The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 06/06/1988 W r- Naples, florida, June 6, 1988 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in anJ for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing boardCs) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building ~F~ of the Government Center, East Naples, florida, with the following members pr~sent: CHAIRMAN: Arnold Lee Glass VICE-CHAjRMAN: Burt L. Saunders John A. Pistor Max A. Hasse, Jr. Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: Maur~~n Kenyon and ElliE'> Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney; Tom Olliff, Acting Community Development Administrator; George Archibald, Public Works Ad.inistrator; Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; Ken Pineau, Emergency Management Director; Charles Gauthier, Planner; Jane Fitzpatrick, Growth Management Director; Robert Wiley, Growth Management Engineer; Jeff Perry, MPO Director; Bill Laverty, Utilities Engineer; and Ron Lee, Planner. Page 1 BOo( 114 p&r,£ 533 IOIC 114,v~536 JUNE 6, 1988 .tUTbU LAJII) USE ELEJŒJr1' VBS'RD RIOBTS AJn) COlfCURRERCY Planner Gauthier stated that the purpose of this meeting is to conduct a public workshop on the f~ture Land Use Eleme~t. Hp. stated th~t he hopes to inform everyone of what the element says, why it says it and to receive guidance. He noted that the land use element has five different major issue areas; concurrency and vested rights, urban boundaries, commercial land use, residential density, and other objectives and policies. He noted that the element is written based on the cePe recommendations and working very closely with the CAC. He indicated that the primary role of this element is to guide decision .a~íng on land use which IS done through the goals, objectives, poli- cies, and future land use map. He stated that the future land use map foras the geographic framework for growth in the County, adding that the basic structure of th~ element starts with an overview section that provides context. He noted that the next part is the goals, objectives and policies and along with this is the future land use map and these will eventually be adopted. He noted that there is also support data in the element along 'with ðnalysis that is required by State law. He indicated that the bulk of the document is the support data. He noted that there are five different objectives and the first set of objectives has a policy that deals with the guidance ~f land uses to the appropriate district on the future land use map. He noted that the second objective deals with the commitment to level of ser- Pðge 2 JUNE 6, 1988 vice standards and the concurrency issue. He noted that the third objective lays out the different commitments on land development regu- lacions. He stated that by August, 1989, regulations must be in place to laple.ent this plan. He indicated that the fourth objective deals with certain programmatic commitments with regards to a sector plan, an industrial study, etc. fie stated that the last objective is the general policies. He stated that the policies tie back to the future land uee map and the map is divided in~o four basic categories; urban designation, rural designation, estates designation, and a conser- vatíon designation and within each of these four major framework set- ters, there are sub-districts and uses allowed under criteria. He noted that the future land use map is similar to what is under the 1933 plan, adding that Staff worked under the premise that there was a pr~tty good approach on land use but it was felt that the rest of the 1983 Coœprehensíve Plan did not have much of an effect. He noted that Staff worked in terms of modifying the existing element as it set forth a framework for growth but will also allow flexibility within that framework as there is a great deal of mixed use categories. He stated that the objectives and policies under land use are a little different than the other elements. He stated that the other objec- tivee set up statistlcal accomplishments and time frames and the objectives in this element arc process-oriented as they deal with an adherence of decision making with the future land use map and the polic lea. P8ge 3 !OQ( 114 P&'.[ 537 .. 114 '&~Æ 538 JUNE 6, 1988 Hr. Gauthier noted that this element is a leading element as well as a su..ation of the rest of the plan. He stated that the proposed ele- menl is based on several themes, adding this element provides for a reduction in new residential densities in the point rating system for , areas close to the coast subject to.hurricane risk. He indicated that another approach is the concern of long-range traffic, adding that Staff is propoaing to reduce new densiti~s in certain areas that are subject to long-range traffic congestion. Hr. Gauthier noted that a modification to the mechanism for siting cO88ercial land use is being proposed and also that almost all new coaœercial zoning go into activity centers. He indicated that this will help minimize the localized impacts on the road network and by the placement of these acttvity centers will help the overall cir- culation pattern. He stated that a vested rights procedure for traf- fic is being suggested that will help adjust old zoning that is not accurate or no longer appropriate or consistent with the lðnd use plan. He indicated that Staff is also proposing to extend the time frame of the road planning. He stated that Staff has identified 19 activity centers and they are proposing that virtually all new commer- cial zoning be within those activity centers. Hr. Gauthier indicated that an important issue is long-ratlge con- currency. He stated that when land is committed or planned for deve- lopment, there needs to be public facilities planned to ac~ommodate that land use. lie noted that the important changes ill this plan ver- Page 4 JUNE 6, 1988 sus the 1983 plan are the modification of the densi~y rating system, the establishment of the activity centers, the establishment of an airport noise zone, the establishment of a conservation designation, and the establishment of the vested rights procedure. He stated that with regards to the long-range concurrency, it is necessary to coor- dinate the planned and ~ommitted land development with the plannpd infrastructure capacity, adding that Collier County is facing a dif- ficu1t problem in this regard as there is an incongruity. He noted that there are a lot more land use commitments and land use potential than there are public facility plan~ to accommodate them. He noted thÐt the critical relationship is between land use and roads, ad1ing that in the western coastal urban designated area, there were approxi- mðtely 54,000 dwellIng units in 1987. He stated that in addition to that, there were 120,000 units approved but not built. He indicated that the vast majority of these are in PUD's and about 55,000 are in Develop.ents of Regional Impact. He stated that in the western coastal urban area including Marco, the lands that are within the urban area, but not yet zoned at today's densities could consist of additional 143,000 dwellIng units. He noted that the ultimate dwelling units under today's densities assumption shouJd total just under 320,000 dwelling units. He stated that this would accommodate over 750,000 people. fie noted that the problem is the road planning ti.e frame, adding that the 2015 time frame is designed to accommodate 153,000 dwelling units, which means that there is an internal incon- Page S &OO( 114 Pl',l 539 IOOC 114 'V-! 540 JUNE 6, 1988 sietent plan. He stated that this means that the County is not fully anticipating the road build-out network or the right-of-way needs. He indicated that the right-of-way needs are not being preserved, which could cost a lot more in future years, adding that Staff is very con- cerned as moratoriums could be created by this. He noted that the approach to bring this together dea~s with lower new densities i~ cer- tain traffic congestion areas, concentration of commercial near inter- sections, vested rights procedure and expending the time frame of the road planning to coincide with the land use planning. Mr. Charles Siemen stated that he has been working with the Staff to aid them in ho~ to deal with the develop~ent expectations that have been for.cd over years of practice under prior law that now confront the .andatory obligations of the Growth Management Act to ensure that there are adequate publiC facilities available to serve all new growth and development. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to adjust zoning as is necessary in order to implement the Coøprehensive Plan, adding that no one has a vested right in any zoning classification. lie stated that he has recommended that the County not rezone everything, adding that he would urge that a process be established that withIn a reasonable period of time, the County . will address this disparIty and bring zoning into alignment with the capacity. He stated that after the plan has been submitted, the County has one year to implement this process through land development requlations. He stated that he believes that a clearly articulated Page 6 JUNE 6, 1988 process and standards in the land development regulations will provide the legal fra~work to carry out a 3 to 5 year adjustment process. He ~otcd that there are two provisions in the language: one is to satisfy the concurrency obligation which says in effect to the DCA and any other interested persons who has rights under the Growth Manage- ment Act, there is a five year horizon and in that time, the existing deficiencies will be cured and during that period of time, development can be c~ntinued to be issued as long as the County continues on the process of .aking up the existing deficiency in facilities and addressing the disparity between capacity and planned capacity and planned zo~ed permitted development. He stated that this will be an accepted concurrency program under the Growth Management Act. Hr. David Land, Vice Chairman of the CAC, stated that the CAC feels existing zoning should be addressed by way of the concurrency issue and the moral obligations of the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that they feel that the Board of County Commissioners has a right to down-zone or rezone all properties that may be inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Plan, but it does not have to be done. He indicated that a di9tín~tíon needs to be made between the zoning and the construction actually taking place. He noted that they are encouraging that the issue of rezoning not be avoided, adding that they would simply recommend that when it is done, it not be done on a carte blanche basis. Commissioner Saunders stated that he has ~o problem with the &00< 114 W.E 541 Page 7 MIl 114 "1~~ 542 JUNE 6, 1988 120,000 approved units, but he does have a problem with some of the l~ðtions of commercial, the densities, the building standards that were applicable when the PUD's were approved, and even some of the en~iron8entðl issues. He noted that he would like to see the projects , I that have been approved in years pa~l for which no legal vesting has occurred, be subject to review under current 1988-1989 standards. AttGrney ~orge varnadoe stated the developers feel that a program should be established for looking at existing zoning to determine if it is vested and then for the Board of County Commissioners to make the deter.ination as to whether the zoning that exists on the property is inappropriate. He noted that with regards to the 120,000 approved units, these are mostly in a phased situation and will be built over a period of years which means that infrastructures can be planned for this build-out. He noted that the existence of zoning does not effect the a80unt of absorption or growth in the County and to simply say that only so many units will be zoned in the next year does not give anyone any choice nor does it let the marketplace operate. He noted that there has to be flexibility and the County has to plan to expand roads where the roads are being impacted by growth. He noted that DCA has stated that they reject the position that concurrency can only mean that from the moment the concurrency requirement goes into effect that all necessary facilities must actually be in place before a deve- lopment permit can be issued. Hr. Milton Hahn of Miami stated that he understands that if a Page 8 JUNE 6, 1988 developer c~its to providing the facilities that are required for develop8ent, it would be al¡ow~d. C0.8issioner Saunders stated he would indicate that in reference to existing zoning for which there has been no legal vesting under current Florida law, that there be some mechanism designed for r~- evaluation of those existing PUD's and other types of zonings to be sure that they are consistent with the current comprehensive plan and the current building and review standards. Hr. William Barton of Wilson, Mill~r, Barton, SolI & Peek, Inc.,. stated that he feels that the plan that is before the Board of County Co..issioners is basically a good plan and the concepts are logical and it is well thought through, adding that ~ith some modifications he feels that the plan can be workable. He stated that he would recom- .end that the Board of County Commissioners give the recommendations of the CCPC a great deal of weight and perhaps greater weight than the Staff reocmmendations. He noted that zoning does not create growth and the number of units that this County has zoned today or tomorrow will have virtually zero effect on the growth rate in this coinmunity. He noted that what creates growth are the people that do not live here today, but want to live here tomorrow. Commissioner Saunders stated that he agrees with the remarks of Hr. Barton, but what does mðtter is the quality of those developments that have been approved in the past. Hr. Barton stated that he has no problem with this çounty &OQ( 114pv.t5.\3 Page 9 " , t aooc 114 '1'.r. 544 JUNE 6, 1988 reviewing at some appropriate time in an appropriate manner actions that have taken place in the past on zoning, adding that the con- tinuity of the development process should not be lost. He noted that if a process is created for this review that will eliminate the abi- lity for a developer to rely on certain things within his development process, then the development process will be destroyed. Attorney Don Pickworth referred to Page 29 of the June 2, 1988, docu8ent, Item "K~, adding that the language refers to what is being rec~nded which is establishing a program to take care of this situation and he would recommend that this be done. Co.aissioner Saunders stated that he understand the recommendation of the CCPC, but he would like to give Staff the opportunity to come back with a recommendatio~ in terms of implementing a policy. C088is.ioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that statt be directed to develop a process that would re-evaluate all existing zoning in Collier County for which there has been no legal vesting to be sure that it is consistent with the current comprehensive plan and the current development standards. PlannE'r Gl'luthir>r Rt"'lpr 'hi'll hI"> wn'Jld tl'll-I"' thi!'t motion 1'19 "!n indi- cation of support for the direction, adding that they will review the whole issue but there is a good chance that Staff will come back with the exact same wording. 0JlBAJr BOtnmARIES Planner Gauthier stated that the urban boundaries are reflected on Page lO JUNE 6, 1988 the future land use map, adding that there are 3 different issues con- cer~in9 this matter. He noted that Staff has proposed a contraction of the urban bou~daries along the east side of 95l, the southeastern tail, and the boundar, along Rookery Bay Bridge. He noted that Staff is proposing that the area east of 95l no longer be urban designated due to the lack of support facilities, the environmental concerns, and the concerns of evacuation. He noted that under the Drainage Element in order to develop thIS ~reð. it requires multi-objective watershed management plans. He stat~d that water basin by water basin, the plans will have to be developed. He noted that C.R. 95l establishes an artificial basin boundary and in order to provide drainage facili- ties for the area east of 951 that would be suitable in order to deve- lop this area, it would çost approximately 535 million. He noted that if flood protection was provided for the one mile area, it would cost approximately 510 million. He stated that he feels that it would be premature to develop this area at this time. He noted that this would put the County in a bad situation if they allow zoning, but cannot achieve the level of service standard. He noted that with regards to the southeastern tail, Staff's concerns relate to the long-range con- currency issue as there is alrea~y excess planned and committed lands compared to the facilitles plan. He noted that this area has a very difficult traffic situation and according to the slosh moè~l, this area is subject to inundation about once every 12 years. He noted that they are concerned with the water management in the area and this Page II aOOK 114 Plr.~ 545 .. 114 'I~~ 5.16 area is far removed from the existing developed area. JUNE 6, 1988 Hr. Gauthier indicated thdt the last area of concern is the boun- dary line that runs from the Collier DR! toward Eagle Creek, adding that this line is described by the ~ST" boundary which is adjustable , at the time of site plan review. uh slated that the CCPC is recom- aending that this line not be definite, adding that it should be inde- finite and should float with the determination of what the "ST" line will be at site plan review. He stated that Staff's recommendation IS that there bea fixed boundary and that it then be adjusted based on ~ST~ determinations subsequent to th~t rezoning or that site plan approve 1 . He stated that they have no problem with adjusting it after th~ real line is determined. He noted that the CCPC has recommended that the urban designated boundary stay exactly the same and they also rec~nded that it float in the Rookery Bay area. Hr. Fred Thomas, representing the CCPC, stated that with regards to the urban boundaries, the commercial issue and the density issue, they yielded to the feelIng of the CAC and the local developers that seemed to be in local harmony. He noted that if the urban b~undary í~ re8tricted, then ther~ is no posoibility for that development, but if the urban boundary is kept as it is, and the private se~tor sees the need and growth has proven the need, then they may be willing to put in the infrastructure and that opportunity should be available. He stated that with regards to the commercial, the recommendations came pri8arily from the CAC and the CCPC is in agreement with them. Page 12 JUNE 6, 1988 Hr. David Land stated that the recommendation of the CAC was a corpr08ising position with Staff which was to eliminate the tail from the urban boundary, adding that their final position however, was to accept the recommcnda~ion of the CCPC. Col. John Beebe, Presid~nt of Lakewood Civic Association, stated that he is in Support of the County staff's position with regardb to the Future Land Use Ele~nt ðnd the Capital Improvement Element. He noted that if the urban area IS not reöuced, the taxpayers are the ones that are going to be paying higher taxes and water and sewer rates, and he would therefore, urge that the Board of County Coa.issioners support the Staff position on the reduction of the urban area designation. Hr. Hilton Hahn stated that he is requesting that the urban area be extended, noting that he owns 553 acres of land east of C.R. 951 and would ask that it be included in the urban boundary area. He stated that his 553 ~cres is part of a six section area and h~ would recom.end that all six sections be included in the urban boundary area. He noted that his land would serve as a good nucleus for the start of developing the area. ..... Deputy Clerk Hottman replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon ..... He. William Baeton of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. indicated that he takes exceptIon to a couple of Staff's comments, specifically that in the event the subject property is locat~.j within the urban area, it would require an additional north/south road on the &OO( 114 P&r:( 5.17 Page l3 .. 114 Plr.t 548 east side of the property, stating this is not true. JUNE 6, 1988 He added that th~ roadway will be adequate to serve that one mile east, and he feels it is a waste of infrastructure. He advised that when the designs for the water aains were done, that area was urban, and it was placed in , th~ urban designation in 1983, per ßtaff recommendation, and everything that has occurred since then, has been aimed at that area being urban. He stated that there will be many structural dollars wasted by taking it out. Attorney George Varnadoe stated that he feels it is hard to justify how a person owning land to the west of the four-laned road ge~s 4 units to the acre, and a person owning land to the east of that road gets 1 unit per 5 acres. He noted that he feels Mr. Barton has adequately addressed the infrastructure. He suggested that the recom- .endation of the CCPC be accepted, and let the urban boundary remain as it is. C088issioner Saunders questioned what the implications are for designating this area within the urban area, or not within the urban area? County Attorney Cuyler replied that the existing properties would . ~Xi8t, and there Wvuld b~ no residential classifications, adding that there would not be development in accordance with residential deveJop- .en t . Utilities Operations Coordinator Laverty, in answer to Commissioner Glass, stated that the Utilities Division is planning on Page 14 JUNE 6, 1988 hooking up those properties that have been assessed, if th~y do put a residential unit on that property, adding that there are no plans to rei.burse for assessment. MPO Director Perry stated tnat damage has been seen along this corridor on the east side of C.R. 951 in areas that are zoned urban and there is no transportation or facility planning to keep pace with that area, noting that proj~cts get approved, they block future corri- dors. He stated that he disagrees with Mr. Barton's comment that 95l will be ~dequate to 9~rvice that area. He stated that the 4,500 acres will per_it 18,000 dwellings, which will permit close to 90,000 vehicle trips per day. He noted that the corridor is not designed to handle the additional density load at the present time. He further indicated that lower levels of servic~ should not be adopted for hurricane evacuation routes that people will depend on. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Perry advised that the den- sity per.itted under the current Comprehensive Plan is based on the point system and would allow 2 or 4 units per acre. Commissioner Saunders questioned whether it would be appropriate to consider any middle ground between the urban designation and the rural designation? Hr. Gauthier noted that different jurisè ctions have come up with fringe designations that allow densities somewhere between urban and rural, but added that the fringes often have lower standards of ser- vice. Page IS &OO( 114 PA'.! 5,i9 lOG( 114 'V,£ 550 JUNE 6, 1988 Co..issioner Saunders asked if it would be appropriate to de.ignate this as a rural area for purposes of the Comp Plan, but also direct Staff to determine or develop some middle ground for adoption du~in9 the amendment process? I Hr. G¿uthier indicated that as the County devel~ps the core of the c~nity and moves outward with facilities, the timing will be appropriate, but that Staff feels the timing is premature now. He noted that he advises against developing the fringe with lower stan- dards. Hr. Land stated that he feels this Plan is very different from any other Co.prehen~ive .'lan because of the levels of service standards, adding that if the Level of Srrvice is esta~lished at "C", no develop- .ent 8ay occur in that area, until that leve~ is brought up. He further noted that the CAC recommended that if a developer wanted to develop, he had to provide the drainage at the same level of service that is found in the urban area. *** Recess 11:30 A.M. - 11:50 A.H. *** Me. Alan Reynolds of WIlson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc., sta~ed that he feels there IS not,a place in the County that has better infrastructure availability than the corridor along C.R. 951. he indicated that he feels that the levels of service are adequate. He stated that he feels that the proximity of the activity centers are very important. He noted that he feels that there will be lower den- sitiE>S occurrin') nn thø b"unrl¡H.i",~, th....n in oth",r parts of thE" urban Page l6 JUNE 6, 1988 area. He indicated that the e~stern portion of the urban area is the only place where affordable housing can be accomplished, noting that a good deal of the infrastructure is already in place, and to further constrict the urban areas to those areas west of C.R. 951, is an injustice. He staled that he concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC to have the urban line remain as it is today. CO88lssioner Pi.tor moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight, that the we.tern coastal urban boundary remain as it is, and it should be. adjustable, based on tield investigations at the time of a rezoning, which will determine the actual line and also determine the level of service standard tor vater management in the area east of C.R. 951. Acting Community Development Administrator Olliff stated that he feels there is room for compromise, and suggested that Staff bring back to the Board an urban fringe that would include additional deve- lopøent paid in capital improvements for development within that area, which would be something inbetween urban and rural, and could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Saunders stated that he was suggesting this earlier in the meeting, and that he would like to see this, before a final decision is mdde on the boundary. Hr. Wafaa Assaad noted that Lee County had similar problems and created a fringe area, Whl~h proved to be ð nightmare for th~ County, Ad.ínistration, and the development community, adding that he is su9ge£ting that the County move along, and forget the fri~ge area. aDaK 114 PA';[ 551 Paga 17 .. 114 Hr~ 552 JUNE 6, 1988 Upon call tor tbe question, tbe motion carrieð 3/2 (Commissioners Baa.. ADð Saunðers opposeð). ..... Racess: 12:05 P.M. - Recopveneð: 1:00 P.M. a~ wbicb tiae Deputy Clerk Kenyon replaceð Deputy Clerk Hoffman ...** DEBBlrY RATIBa SYSTEM Planner Gauthier stated th~t under the current plan, there is a point rating system and in working with the current system there has been a number of problems identified. He noted that the point system tends to load the highest densities in areas subject to hurricane risk 8E well as areas subject to long term traffic congestion. He stated that there is also a level of service component with part of the pre- 8ise being that one would receive more points if they were utilizing a facility at adequate level. He stated that there will be a specific ordinance performing thls function. He noted that Level of Service was 8easured at time of application and not at the time that the dcve- lop.ent would actually occur. He noted that it was also rel~ that there were categories for optional points, such as park space pro- vided or cash in lieu of. He noted that these optional points tended to 8ðsk important deficiencies in'some of the primary point rating areas, therefore, a revised point rating system was developed. He indicated that this system is designed to lower new density close to the coast to the four unit per acre level which is for purposes to relieve traffic conge~lion 05 well os to promote better evacuation. He indicated that inland from that traffic congestion line, the point paga l8 JUNE 6, 1988 rating syste. would allow higher densities near activity centers and would allow higher density if affordable housing were allowed. He noted that the County will need to adopt a specific ordinance for affordable housing. lie stated that Staff has also suggested a higher density if direct ð~cess is provided to more than one major roadway. He indicated that also Included is an allowance for higher densi~y for conversion of commercial zoning which does not conform to either the activity centers or other siting criteria, adding that this ties directly into the vested rights procedure and the zoning fe-evaluation prograr8. He noted that Staff IS trying to maintain a compact urban area, but the levels of density are to be layered and place the spots of intensity so that the facility capacity needs can be readily pro- vitjed. He stated that a prime concern is the area of U.S. 41 as this is the focus of all th~ traffic movement at this time. He indicated that Staff expects that the multi-family hou~ing that will be encouraged will be affordable housing and close to the work places. He noted that this point rating system will apply to the Immokalee area, the western coastal area, and the oth~r urban areas. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Planner Gauthier stated that the current plan is a poInt fating system and this plan is a density rating system, which means that Staff is dealing directly with density nu.bers but there is no scale that goes along with it. He noted that the premise is that 1 units per acre is what is started with and then you can obtain additional units, by meeting certain criteria that is aoo,; 114 !,¡r.t 553 Page 19 '* 114 ,v;. 554 JUNE 6, 1988 on a prepared list. Attorney Varnadoe stated that the Comprehensive Plan is to guide growth in the right direction and the specifics are to be in the land develop.ent regulations which the epunty is committed by law to adopt and i~lement prior to August 1, 1989. Planner Gauthier stated that the CAC agrees with this density rating system, adding that there is a minor area of disagreement with the CCPC which deals with residential in-fill. He noted that the objective is to encourage the development of the smaller parcels that are in line by giving them a little extra density and the CCPC has suggested that for projects between 0 and lO acres in size, 3 residen- tial dwelling units per gross acre may be added to the density for such a project. He stated that a project between lO and 20 acres could have an additional dwelling unit per gross acre. He stated that Staff feels that when there is more than lO acres, this is not con- sidered in-fill residential. He noted that Staff stayed with their original recommendation which was lo allow 2 units for projects lO acres or less and that would be added on top of the 4 units and wha- tever else is earned, subject to the conditions as the end of the den- sity rating system. He indicated that the CCPC was in ~greement with the exception of this one area. He noted that it is important to encourage the filling out of these small parcels because of the effi- ciency of providing walcr and sewer and other service areas. Commissioner Pistor stated that if 3 units per acre were allowed, Page 20 JUNE 6, 1988 this would help to make a development that is affordable housing more affordable. He noted that it has been indicated that the County is not going to charge impact fees for affordable housing and indicated th!t he is not sure if this IS something the County has the right to do. He indicated that he does not know if this would be legal, but he WO'Jld like to find some mechanisms in order to encourage affordable housing. Planner Gauthier stated that Staff has suggested that if a project CO8eS in as affordable hous,ng, 8 dwelling units per acre will be added for that project which means that affordable housing projects could co.e in at 12 units per acre or l6 units per acre if they meet certain criteria, but ð specific ordinance needs to be adopted to ilaple.ent the affordable ho'Jsing program. Hr. William Barton of Wilson, Miller, B~rton, Sol! & Peek, Inc., stated that he concurs wIth Staff that the logical way to measure den- sity is gross density, adding that when net densities are used, everything seems to get confused. He indicated that with regards to the residential in-fill areas, the above methods do not seem to be appropriate. He noted that when you deal with gross densities on large tracts of land, 4 units per acre is adequate, but the cmaller the parcel gets, the more closely net density is being dealt with. He stated that to limit a net parcel to 4 units per acre does not make sense and then to add one or two on top of it, to encourage in-fill is not going to work. lie slaled that in order to accomplish the residen- Page 21 &OO( 114 Pl',1 555 ~tl4~5~ JUNE 6, 1988 tiel in-fill encouragement, he would recommend that if there is a par- cel of land that is zero to lO acres, 4 units should be added: 10 to 20 acres, 3 units should be added; 20 to 30 acres, 2 units should be ad~ed; and a 30 to 40 acres, one unit should be added. He noted that by adding a sliding scale, in-fill ~ill be encouraged Hr. George Varnadoe stated that the point that Mr. Barton is trying to make is that from an infrastructure point of view, in-fill should be encouraged because the facilities to serve them are there. He noted that it is easier for police protection, fire protection, water and sewer facilities are available and the only long-term con- cern is transportation. He stated that the CCPC felt that Staff's reco..endation was not encouragement enough for in-fill residential. He referred to Page 45 of the plan, Item '2, which indicates that it does not matter how much in-fill is done, th~re can never be anymore than 4 units per acre, adding that if this provision is allowed to re8ðin, it is not really in-fill in regards to in-fill growth. He noted that there are limitations on density, therefore, the in-fill should be exempt from this provision and this condition is not necessary in the Comprehensive Plan. Hr. Barton stated that he would like to see a plan that is workable for the community in years to come, adding that he feels that Staff's concept of an In-fill encouragement 15 appropriate but it needs to be reworked in order to accomplish what they would like. He noted that there needs to be encouragement in the so-called high traf- Page 22 JUNE 6, 1988 tic urban area because without it, in-fill areas will not be accmaplished. Planner Gauthier stated that the points are well taken and Staff agrees with .cst of them, adding that most of the in-fill areas are in the coastal area close to U.S. 4l and development of them is being encouraged. He stated that what exact number is usee for lO acres or less is a judgement call. Hr. Varnadoe stated th~t he does not know if the numbers should be that specific as there is such a short time frame left, adding that. these concerns could b~ established in the land development regula- tions and simply state in the Comprehensive Plan that extra density would be provided for in-fill parcels based on a certain amount of acres. He stated that he feels that everyone is getting too specific too early without enough study. Planner Gauthier stated that the 9J5 Rule says that there needs to be a specific land use map with specific areas of density/intensity or policies that establish those levels of density or intensity, adding that if this ib left open, the requirements are not being acco.plished. County Attorney Cuyler stated that he believes that the l~nguage that Hr. Varnadoe staLed could be put in the Comprehensive Plan and implemented through the ¡and development regulations, but he would Su9gest that Staff be given directions on this matter and bring sO8ethlng back Cor the ~oðrd of county Com~issioners to look at on P3ge 23 aoo" 114p1,.t 5~7 ... 114 Pi') 558 JUNE 6, 1988 Jttne 15, 1988. He noted that he would also be able to check into the matter by that time. C088issioner Pistor 8oveð, seconðeð by Commissioner Saunders and carried unaniaously, that for the rpsidential in-fill Portion, Eta!! be directed to come back with a fixeð program for varying the density in order to encourage in-fill development. O'hlml 08JZCl'IVES AlID POLICIEfI Planner Gauthier stated that he would simply ask if there are any questions regarding this issue. He noted that in the Coastal Manage- 8ent Element that was approved by the CCPC as well as within this ele- ~nt. Staff proposed that within the coastal management area, new zoning for mobile homes not be permitted. He stated that the concerns relate to the extreme vulnerability of mobile homes in storm events plus the storm prone character of the coastal management area. He stated that this is the area that is susceptible to inundation of the lowest Class I hurricane, adding that this is the recommendation of Staff, but the CCPC recommended that it be deleted. Commissioner Glass questioned if the wind damage is greater in the slosh area than in the other areas, to which Planner Gauthier replied a f f í cma tl ve 1 y . He noted that structures must be elevated in the slosh area according to FEMA and that makes the~ more vulnerable to wind dal8ðge. Commissioner Goodnight questioned if this would prohibit people from putting a mobIle home on a lot that had been previou~ly purchased Pagp. 24 JUNE 6, 1988 on Goodland or Plantation Island, to which Planner Gauthier replied negatively, adding that this wo~ld only apply to new mobile home zoning. He stated that if someone owns a lot and it is already zoned for ~ile homes, they can still put a new mobile home on it. He noted that existing mobile home parks and mobile home lots would have a vest.ed right. Hr. Don Pickworth stated that when he mentioned this at the ~CPC 8eeting, he was not as~in9 that it be deleted from the ordinance, but he is not sure that it should remain in the plan the way it is pre- . sently worded. He stated that with the subject of safety of mobile homes, there has to be a lot of factors taken into account with regards to safety, access, elevation, construction methods, etc. He indicated that he would suggest that the plan should state that new 8Obi1e home zoning will be allowed only pursuant to regulations which recognize the above-referenced factors. ~rgency Management Director Pineau stated that the coastal mana- geDent area is considered category 1 zone and people in these areas are being encouraged to evacuate to a safer shelter during the early parts of a storm. He stated that he is requesting no new mobile home zoning because of the safety factors. Co.øiSSioner Saunders questioned it the winds are any stronger at the coastline than they are inward during a hurricane, to which Mr. Pineau indicated that everyone is subject to the same winds. Commissioner Saunders stated that he agrees with Mr. Pickworth, Page 25 aoo( 114 Pl'.~ 559 lOG( 114ur.:560 JUNE 6, 1988 adding that if someone comes in, the County should look at the flood elevation requirements and whether there is a real difference in wind da8ðge areas and then decide each issue on a case-b~-case basis. I Mr. Barton slated that he does not disagree with 5tðff on this matter, but his concern is the reliance on the slosh model because tho~e elevations have been reJected by SFWMD and the Army Corps of Engineers. He noted that the only places that still use the slosh model is the Regional Planning Council and the County. CO8Øissioner Saunders indicated that the only thing that Collier County is presently using the Slosh model for is evacuation purposes. Mr. Alan Reynolds of WIlson, Miller, Barlon, 5011 & Peek, Inc., slaled lhat th~ slosh m~d~1 has been used in the Comprehensive Plan Lo establish the coaslal hazard zone that is shown on lhe Comprehensive Plan, adding thal 1t IS being used to limit density and other land use decisions. C088issioner Saun4ers move4 that the rezoning tor mobile homes Dot be probibite4 in the Category 1 zone in the Comprehensive Plan, but that tbe appropriate 8tan4ar4s be applie4 as require4 by VEMA tor elevations. Commissioner Plstor stated that they do not have to be prohibited, but j~ could state that there would be no new zoning for mobile homes in the coastal area. Co88!ssioner Saun4ers vitb4rev biB motion. Lommissioner Saunders stated that he does not see any problem with Page 26 JUNE 6, 1988 the way this is worded on Page 54 with the lined out portion. He noted that based on the wording, there is no need for a motion. Planner Gauthier stated that if nothing is done, it stays out. He noted that there is a provision in the plan that says existing deve- loped zoning that does not ~onform to the future land use map may extend, but only to the extent already permitted by that zoning distr ict. He noted that new property and new zoning cannot be added adjacent to it. C~issioner Glass stated that if no action is taken on this matter, there could b~ m~re rczonings but they would have to come through the normal zoning process. ..... Deputy Clerk Hott.An replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon at this ti.e ..... Hr. Gauthier advised that Plantec conducted a study which included an inventory of the existing supply of commercial zoning by sub-area, projections for demand of commercial zoning by sub-area, and compared th~ supply vs. demand over time. He added that they also evaluated 8eChanisms for allocating commercial use that is in the 1983 Plan. He noted that after the survey, the Plantec consultants recommended a new system of commercial land use, based on activity centers. He stated that the CAC, upon review of the Plantec recommendation, looked toward more flexibility, with all activity centers being the same size and allowing the full range of commercial uses, with lOO\ of the acti- vity centers being commercially zoned. aoo( 114 P1~t 561 Page 27 tOO( 114 n~.~ 5G2 JUNE 6, 1988 Hr. Gauthier stated that the CCPC saw good in both versions, and requested that both versions, plus one generated by Staff that incor- porated both recommendations be written, adding that this has been co.pleted and within the Jocuments.presented today. He noted that the I CCPC added items, which Staff has recommended against, i.e., that two additional activity centers be included on the future land use map; that convenience commercial be allowed within the conservation designation; that the full range of commercial uses be permitted at interstate interchange activity centers; that larger PUD's be allowed uþ to 15 acres of commercial development. Hr. Tom Jackson of Plantec noted that the first task that was per- for.cd in the study was an inventory of the commercial parcels throughout the county, adding that it was determined that there are 1,800 acres of developed commercial land use within the County, noting that this also includes the City of Naples. He advised that as of 1987, there were approximately 4,400 zoned commercial acres in the unincorporated area of the County, adding that 1,100 acres were deve- loped. Me. Jackson staled thðl a mar~et demand projection based on retdil sales, population forecasts and office employment, indicated a total need of 1,551 acres of future commercial land use to the ye~r 20lS. He stated that there is a lot of com~ercially zoned land which may not be in the right location, and there may be too little commercially zoned land in the better locations. Page 28 JUNE 6, 1988 Polices to guide the location of future development was the next step of the study, not~d Mr. Jackson. He stated that the last portion of the study was what to do abcùt inconsistency zoned areas. Hr. Ken Krevlin of Plantec noted that 1983 Land Vse Plan included community commercial nodes, interchange nodes and ne!ghborhood commer- cial nodes, for a total of 10 nodes, but the map shows 19. He indi- cated that the Plan provided for neighborhood commercial development up to 8 acres, to allow [or 5maJl developments of neighborhood shopping facilities outside of the community commercial nodes, adding that the new recommendation pushes the 8 acre limit to l5 acres. He' stated that he feels there is a problem within the County as to where c~rcial development IS allowed to take place, and it does need ð solutíon. Hr. Krevlin noted two challenges that Plantec undertook: 1. The best way to handle an additional l,500 acres of develop- men t . 2. Determine what best to do with unzoned and unneeded commer- cially zoned land. Hr. Krevlin indicated that Plantec's recommendation was that acti- vity centers be categorized in 5 classes, noting that the CAC felt that this approach was too structured. He added that Plantec recom- .ended that owners/developers submit market justification as an evi- dence of sufficient infrastructure, as a basis for moving from a Class II to a Class III center, wð5 disputed by the CAC in that information was being sought regarding a developer's private business. F.Jr ther , aoo( 114 Pi'.: 5ß3 Page 29 '* 114 n'~ 564 JUNE 6, 1988 Hr. Krevlin noted that the advantages of his proposal is that of the different sized center, as we~l ðS the Class I center, which provides for greater flexibility, adding that it also provides for phasing of comøercial growth, corresponding to, residential for a 5 year period. He advised that concepts have been defined in his study. Hr. Krevlin indicated that in each Class of Activity Center, as rec~ndcd, a flexible system has been provided, noting that it is within the County's ability to administer, but it does require more infor~tion, than has been provided in the past, from developers. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Krevlin noted that the ten- dency in the Real Estðte Market is that if there is a major intersec- tion of two roads, there may be two or thre~ shopping centers around that intersection, which 1S the basis of the acti v i ty center. He stated that if there arc enough households within the trade area to 8upport these stores, they will be there. He added that staff has included a recommendation of an access management plan for each of the activity centers, so that driveways and frontage roads may be com- bined. , Hr. Gauthier advised that the CAC and the CCPC have modified the consultant report a great deal, adding that Staff is comfortable with 8Osl of the commercial r~commendations, with the exception of the PUD cOt88ercial. Allorn~y Varnadoe questioned Mr. Krevlin regarding the ~clivily centers at U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road and Pine Ridge Road and Page 30 ¡: JUNE 6, 1988 Vanderbilt Beach Road that Plantec recommended be included in the Future Land Use Plan, and Staff has deleted, asking for reasoning of this? Hr. Krevlin replied that the location relative to potential resi- dential growth within the area, and their functions as intersections sugg~sted that th~y should be future activity centers. In answer to Attorney Varnadoe, Mr. Krevlin noted that the amounts of cO88ercia1 that were projected, were driven by population and popu- lation income. Hr. Jackson noted that seasonal population forecasts, provided by the County, were included to project retail sales, adding that the seasonal population increase In the hotel forecasts was also Included, to ascertain the land requirements. ... Recess 3:15 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. ... Attorney Nancy Stroud of Burk, Bossleman & Stroud stated that part of the study focused o~ existing commercially zoned property that may have development rights changed by the new Plan. She noted that the proposed changes have been reviewed and she feels they have a lot of .erit, containing sound principles. She advised that most of her efforts were concentrated on recommending to the County, techniques for dealing with changes that might be brought about by a new Land Use Plan, i.e., down-zoning or the "Use it or loose it" principle, which is the least intrusive way to make an adjustment from existing property rights in commercial uses to a new system. &OO( 114 1':~ 565 Page 31 .. 114 '1'.1. 566 JUNE 6, 1988 Attorney Stroud suggested ~hat a comprehensive look at appropriate cO88ercial zoning is more legally defensible to the ~ommission, noting that the Growth Management Act requires this of each local government one year after adoption of the Plan. She added that the vesting test in Florida is that the government hbS to give permission to develop and the property owner must make significant expenditure in reliance for that permission. She stated that if property that is designated as CO88ercial, when in fact it is not commercial, is left at the prior zoning, the County has given the first test to the developer, so that when he comes in for his rezoning or building permit, he has already jUMped one of the hurdles. eo..issioner Pistor questioned if the Board of County Commissioners realizes that it made a mistake 5 years ago, and allowed someone to have specific zoning and he did not do anything with it, can the Board advise that they will down-zone that property? Ms. Stroud indicated that if a developer has not made substantial expenditures in reliance on a zoning, or other permission, he does not have a vested right. County Attorney Cuyler advised that a comprehensive look at the way the study has been done, gives a far more defensible basis to go in and down-zone. He added that to purchase property alone, does not vest any rights, and the amount of money that goes into the planning of a parcel of property, does not lend itself to vesting. In summarizing the recommendation, Mr. Gðuthicr stated that a Page 32 JUNE 6, 1988 nu.ber of commercial allocation mechanisms have been proposed, acti- vity centers within the urban area have been proposed, and would con- sist of l60 acres, 50\ may be commercially developed, more than that .ay be co-.ercially zoned with Board of County Commissioners approval, if an activity center already has SOt zoning, the level that exists at ti.e of adoption would set the cap. He further noted that in-fill com- .ercial would be allowed within the urban area, adding that PUD com- mercial, up to 15 acres would be permitted under this Plan, adding that convenience commercial up to 2; acres would be allowed in the rural area, 2+ acres of convenience commercial would be allowed in the Estates and the Conservation area. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Gauthier replied that St6ff and the CAC feels that PUD commercial should only be permitted within activity centers or in-fill. Attorney Varnadoe stated that he supports the position of the CAC and the CCPC, that the uses of the 3 interstate açtivity centers should be differentiated as opposed to other activity centers. He further stated that he feels that all the commercial activity should not take place at the major intersections, noting that it will add to congestion, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to have POD commercial for large projects of 300 acres or more or 1,000 dwelling units in a neighborhood commercial center with the following conditions: 1. 2. No closer than I mile from the nearest activity center. No more frontage on the arterial roaå than depth. Page 33 &OO( 114 P1'.\ 567 ~U4~5œ 3. 4. JUNE 6, 1988 No greater than 10-15 acres in size. No construction until 50\ of the building permits for deve- lopment have been issued. Mc. Barton stated that he agrees with many of Mr. Krevling's points. He referred to earlier co~ments regarding all'activity cen- I ters being located at major intersections, but noted that King's Lake Shopping Center, ParkShore, the Glades, and Courhouse Shadows are shopping areas that are located in their position because of the den- sity that has OCcurred around them. He advised that he feels that the rec~ndation of the CCPC is precisely what the County should have, with the addition of any other neighborhood pun, noting that it gives the County separation, avoids strip com~rcial, and gives the kjnds of shopping centers which will reduce the density of traffic on th~ high- ~ays. Me. Ross Longmire of the CAC indicated that the subject of PUD CO8Øeecial came up at the CCPC meeting, noting that it was not speci- fical1y addressed by the C C. Attocney Donald Pickworth noted that the safeguards that have been put into the PUD commercial will give an opportunity to create some CO88ercial areas that are different than those found at intersections, and he feels that opportunlties will be lost to have decent commercial development by eliminating this opportunity. Me. Gaulhier advised that the Plan may be amended twice per year, and he is suggesting that if developers have a DR! scale project, they Page 34 , , JUNE 6, 1988 cou~d c~ in with a Ccmprehenslve Plan amendment, which would allow the County the extra scrutiny, in addition to the rezone, to consider their request. Mr. Rich Henderlong of Coliier Enterprises stated that he supnorts the proposed language. He noted that the key is flexibility. He indicated that he encourages the Board to accept the language which states a project may be between lQ-l5 acres, adding that he feels this is a good norm to work. He stated that the intent of the language would allow a developer to come before the Board and argue the merit. (or a neighborhood shopping center on a small scale level. Mr. Olliff stated that Plantec feels that the King's Lake project is an exception to the rule, rather than should be the rule, adding t~at if the County is offering an opportunity for a Plan amendment on a DRI scaled project, this would allow a compromising position. C088issioner Saunders Indicated that he agrees with Mr. Olliff's state8ent, noting that one of the major issues that the County has dealt with in reference to commercial zoning, has been the pr~blems with commercial zoning in PUD's, adding that if a developer has the opportunity to amend the Comprehensive Plan twice a year, that would allow another level of scrutiny on a project by project basis. C088isaioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse, to auppor~ Staff'. recommendation that there not be commercial in Planned Use Development. without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Hr. Barton indicated that he feels what should be considered &OO( 114 plr'l 5G9 Page 35 tOO( 114 pv.( 570 JUNE 6, 1988 today, is what should be included in the Comprehensive Plan as ~al1owable~, or those things that make sense that will have the Oppor- tunity for future scrutiny, but to simply leave it out of the Plan and lOOk at it on a case-by-case basis, later, tells everyooe, by excluding it fro. the Plan "we don't like it~. He also stated that there is no reason that a DRI necessarily goes to DCA, noting that if it is in cO8pliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it goes to DCA, only if SO8eOne sends it there. Co88issioner Goodnight noted that she understands what C088issioner Saunders is saying in his motion, but when looking at the Land Use Hap for Immokalee, the majority of the area is zoned CO88ercial or Industrial, adding that there is very little shopping area. She referred to the Collier project which will have 10-15 acres of cO88ercial to add another grocery store, and questioned whether an exception would be made? Co.missioner Pistor suggested that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be considered with the modifications that: 1- 2. 3. ~ . No closer than one mile to the nearest Activity Center; No more frontage allowed than depth; No greater than IS acres,in size; and No conRtrurtion until 15°' of thp huiJding pprmits for th~ development are issued. Commissioner Saunders stated that if Commissioner Pistor would agree to change Item ;1 to "two miles", he will withdraw his motion. C088issionerPistor agreed to amend Item #l to two miles. CO8ais8ioner Saunðers vitbðrev bis motion. Page 36 ----"""'---""'" JUNE 6, 1988 C4 f..ioner Pis tor DOved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders that POD'. of 300 acres of more or 1,000 dwelling units or more, a neigh- borbood CO28ercial center may be allowed subject to the following con- t1itio~: 1. 80 closer than two miles to the nearest designated Acti"ity Center, or other POD commercial of 10 acres or more: "oaore frontage allowed than depth: øo greater than 15 acres in size: and .0 construction until 50\ of the building permits for the development are issued. 2. 3. 4. , Coø.issioner Goodnight que2tioned whether the Board of County Comaissioners could make an an exception to 14, as stated above, if it is determined that there is a need for it? Hr. Gauthier repJied negatively, noting it would only be permitted if there was language included which would allow for it. ~ssioner Pistor amended Condition '4 of his motion, by adding, "Unl... otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners". Seconded by Commissioner Saunders. Upon call tor the question, the motion as amended, carried 5/0. ..... Deputy Clerk Kenyon replaced Deputy Clerk Roffman at this time ***** Mr. Ken Krevlin with Plantec stated that he would urge the County as commercial activity center locations are considered to think about getting away from the amount of zoning in these locations and think in ter.. of development rights. He stated that they recommended various classes for activity centers and each class had a various size asso- ciated with i to lie stc:1ted thc:1t under this concept within a 1/4 mile aoo( 1.14 PJq 571 Page 37 &* 114 'I'.~ 572 JUNE 6, 1988 radius of an intersection, up to 200,000 square feet of commercial use w~uld be permitted. fIe noted that when all the square footage is used up for that intersection, the next developer would trigger a process whereby that center would have to be changed in designation from Class 2 to Class 3 in order to provide !or sufficient development rights to build and that change of classification would require a planned amend- ment process. He stated that what they were trying to achieve was to get away from the amount of ~oning where there is visible development rights being exercised. He noted that the issuance of development rights through a building permit process could be approached as opposed to the typical zoning approach. ..... co..issioner Hasse left the meeting at this time ***£* In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Krevlin stated that develop- ment rights are a measure of use which would be square footage of development for commercial. Planner Gauthier stated that with regards to activity centers, the CCPe has recommended that there be an activity center at U.S. 4l and Wiggins Pass Road and Staff is advising against the placement of that activity center because of the large amount of commercial acreage that IS already in North Naples. He stated that the CCPC also recommends an activity center at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and C.R. 95l and Staff reco.mends against this as there is not ~ market demand in this area. He stated that the consultant is recommending that these a~tivity centers be future centers. He noted that Staff also feels that in the Page 38 JUNE 6, 1988 cuture these intersections may be designated as activity centers. Mrs. Barbara Henderson Collie of Wilson, Miller, Barton, SoIl & Peek, Inc., slated that she is in support of the activity center at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and C.R. 951 and it would be very appro¿riate as there is not any activity designated within 3 miles of that inter- section. She stated that this area is also rapidly growing. She indicated that CCPC feels that it should also be an activity center and she is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners keep this activity center in the plan. Hr. Ross Longmire stated that the CAC did recommend the activity center at Wiggins Pass and U.S. 4l and the a~tivity center at Vanderbilt Beach Road an1 Airport Road. Mr. William Barton of Wilson, Miller, Barton, 5011 & Peek, Inç., stated that with regards to Wiggins Pass and U.S. 41, he does not have any concerns, but he does have concerns with the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and C.R. 951. He noted that it was stated that there is no demand for that activity center this date, ajding that the Comprehensive Plan is an attempt to look at the urban area for the future. He stated that there is no demand for an activity center at the locatIon of fmmokalee Road and C.R. 951 at this time either, but it would an appropriate place for one to be placed. He stated that the activity center for Rattlesnake Bammcck and C.R. 95l fits into that same category. C088i..ioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor, that aoo~ 114 PAr,1 573 Page 39 .. 114pa",~574 J111Œ 6,1988 the activity center be included at RattlesDllke Hammock Road and C.R. ~51 aDd delete the activity center at wiqqins Pass Road aDd U.S. 41. Dr. Neno Spagna referred to the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and C.R. 951, noting that this should be an activity center. He indi- cated that he has been told that th1re is no sense in ðsking for rezoning around this area until the Comprehensive Plan is prepared and now that the plan is being prepared, it is not being included. He noted that he has a client that owns the property at the southwest corner of C.R. 95l ~nd Pine Ridge Road and the possibility of rezoning this property has been discussed since 1984. He stated that they have waited patiently for this plan, but now the activity center has been re80ved and eliminated any possibility of rezoning that property to cO11l8ercial use. He statcà that his client owns l2 acres at this intersection and he is asking that this location be acknowledged and recognized that this location will be best used as commercial use. He indicated that only the west side of C.R. 951 will ever be developed into c~rcial property. lie indicated that since 1974 when the first Co.prehensive Plan was adopted, all the property lying east of C.R. 951 has never been considered nor has it been rezoned for any commercial use. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she agrees with Dr. Spagna, but within the next year there 15 going to be a Comprehensive Plan done of Golden Gate and ImmoKalec and that is the time that this nee~s to be addressed. She stated that ð consultant has been hired to begin work Page 40 JUNE 6, 1988 on the l.-okalee plan and hopefully within the next few months, a con- sultant will be hired to start on the Colden Gate plan. Dr. Spagna stated that he would be willing to wait for a reaso- nable a80unt of time if there is going to be a Comprehensive Plan for Golden Gate Estates, if this request can be incorporated at that time. ?lanner Gauthier stated that a 8octor plan for Golden Gate Estates is c088itted and must be completed no later than August of 1991 which is indicated in the plan on Page 33, Policy 4.2. Hr. Ross Longmire, representing the CAC, stated that it was their reco.-endation that they wait for the master plan in Golden Gate and th~ ~ster plan for Immokalee. Upon call for the question, the action carried 4/0, (Commissioner Haase 18ft the .eetinq). planner Gauthier stated that the CCPC re~ommended that the small scale convenience commercial be allowed in the conservation designa- tion, which is the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. He stated that there will be very few opportunities for convenience com- mercial with the five mile spacing criteria. Hr. Ross Longmire stated that there was discussion at the CAC with regards to having some need in that rural area for small rural commer- cial with five mile intervals. He noted that the CAC did vote to include this. co..issioner Goodnight stated that she would like to see this left in the plan and if there is a need for commercial, it would have to Page 41 aDO( 114 W,{ 575 '°0( 114w.c.576 JUNE 6, 1988 come before the Board of County Commissioners for a rezone. CO8ai..ioner Goodnight aoved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried 4/0, (Commissioner Basse left the .eeting), that the pro- vision for the commercial in the rive aile radius be left under the I criteria for the Conservation designation. Planner Gauthier stated that his final point deals with the interstate interchange activity centers, adding that there are three of the. and under the 1983 Plan they were treated as limited to com- mercial uses for the traveling public which amounted to a list of six uses that included convenience stores, gas stations and motels. He stated that in w~rking with the State DOT and the Federal DOT, ~hey have indicated a preference of keeping the uses at interstate/ interchanges to traveling public to avoid mixing general community retail traffic with that interstate on and off traffic. He noted that Staff recommendation is to limit the uses to the traveling public and almost everyone has disagreed with this. Coø.issioner Saunders stated that he feels that 1-75 may be a major c088uter highway in the next 15 to 20 years and to have shopping centers for non-traveling public makes a lot of sense. He stated that unless Staff has some strong feelings on the matter, he does not ~ee any problem with general retail at the interchanges. Planner Gauthier stated that their strong feeling was th~ initial Plantec recommendation which showed a future activity center at Golden Gate Parkway and the Inter3late. He stated that Staff felt that this Page 42 JUNE 6, 1988 would be an inappropriate location when they put in the future intC!rchange. CO88i..ioner Saunðers aoveð, seconded by commissioner pistor, that the Board of County co..issioners perait other than the type of com- mercial that is for the traveling public at the existing interstate/interchange activity centers. Dr. Spagna stated that the land use plan does not show the Krehling ce.ent plant nor the basic property as being industrial pro- perty and he would ask that this be shown on the land use plan. Planner Gauthier stated that it was not shown even though it was zoned and developed, because it was in an area subject to the boundary dispute and now that it has been clarified that it will be urban, he has no problem with including that. Mr. Assaad stated that the PUD and the DRI should be looked upon as one unit of development and one unit of vesting, adding that the Vineyards or Pelican Bay is a good example. Co..issioner Saunders stated that he is not prepared to vote on an issue of that type at this time. Hr. Assaad stated that he feels that when there is a PUD or a DRI that has a master plan that has been approved by the County, it should be considered vested as the developer wants the solid understanding that the rest of the master plan is grandfathered In. Commissioner Glass stated that this is something that should be discussed at the public hearing. Page 43 ~OC 114,1',: 517 Me( 114 'I':~ 578 JUNE 6, 1988 Upon call for the question of the above motion, it carried 4/0, (CO88i..ion8r Bass8 opposed). ...... The 8eeting was conti~ued by Order of the Chair at .5:15 P.M. to June 10, 1988, at 9:00 A.M. Page 44