion in coastal management areas. He noted that the County does not have an activity center b~n on Marco Island, and areas running down U.S. 41 and the eastern route Page 16 l~ DECEMBER 28, 1988 which is defined by S.R. 92 is limited in density ot tour units per acre. Mr. David Land stated that the CAC Subcommittee concurs with Staff's recommendations on the interstate bans. In regard to the activity centerc, he noted that the Committee had recommends that all activity centers be set at 50\ as opposed to limiting the percentage to any specific activity center. Mr. Gauthier reiterated that the southeast quadrant be handled in the Golden Gate Master Plan to avoij a parcel specific designation and defer to a more comprehensive approach in the master plan. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that the parcel remain in the plan to be consistent as suggested by the CCPC. Mr. Gauthier noted that Staff does not presently have an idea of what development standards would be appropriate. He advised Commissioner Volpe that Staft is diligently wor~ing to develop certain aesthetic, road access and but- tering controls which are typically handled through a Planned Unit Development. Coaaissioner Shanahan otated th3t it is his inclination to leave it in. Comaissioner Goodnight concurred and added that she would like the Golden Gate Comm1ttee to make recommendations for the buffering and other issues which might directly concern them. Commissioner Saunders directed Staff that the quadrant should be commercial. Coaaiosioners Volpe and Hasse noted that they concur with the CCPC recoaaendation. In regard to the 50% rule, Commissioner Saunders otated that he has a problem with an arbitrary number and agreed with Mr. Reynolds coaaenta that this would promote competition among property owners. He suggested that Staff review Mr. Reynolds' propooed language and come back on January 4, 19B9 with something other than 50'. He stated that the Board is trying to encourage ao much Induotrial and commer- cial activity in the activity centers as possible to discourage it in other areas of the County. He stated that he would vote to take the 50' rule out: Commissioner Goodnight indicated that she would second Page 16 II '-"""-' DECEMBER 28, 1988 that recommendation. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he is not com- tortable with the 50~ cap an activity cent~rs should stand on their own, and judgment ahould be made on an individual basis. CoJlUllissioner Volpe stated that he is inclined to agree with elimination ot the cap, but requestad fllrther commenta frolll Staff in this regard. Mr. Gauthier advised that Mr. Reynolda h2d pointed out many v2lid points, and initially a more structured approach in activity centers was planned. Hr. Gauthier atated that activity centers are designed to allocate twenty-year coaaercial potential which waG in the order ot 14 million square tecto He noted th~t through the Citizeno Advioory CoJlUllittee activity centers became the sallie size to allow a full range of use and to help ensure a mixed use character. He stated that residential den- sities were allowed pluG the 50~ rule. He requested the opportunity to work on Mr. Reynolda' propoaal. Co..issioner HasGe noted that the activity center at Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75 in baBically rea1dentially. He noted that the Department of Tranaportation is thoroughly diGcussing this matter. Hr. Gauthier noted that the interchange would be some time after 1995, and there are a lot ot con- cerns about this area a1ncc it is an in and out route for people tra- veiling to worl<.. He noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee have expressed their opposition to commercial zoning in the area. Co..issioner Volpe asked tor the dintinction between activity centers and the future activity center? Mr. Gauthier advised that Statt had gone through a long debate on the tuture activity center at Vanderbilt Beach Road. He noted that the Board had directed that it be designated as a future activity center until such time as Vanderbilt Beach Drive extenalon i3 completed from U.S. 41 to C.R. 951. He noted that there are about oeven other activity centers in the area, and the segaent ot highway going from Pine Ridge Road to Immokalee Road is largely residential. In regard to the activity center at C.R. 951 and :;..okalee l~oad. Mr. Gauthier expounded that there 1G no demand tor Page 11 r6 DECEMBER 28, 1988 coaaercial in the area. and multi-family dwellings are likely to be constructed. He noted that Rattleanake-Hammock Road was to be a future activity center. Responding to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Gauthier explained that Staff has diligently worked to build consenaus. Commissioner Shanahan suggested that if Staff hag concerns about some at the outlying oreaa, as well as some the inland areas they should be presented to the Board, prior to making a final deciaion, Commissioner Saunders noted that to revisit an entire area before the January 4 hearing would be d i tt i cu 1 t . Mr. Gauthier adviscd that Start io concerned about commer- cial activity centers in traffic congestion areas such as Wiggins Pas a and U.S. 41 and Immokalec Road and U.S. 41. He stated that the County is not heavily zoned in these areas; there are 19 acres of commer- cially zoned parcela in WigginG PaBa and on Immokaloo Road there are 2~ acres of commercial zoning. He stated that he would single out S.R. g51 and U.S. 41 because of the large commercial inventory in the area. He stated that the East Trail is one of the moat troublesome corridors because of the lack of option to put in parallel roads. stated that the current plan has very poor geography guidance tor COm- mercial development. He stated that the propoaod plan contains geography guidance, and perhapa the cap has to be adjusted at the dit- terent locations. In regard to the Golden Gate Parkway activity center, there are concerns about traffic condestion in the area, he said. Mr. Gauthier advised Commissioner Saunders that perhaps an option would be to direct further study, and not allow commercial zoning In those activity centers. He stated that multi-otamily zoning would still be allowed. He indicated that the areas can be designated as potential activity centers. Commiaoioner Shanahan stated that Statt should be able to draft language to provide development opportunities in the areao where it ia deemed appropriate. Commissioner Saunders indicated that he did not have any problems with leaving the map the way it is based on past circumatances. Page 18 He II DECEMBER 28, 1988 In anawer to Commissioner Hasse Mr. Gauthier advised that the con- cerns at Golden Gate Parkway and Airport Road relate to the move- ment of traffic. Co.mia3ioner Volpe expres3ed concerns about the future activity center at Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in regard to planning. He stated that from a land uae planning perspective perhapo a diooervice would reault fro. identifying areas as future activity centers. Mr. Gauthier indicated that th~rc arc abundant commercial areao which are not as yet developed. Commissioner Saunders noted that Statf must determine where commercial zoning will be deaignated. He stated that he had voted for activity centers in recognition that it is a long- term process, and the community must be informed that commercial acti- vities should be located at major interaectiona. Mr. Olliff concurred with Comaiasioner Saunders' statement that through the rezone proccas Staff hag be ability to say "No" if there Is no specific juatification for rezone. Coaaisaioner Shanahan suggested that the future activity center at Rattlesnake-Hammock Road be deleted. Commissioner Hasse stated that the Golden Gate Parkway interaection ia worrisome. Coll8issioner Volpe expressed concerns about the location of the tuture activity centers at R;¡ttleanal<e-Hammock Road and at Immokalee Road. Mr. Reynoldo state~ that there is not enough commercial activity to serve the corridor between S.R. 84, C.R. 951 to County Barn Road, and that the residential area would be greatly aftected. He noted that a large market area will be served by commercial activities. It was the consenoua of the Board to leave the activity centers as recoaaended by Staff. ~rvat1OD Hr. Gauthier advised that lands in the Conservation District are either owned by the public or scheduled for conoervation. He noted that the Diotrict includes the Big Cypress National Preserve, Rookery Bay Kational Estuarine Sanctuary Research Reserve and other such parks. He stated that single family residential development at a aaxi.ua den- Page 19 ~O DECEMBER 28, 1!>88 sity of one unit per 5 acrea may be allowed in the area, which is a reasonable land use. Responding to Commi33ioner Goodnight, Mr. Gauthier advised that Staff i3 merely identifying the area of Lake Trafford on the purchase list. He stated that there arc no new regulatory factor stating den- øities will be allowed. He advi3~d that no one has inquired to purchase the area north of the Hendry County line. He noted that the heaT{ -red" line delineate3 the Big Cypress Area at Critical State Concern, and the regulation3 exempt agricultural from the area. Mr. Gauthier clarified for Ms. We3tman that Morrs Island ia identified on the acquioition list. and delineated on the map as the "green- area. Mr. Gauthier advised that Staff's intent io to allow one unit per five acres or one unit per 2.5 acres in the area. He reiterated that no additional regulatory reatrictiona are being implemented. Mr. Reynolds stated that the liat is periodically reviewed four timea a year, and it may be misleading to put the information on the mapping without a notation that acknowledges that landa are constantly being added or taken off the liat. Referring to Page 3-11, Mr. Pickworth suggeated that some language snould be incorporated to indicate that the designation is tor iden- tification purpose3 and that a new regulatory factor is not in ettect. Mr. Gauthier advised he would be concerned about tho finding ot compliance with the State if the intormation io not included in the regulatory future land U3e map. Mr. Beardsley recommended that some re3trictions or higher level of review be implemented in the propoaed areas for acquisition. He stated that some language in regard to "timbering~ should be incor- porated, recom~cnding that it be on a moratorium until ouch time as it Is resolved that the arca3 arc going to be purchased. Mr. Dave Addiaon, biologiat for the Conservancy, clarified for Co..lssioner Goodnight that the Save Our River proposal targets wetlands and does not encompaas the uplands. Page 20 ~l DECEMBER 28, 1988 ComaiS3ioner Saunders indicating that Staff be directed to designate the land ao subject to change to State acquisition on the appropri~te map, and appropriately identified stating that it is not a regulatory mechanisM, it j3 merely a statement of what the State is attempting to purchase. He suggested that the land use rpotrictions be discussed at a future meeting. ... aece88 12:ðO p... - Reconvened 1:20 p... at which ti.. DepQty Clerk Mendez W&8 replaced by Deputy Clerk Bottaan ... Con8erv-.tJon II Coaatal Manage-at Ele8et1t Acting Community Development Administrator Ollitf advised that originally Staff proposed a Conservation and Coaatal Element in May of thia year. which was reviewed by the Board and returned to be rewrit- ten. He ~oted that the Element was rewritten in July, reviewed by the Board, and once again returned to be rewritten. He indicated that at this time, a committee w~s formed. comprised of three members of the co~unity's environmental intere3ts, and three members of agriculture or development backgrounds. He noted that both sides ot the community have been expreaaed in the document. He atated that he teelo the document io a good one, which meets all requirements made by the Board or County Commissioners, DCA. and ~J5, but noted that he believes that some refinements are required. He advised that there will be another aeeting before the next public heiJring. with additional public input, and a consensus document will then be presented, Coaaissioner Saunders stated that he believes the Element is one that will be a good guide to the protection of the environment to the co..unity tor a long time Environmental Science and Pollution Control Director Lorenz advised that the two document a for review will be the Goals, Objectiveo and Policies dated 12/15/88, and the Corrections ot 12/15/88. Page CI-14, Objective 6.2 . Commissioner Saunders stated that Page 21 'ìî DECEMBER 28, 1988 there seems to be a mitig~tion procedure for every square foo~ or every acre of wetlando that in impacted. He indicated that the stateu ment "there shall be no net 103s of viable naturally functioning wetlands" is an admirable Goal. but noted that he is not sure it is achievable, in that. every project in the coastal area wIll result in ooze type of 1030 of wetlandn. Mr. Lorenz stated that the key is "no net loss". He noted that there Is auch aore flexibility in the other typeD ot wetlands that are identified as "transitional". Page CI-17, Policy 6.3.3 - Credits toward the parka and recreational impact fee shall be given any conservation bufter or transitlon~l zoned wctlando prcaerved on site for passive recreation U3es. Commi3sioner Saunders noted that the County will be requiring preservation of wetlando, and indicated that he is not Gure that a credit should be given for the impact fees, becau3e of requiring the wetlands to be set a3ide. He indicated that developers will be putting in pao3ive boardwalko to take advantagl of that credit. Mr. Lorenz indIcated that this is apecific ~o the transitional zoned wetl~nds. Policy 6.4.6 - All new reoidential developmento greater than 2.5 acres in the coastal area and greater than 20 acrea in the coastal urban area shall preaerve a minImum of 25' of the native vegetation on site - Co..i99ioner Saunders stated that he feela this is a rather strong atatement. Mr. Olliff referred to the one page handout, relating to Policies 6.4.6 and 6.4.7, and noted that the intent of the language is to meet DCA's Objectivea regarding meaaurability in the prcnervation ot habi- tat areaa. He noted that the by incorporating the setbacks, open space requiremcnta and landncaping, Statf in hoping to attain 25'. indicated that there is an exception clause which stateD: "tor par- cels which c~nnot reaaonably accommodate both preservation area and proposed ac::ivity that that would be an exception". Co..issioner Saundern atated that the new language in the handout Page 22 He ~~ DECEMBER 28, 1988 eliminates 30me of his concerns. Page CI-1~, Objective 6.6, "There shall be no net loss of viable naturally occurring submerged marine h~bitat"..... Co..isaion~r Saunders stated that he h~3 concerno that thio will possibly eliminate beach renourlshaent in the County, as well as marina projects. He Indicated that sea graGg, etc. can be planted, but noted that realistically, those projects do not work very well. He 2tated that marine habitat is not identified. Mr. Olliff noted that thi3 polices applies to submerged, or under- water grass beds. Co..issioner Saunders stated that he wants to ensure that thJø Policy will not prevent the County from the projecta he noted above. Policy 6.6.2 - Commisaioner Saunders indicated that he tells tha rules are very stringent, and questiona what they will do to the be~ch renourishacnt project? Mr. Olliff advised that there is some redundancy in this Policy, noting this is another item that will be reviewed by the committee tor fine tuning and public co..ent, Poli~1 6.8.1 - Mr. Lorenz adviscd that new wording for this Policy is referenced in the two page handout as follows: .. All requests for land development within 1,000 teet of natural rcoervations, shall be reviewed as part of the County's development review process to ensure no adverse impacts. Co..isaioner Saundera indicated that he has no problem with this language. Page 26, Goal 10 - The appropriate serviceD and infrastructure 8S required to maInt~in the level of service standards shall be provided in the Coastal Area as the proposed development in the Future Land Use Element occurs. Commissioner Saunders questioned whe~her there should be language in the Coaotal Element dealing with infrastructure? Mr. Lorenz indicated that this does need to be contained in the Coastal Element. He advised that DCA'a comments indicated that the County waG not in compliance, since this was not reterrad to in the Page 23 ""."_..__..,,'-,~_._-_._.._,_.__. .. . .-.... ;;JL( ,,-~ .....",- '. DECEMBER 28, 1988 Coastal Ele.ent. Objective 11.1 - Priorities tor shoreline land use shall be given to water dependent uses over water related land uses .. ,. Commissioner Saunders requested clarification at the language within the Policy. Assistant County Attorney Student advised that there two defini- tions in 9J5: one for water dependent uses - Activities which can be carried out only on, in. or adjacent to water areas becau3e the use requires access to the water body for water borne transportation, including ports of marinas, recreational electrical generating facilities, or water supply; and water related uses Activities not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but provide goods and ser~ices that are directly associated with wate~ay uoes. Mr. Gary Beardsley submitted his comments and recommendations to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element dated 12/15/88. He referred to the 25' to be set aside, and noted that the Regional, State and ~J5 hag apccific language which leado to the belief that something measurable ia required which will protect the natural resources. He indicated that there is State language which indicates that Florida shall protect natural habitats, ecological 3ystems, and reotore degraded natural syatems to a functional condition. He noted that he believes the number ahould be higher than the 25'. He indi- cated that this is merely ot an interim basis. and once the inventory of the County and the Management Plan i9 in place, it may be super- ceded, either habitat by habitat, or site by site. Mr. Land auggested that "no unacceptable" be added before "adverse impact- in Policy 6.8.1. Ms. Barbara Cawley of Wilson, Miller, Barton. Soli & Peek, Inc., stated that she ~ill attend the CAC meeting on Friday to provide input on the Element. She indicated that one of her concerna is that it appears that a new permitting system is being created tor the County, adding that it io very expensive and unnecessary. She noted that there is a tremendous amount of permitting taking place at the State, Regional and Federal level. She indication that she teels _r.y ot the Page 24 ~ DECEMBER 28, 1988 Policies encourage duplication. She noted that she feels some ot the teras, within the Element should be changed. With regard to Policy 6.1 and through Goal 6, MG. Cawley indicated that the intent is to preserve small pockets of native habitat throughout the County. She noted that DCA had year long study on wildlife habitats, and they found that the idea of preserving the small areas, does not preserve the habitat themselves. She stated that DCA has found that the boat idea is to find ways to move those habitats to areas wher~ the size can be accumulated, as needed, to preser~e those habitats. She stated that she concurs with the new language in Policies 6.4.6 and 6.4.7. Mrs. Cawley stated that there should be consistency within the Eleaent, and noted that viable naturally functioning systems is talked about in one section of the document, and not in another, adding that this should be included throughout the document. She referred to the issue relating to allowing mitigation in areas throughout the County, and no net 10s3, and noted that she believes that option is taken away in sO&o areas, and should be put back in. She indicated that she feels that the CCCL issue should be looked at, noting that there is language regarding und'!vclopf'd coastal barriers which talks about not allowing anything in front of the Control Line. She stated that this is not consistent with State Policy. She suggested that the addi- tional word of "unimproved" be inserted before bridges in Policy 11.3.10. She indicated that prioritization should be looked at regarding water dependent uses. There were no other speakers regarding this Element. Co..lssioner Shanahan stated that he believes the thrust of the Eleaent is in the dirnction of what was anticipated, but notod that it does require some fine-tuning, taking into consideration the let- ters that have been received, Staff's recommendations, and Co..issioner Saunders recommendations. He noted that hopefully, all the recommendations and comments can be incorporated by the public hearing on January 4. 1989. Page 25 --------,_. .'- OECEMBER 28, 1988 In anawer to Commisaioner Haase, Mr. Olliff stated it is important to do an inventory, to determine what the extent of the wildlite i8 1n Collier County, but noted in the meantime, Staff has chosen two or three ot the endangered apccie3 that they know exist on the State lists, ~nd continue to promote the existing State and Federal Laws for those, in a Wildlife M~nagement Plan to be completed by 19~3. He noted that there are interi~ and long term measureD. Mr. Olliff adviacd that thc meeting of the CAC will be held at 9:00 A.M. Friday, and ia open to the public. He requested that any coaaents or rccommendation3 be aubmitted in writing. He indicated that the meeting will bc held on the 8th Floor. CapItal Il8Prove_nt El.-nt Mrs. Fitzpatrick stated that the first item to be diG~uased is Concurrency Management. She noted that it requires that adequate public facilitiea and service3 be made available at the same time as the impacta of development. She noted theBe requirements are appll- cable to Water, Sewer, Solid Waate, Drainage, Trattic Circulation, and Parks and Recreation. She noted that in October of this year, DCA publiahed a propoaed changc to rule 9J5, which addreosea the con- currency requirement. She indicated that Staff has been working clo- sely with DCA, in hope3 to comply with their Policy. Mrs. Fitzpatrick advised that the County's approach is to allow the firat 5 year window of the Comp Plan to eliminate exiating detI- ciencies. knowing that ~uring the period troD October, 1989 through September. 1~94, the infra3tructure will be building to accommodate the growth. She indicatcd that beginning October 1, 1~94, the con- currency requirementa will tighten up, so that all existing de~ic1en- cleo are eliminated, and the County will be building infraatructure tor growth. Objective 1.5 - Mrs. Fitzpatrick indicated that the County'a approach through thi3 Objective and Policies is that beginning October, 198~ through September 30, 1994, the concurrency requireaents tor water, aewer, drainage and aolid wante will be met: if the tacI- Page 26 ..)l DECEMBER 28, 1988 lity is in place at the time of impact of the development; it the taci- lity is under construction; or it is a subject of a bindin~ contract for its construction; or the construction of the facility 10 included in the current fiscal year's adopted budget: or the construction of the facility is included in the adopted five year schedule of pro- jects. She noted that durin~ that time, no Certificate of Occupancy will be is3ued if the water and sewer Level of Service st~ndarda were not available. She indicated that any chan~e in the schedule of pro- jects in the adopted Capital Improvement Element will require a Plan aaendaent. She atated that beginning October 1, 19~4, the concurrency require.ents will be met if the project or facility is in place at the time of the impact, but was under construction, the subject of a binding contract for a binding contract for its construction, or in the County's adopted budget. Mrs. Pitzpatrick noted that there is an additional stipulation tor the Traffic Circulation Eleaent: Between October 1, 1989 and September 30, 19~4, the requirements for concurrency are the same as for the other five facilities, however, at no tim~, can a road drop below Level of Service "E", peak hour, peak season, and it cannot operate at "E" for a period of more than two years. She noted that beginning October 1, 1994, the concurrency requirements for the roads are the same as for October, 198~, through September, 1994. She noted that the concurrency requirements will be met it the road project was included in an adopted schedule of Capital Improvement Projects. Co..inaioner Volpe queationed identificLltion of roads that are current1y operating at Level of Service "£"7 . Chief Tranaportation PILlnner Perry advised that roads that are presently operating below the acceptable Level of Service "D" are: laaokalee Road from U.S. 41 to CR-31 (F), Pine Ridge Road between U.S. 41 and Goodlette Road (D), Golden Gate Parkway between Goodlette Road and Airport Road (D), Airport Road between Davia Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway (P), Airport Road from U. S. 41 to Davis Boulevard (D), and Pine Ridge Road between Goodlette and Airport Road (E), He noted Page 27 cJg DECEMBER 28, 1988 that these were as of 1~87, and indicated that there are new roads which ha~e dropped from "C" to "D", and will be added to the list after the first of the year. He advised that allot these deticien- cieG have been identified and are in the program to be improved betore the 19~4 deadline. Mrs. Pitzpatrick advised that the Planning and Legal Statt ot DCA have verbally approved the County's approach on Concurrency Manage80n t . ~J"O tor Capital 1aprov...nta Mrs. Pitzpatrick adviscd that during the Planning Commission's public hearing last Thursday, the Funding Plan was discussed. She noted that the recommendation of the CCPC is to torward to the Board ot County Coaaissionera their original recoaaendation for funding. She indicated that their primary concern revolved around the one 8ill Capital Iaprovement Fund. She noted that the Finance Plan as approved by the Board for submittal to the State in July, included a commitment of 42' ot the one mill, which will generate over six years, approxiaa- tely $64 aillion dollars. She noted that 42\ of that amounts to $28.5 million dollars, and is identified as a revenue source for the $240 8illion dollar Capital Improvement Plan. She stated that the CCPC is rpcoaaending that the 1 mill be used to tund the Plan. She noted that there havc been changcs in the revenue sources, since their original recoaaendation wa3 made: on December 13, 1~88. the Library and Parks Impact Pecs were adopted. She notrd that baaed on that. the CCPC's recoaaendation i3 to U3r the 1 mIll to the extent needed to fund the Capital Iaprovc.ent Plan, or if the Board of County Commissioners chooses to use the 42'. that should be clearly identified in the report that is to be submitted to DCA. Co-issioner Sallnder:J stated that based on recent Florida Supreme Court cases dealing with Impact Fees, the County may charge impact fees within City limits for the roads, and auggested that perhaps Staff should look at the poasible expansion of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance to include a levy of the impact fees within City limits, and Page 28 J1 .. to conaider increaaln~ thoDe feeD to an #~ I DECEMBER 28, J acceptable level. ",1' 1988 Coaaissioner Volpe stated that he ia in favor'ot allocating .ore . .oniea fro. the Capital Improvement levy to fund the Capital I In answer to Commiosloner Saundera, Mrs. Fitzpatrick stated that 11 the County is mandated to update the Capital Improvement Element every ~ year, and noted that thla will be done in conjunction with the I; budget proceas. She indicated that at that point, there will be a new " assesaaent of what is needed to meet the Level ot:'Service Standards as '1 these projects are integrated into the budget process, and changes to Iaprove.ent Ele~nt. the percentage can be made then. I hi. teeling that this ì tanding process remain I ~ the tiacal commitment Coaaissioner Saunders indicated that it is approach be taken. It was the consenaUB of the Board that the aa it was originally submitted to the State. Policy 1.2,6 - Mrs. Fitzpatrick noted that '.." 'J# to DCA has been strengthened, in order to meet their concurrency J)' require.ents. She indicated that upon Plan impleaentation, the Board ~ will adopt the new revenue sourcea, and if those àre not done, Policy I 1.2.10 addreGses that iaGue. She noted that thi~~Will require revenue adjust.ento which could be done through the budget process, or through W a public hearing to lower the adopted Level of Service tor a par- Iii ticular facility for which the revenues were not raiDed: or a 8ora- ~t «' , toriu. on the affected arca3. Policy 1.2.11 - Mrs. Fitzpatrick indicated that this Policy was added, baaed on a DCA objection, in which the management ot debt was not addressed. She noted that the County Finance Committee m~t, and arrived at thlG Policy. She indicated that the 13\ ratio ot general governmental debt service to bondable rcvenUC3 ia based on hiatorical Policy of the Board of County Commissioners. Coaaissioncr Saunders indicated that the Policy ot the Board has been "pay as you go", and avoid bonded indebtedness, wherever possible, but alao he indicated that it has to be recognized that it pp.o;e 29 ----""""-- . .. ,-,--, .-, DECEMBER 28, 1988 is reasonable aeans of building certain types or facilities, and he feels that restricting the County's ability to do that in the Coaprehen3i~e Plan. is inappropriate. He noted that the County does not want to be in a poaition where it cannot bond a public project because of this. He auggested that Policy state that it is the County's objective not to incur debt, whenever reaaonable, but recognize in th~ Plan that it may be reaaonable to do. Mrs. Fitzpatrick st~ted that DCA advised that the County was not specific enough. and they require a measurable unit, such aa the per- centage ratio. Co..issioner Saunders indicated that there should be enough tlexl- bility in the Policies to bond projects, if necessary. Assistant Utilitica Administrator Arnold stated that even though a zero deticit is being shown in the water sewer projects, the Board is co..itting to the rate increases that will be neceasary during the tlve year period to support them. Tratt1ç C1rCRlat1aQ Il-..nt Hr. Perry advised that the Element was returned from DCA with 16 objections, broken down into mapping, data analysis, and the Policies and Objectives. He indicated that the Policy objections were easily rectified, noting that Staff did not specifically agree with DCA. Mr. Perri noted that the specific objection from DCA was that the Level ot Service Standard was not identified in the GOP's. He noted that it was stated in the narrative portion ot the Element, but was not included in the Policy. therefore, he indicated that it has been written up as Policy 1.4. He noted that if the County adopts a stan- dard, and the State fails to meet that in Its road building prograa, and the Level of Service i3 exceeded, the County hag the options to: 1 . 2. 3. The County can fund th~ state roadway improvement programs. Lower the Level of Service, and live with more congestion. Isauc a building moratorium and cease development that will further impact that particular facility. Coaai93ioner Saunders atated that the County is required to adopt standarda on State Roado. and the State is recommending that their Page 30 ",,- '--" DECEMBER 28, 1988 standards be used. He noted th~t if those standards are adopted, the County will be in violation of the Comp Plan in Auguot, and the Plan will have to be amended, or Developmen~ Orders will be ceased. Mr. Perry advi3ed that if it is the Board's deoire to Bet Lower Levels of Service on state highways, the Plan as it is presently writ- ten, needs to be changed. He indicated that if the Board's decision is to force the State to do aomething, realizing full well, that they may force the County to do something, come Auguot, the Plan will stay as it i9 written. Co..issioner Shanahan stated that he cannot conceive that the County should consider a Policy that says it will accept unsate State Roads, adding that by the end of thio season, some of the State Roads will be in excess of "F". He suggested that the State Standards be adopted, and force the iosue. Co..isaioner Saunders noted that he concurs with Commissioner Shanahan. It -- the C0n88naua of tlw Board to adopt tlw Stat. Standarda for Stat. Jt.oad8. ... Rec... 3:10 P.M. - 3:20 P.M. ... Mass Transit Element Mr. Perry stated that there were oeriouo discussions with DCA regarding this Element. He indicated that Staft advised that it is not the Board's or MPO'a Policy to encourage publicly supported mass transit. He noted that Staff has attempted to address the objections of DCA. He stated that one of the objections concerning a map haD been resolved by the map being removed. He noted that one change of note waG the bus system that ran between lmaokalee and Naples, and language was included in the Plan. He adviaed that this system has failed, and the language has now been deleted from the Plan. He advised that there are no other changes to this Element, There were no speakers regarding thio Element. Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element Mr. Perry indicated that the only objection in Aviation was the Page 31 3d- DECEMBER 28, 1988 language relating to the Iamokalee Airport Master Plan. that Staff has respond~d to that language by including specific He advised language re~arding its inter-relationship with the Traffic Circulation Element and other Elements of the Pl~n. He noted that ~ map was 8issing. relating to the future Everglades City Airport, adding that the narrative stated th~t this airport is to be exactly like the existing airport. He indicated that DCA responded that a map was required, so there is now a map included. He atated that there were no other objections from DCA. Mrs. Fitzpatrick adviaed that she has additional information regarding the Policy in the Capital Improvement Element for the aana- ge.ent debt. She noted that the 13~ docs not include the Enterprise Funds. Housing Elea.cnt Growth Management Planner Laverty advioed that the objections that were received from DCA relating thia Element referred to tive Objectivea that were not meaBurable, according to their definition ot "a.ca:Jurable". He indicated that Statf added a date to those Objectives, thereby, making them measurable. Mr. Laverty otated that the :Jecond objection that was received waa the lack of a definition of historical signiticance and the lack of cr1teria in the Plan. He noted that the criteria wa:J in the Plan, adding that Staff referred to the specific pages where that was addressed. Mr, Laverty adv1sed that additional language haG been provided to aaintain what DCA refers to a3 internal consistency between the ElellCnts. Mrs. Fitzpatrick noted that the CCPC approved theBe changes laat weok. Public Facilitioa Element "'ter/Sewer Mr. Arnold stated that the rea30ns for revisions trom tho original responses to DCA, was that Staff anticipated that there would be Page 32 ~---_c,,'"- 33 DECEMBER 28, 1988 probleaa contained in the language. Specitically, he noted. Sanitary Sewer, Objection 3 - the Plan lacked the inclusion of reference to the impact on natural resources caused by package Gewer treatment plants throughout the County. He indicated that there are over 80 such plants within the County, moat of which arc not controlled by the County. He stated that there ia no effort to atte.pt to d~cument any impacts on the natural reaources. He indicated that Statf believed that the regulatory controla were already in place to nooeoo and .itigate any ~iolatlon of environmental standards regarding damages cauGed by package treatment planta. He noted that in order to avoid any problema with DCA, a aecondary response was given that by exclu- sion in a rule of ~J5. the County would not have to make the data collection effort. Assistant County Attorney Student advised that she has spoken with John McCurchy, DCA attorney, and he concurs with this point. Mr. Arnold noted that there are two companion issues in Hater/Sewer: Hater Objection ~, and Sewer Objection 10. He indicated that both of theae are identical Objections. He noted that DCA states that there is too much leeway in the Level of Service Standards that have been established for the private sector utilities. He indicated that they are implying that the County will have to have a formal Plan amendment each and e~ery year if developments came up in that year and wanted to uae the Standardg as proposed. He noted that a mutual agree.ent wag reach with DCA that the wording will remove a lesser standard. standards being based on historical records, and it will Golely be relied upon the table which i3 contained within the GOP's. He noted that the table haG been previously approved by DCA. Mr. Arnold stated that the Hater and Sewer Sub-clements have reference to the proposed revisions to the County Water/Sewer District boundary, adding that the Legialature did approve the re-establishaent ot the Special Act which changed the boundaries. He noted that Staff is in the process of making theBe revisions to the Eleaent. Page 33 3~ , I ~ DECEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Arnold advised that Mr. Christy, of the CCPC, requested that Staff look into some mcana of providing assurances in the GOP's to "bailout" Deltona Utilitien if they do not solve the w~ter supply problems on Marco by the expir~tion of their leaae period. He noted that he explained the mechanisms that are currently in place to Mr. Christy, and that Staff i3 pursuing this. He stated that he has looked at the GOP's to ascertain whether something could be inserted "harmlessly" to addresn thoac concerns, and noted that he does not believe this can be interjected without applying substantial liability to the County. Co..issioner Shanahan stated that he docs not know how it will be handled. but the problem of Marco Island UtilitieD being incapable ot providing the neceDaary aervice lcvels to the citizens of Marco, must be addressed. He indicated that hc feels that it is the obligation ot the County to serve all citizens ultimately, and certainly, where a private facility cannot provide the aervicc. Mr. Arnold indicated that hopefully the teaaibility study by Deltona will give Staff aome direction as where to go, and time traDes in which to accomplish them. Co..issioner Hasse stated that there are also other sections ot t~ coaaunity that do not have adequate pressure. He noted that these areas should also be looked at. Coaaissioner Shanahan stated that it muat be recognized that the Marco Island Civic Association haa placed water, water pressures, water quality, etc.. a3 the number one priority for Marco Island and Good land. He noted that he undcrotands thin i3 not the time to insert this into a Policy today but indicated this must be addressed, as well as Mr. Hassc's problem. There were no other spc~kero regarding the Sanitary Sewer or Potable Water Elements. Drainage Element Growth Management Engineer Wiley stated that two objections were received from DCA relating to the Drainage Element: one was in the Page 34 35 ~ i t ì ~ f â , r ~ 1 DECEMBER 28, 1988 data analysis: and the other in the COP's. He indicated that e3sen- tially, it was the same objection: that the County had not Identitled a Level of Service Standard tor the drainage facilities throughout the County. He ind~cated that Staff had communicated with DCA early on in the development of the Plan. advising that there were no engineering reports which indicate what ia av~ilable now, but merely, what is needed in the future to provide a certain capacity. He noted there- fore, the exi3ting Level of Serviçe could not be identified. He indi- cated that DCA had previously approved the method that the Master Plan would identify these. He atated that a representative from DCA met with Staff and reviewed the correspondence that had been received, and he indicated that it waa an error on the part of DCA, that they had not read their correspondence more thoroughly. Recreation and Open Space Element Parka and Recreation Director Crawtord advised that there were three minor objections raised by DCA, which relate to Objectives 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. He indicated that their objections were that they wanted inforaation that would make these Objectives apecific and measurable. He noted that specific dates, and types of facilities were added by Staff, to make theBe Objectives meðGurahlc. He indl- cated that the CCPC reviewed theBe changes and approved same. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Mr. Laverty noted that there were two objections raised by DCA. Basically, he added that one of theBe was the methodology that was used to perform the survey. He indicated that ~J5 requirea that pro- fessionally accepted methodologies be used for accumulation of orlgi- nal data. He advised that Staff felt thio was a valid objection, and have proposed a system that will operate over two years to develop a survey instrument that will meet the professional criteria to be used in program evaluation. He indicated that the aurvey will then be distributed to inter-county and inter-agencies at the State and local level, aa well ao within the diviaiono and department of the County. He stated that the data will be accumulated and analyzed, and the Page 35 3~ * DECEMBER 28, 1988 County will then be in a better position to seek forma mechanisms, i.e. a written agreement between the County and the City to pursue a co-on goal. Mr. Laverty indicated that the aecond objection deals with the specificity of language uaed in one of the Polices: "to the maximum extent possible". He advised that this language was removed, and replaced with acre specific language that is more measurable. Co..issioner Saunders atated that the issue ot vesting ot rights will be in the Future Land Use Element, and questioned what the recom- aendation of Staff is? Hr. Gauthier stated that the current draft does not detine what it is to be vested, instead it calls for a commitment for a land develop- .ent regulation, due by August, 1~89, which will either detine it, or establish a procea3 through which it will be defined. He indicated that au part of the concurrency management work, Staff is finalizing contract negotiations, and will pr~sent these to the Board on January 10, 1989. He stated that the basic Staff position is that the County should avoid defining vested rights for any particular category pro- ject, until a full fledged leg~l analysis haG been done, and then put it in place as an ordinance in August. Plan L8pl-..ntatlon Schedule Mrs. Fitzpatrick advised that DCA is proposing a number ot changes to Chapter 163; one of which will be a requ~3t to extend tho imple.en- tation date/due date for land development regulations. She stated that as the law stands now, certain ordinances must be adopted, and certain programG muat be in place by August, 1~89. She indicated that this puts the County in a real time crunch, since a determination of co.pliance wil] not be received until February. She otated that she has asked the County Attorney's office to develop some flexible language which DCA will find acceptable and measurable, and that can be worked into the Policies. She indicated that she haG requested that a subotitute phrasc be developed which will remain flexible and it will reflect the new imple5entation date it the Legislature does Page 36 ~\, DECEMBER 28, 1988 grant the County an extension. Assistant County Attorney Student advised that if there is a tixed date established in the Plan, and the Legislation docs change, requiring that the land development regulations not be adopte~ until a later time, the County will have to go through a plan amendment pro- cess, to change that date. She stated that she haG come up with language dealing with this issue, ao required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, as may be amended, and noted that she i9 working on language regarding progra8ß to obviate the necessity of a date. Coaai9sioner Volpe queotioned how proposed annexation will impact the Comprehensive Plan? Hr. Olliff stated that a proposed agrceacnt has been sent to the County from the City. asking for permission for them to be allowed to do soae comprehensive planning for that area that they arc antici- pating putting to a referendum in March. He noted that discussions are taking place to work out the details. He indicated that the City has annexation spread out throughout their Comprehenoive Plan, and not in a single document. He advised that this hao not been addresoed in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Coaaissioner Saundero stated that he feels if the annexation is successful, there will be amendments that are necessary, eopecially, in the Capital Improvement Element. Co..issioner Saunders noted that there will be a Public Hearing to adopt the Plan on January 4, l~B~ at 7:00 P.M. He noted that thio hearing may have to be continued to January 10, 1989, to get the ordi- nance in hand. Hrs. Fitzpatrick stated that Staft i9 preparing to bring the Adoption Ordinance to the Board on January 10, 1989, as a public hearing on the regular Tuesday agenda. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the aeeting was artjourned by Order of the Chair TilDe: 4:05 P.H. Page 37 , '.."..,_.,-,---- 38