Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/11/2002 RFebruary 11, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF February 11, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission met on this date at 8:30 a.m. as a continuation of the February 7, 2002, meeting at the Collier County Government Center, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth L. Abernathy Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Dwight Richardson Mark Strain ALSO PRESENT: Robert Mulhere,William Lorenz, and Stan Litsinger CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I would like to call to order the Monday, February 11 th continuation of the February 7th regular meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Please rise and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Page 1 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. Midney? MR. MIDNEY: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. ADELSTEIN: Present. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: here. MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Strain? MR. STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'll call the role at this time. Mr. Adelstein? Mr. Mudd is absent. Abernathy's Mrs. Young is absent. Mr. Richardson?, Mr. Wolfley is absent. We're ready to proceed with our deliberations on the Rural Fringe Assessment questions. The public hearing was closed at the conclusion of the meeting on Thursday so we won't be taking testimony from the public. Those of you who are here, perhaps with that misapprehension, I'm sorry it worked out that way but you are welcome to stay and listen this morning. The matter will come up again with -- before the County Commissioners in a couple of weeks, I'm not precisely sure of that date. 27th is it? MR. MULHERE: February 27th. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: February 27th. MR. MULHERE: And that's at Max Haase Community Park. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED: Why were we not notified? MR. MULHERE: 9:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The only exception to the input rule is that since we're being guided through this by Mr. Mulhere and the staff, I will allow the interveners to comment, if they find it appropriate and I hope they will precisely tailor their comments so Page 2 February 11, 2002 we can move through this morning. Thank you. MR. PATICA: Yes, sir. My name's Norm Patica. I live out here in this, ah, Rural Fringe area that you are fixing to turn into a golf course or golf courses, probably the same thing you did up there in Bonita Springs. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's your question? MR. PATICA: My question is how come all of this is taking place without giving us due notice? You know, we did receive some reports in the mail for the last time I was here. I did happen to slide in on that meeting yesterday for an hour, during my lunch break. I'm real sorry I couldn't stay longer. It appeared to me that it was nothing but lawyers and representatives, and I thought I was in the wrong place. I had not a clue. All I heard was profits and I heard about golf courses, I heard about stuff like that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Litsinger, you want to talk about the notice? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning manager. Relative to public notice on this particular meeting, we placed a full-page display ad in the newspaper notifying of this meeting at a $4,000 cost to the taxpayers. Also, on Friday for the upcoming board meeting on the 27th, we sent out 3,000 letters with maps of the area to all property owners in the Rural Fringe area, so if you're a property owner--- MR. PATICA: I dispute that. I received absolutely nothing on that. MR. LITSINGER: Well, they were mailed Friday. MR. PATICA: It seems to me if you went and knocked on everybody's door out there and talked to them in person, as few people as there are out there, you would have spent a heck of a lot less of my hard earned tax dollars by talking to them in person, even, Page 3 February 11, 2002 you know. I mean, I think there's a whole lot of wasted money, wasted time and I smell snake oil, you know. It's totally unfair to the property owners out there and this stuff -- I thought not a whole lot of it when I first grabbed up the newspaper, but I figured, well, I'll highlight just a couple of little things to talk about and that I dispute and what I have here is just a little copy, I'll be doggone, there's probably three quarters of it highlighted, you know. I think, maybe just to make it real simple and keep it within reason, so-called the American way, and the divided States of America, why don't you offer us three quarters of what you're gonna get for each one acre parcel now that I understand you guys are cutting it down from five acres to one acre -- of course, these are just proposals, I understand, but the big money that's working it and the big money that's buying the golf courses, $3,000 is nothing, but absolutely wiped out lands to chase around a little inch-and-a-half ball to show you have control. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think that's enough now, we're not taking testimony and --- MR. PATICA: I understand that, sir. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. PATICA: And you're not taking much of anything from what I understand, the way it seems, you know, and I think it's time that some of the homeowners out here stand up and not take much of it either. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Listen, it's just fortuitous that we're even here this morning. We had a meeting for eight hours on Thursday that was duly noticed. MR. PATICA: Why wasn't I personally told about it? Why didn't someone knock on my door? Page 4 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: This process has been going on for 18 months. Now, you can't just wake up --- MR. PATICA: And I showed up to the ones that I received notice on. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, listen-- MR. PATICA: I work seven days a week. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Most of the ones that you heard about, also told you when the next one was noticed. MR. PATICA: I don't have time to read the newspaper. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Listen, I can send for a sherifPs deputy if you like. Please sit down. We're going to go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Good morning for the record. Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. Working for the county on the Rural Fringe process. MR. PATICA: Imagine.that. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I've made a list of some of the issues but I know that the committee had some questions. Perhaps it would be best first if we went through those questions and then some of the issues that we may need some additional discussion on may come up as a result of those questions. In addition, I have a copy here and I think you received copies of the legal opinion by Tom Reese on behalf of the Southwest Florida or, excuse me, the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society. You may wish to have some discussion at some point on that. Obviously we have got dueling interpretations, so that probably will end up being a policy discussion at the board level. MS. STUDENT: I just want to note, for the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I was just handed this. Our outside counsel, as far as I know, does not have a copy of it. I will make sure that they get it and we'll Page 5 February 11, 2002 discuss it with outside counsel and have a response for the board meeting, but given, having just received this and no opportunity to talk with them or even that they have received this, it's not going to really be possible to do that at this juncture. MR. RICHARDSON: Perhaps we can deal with that as a topic. MR. MULHERE: I think that would -- the discussion will come up as we look at those hot button issues and what your preferences are in terms of formulating your motion, but I know that Mr. Strain had quite a few questions and you all may additionally have some questions, so if you wanted to start with, you know, going page by page through the Future Land Use Elements and the CCME. There is an errata sheet that was distributed to you all as well and we should keep that handy at the same time, because some of those questions may have been corrected as part of the errata sheet. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm sure Mr. Strain would have caught that. MR. MULHERE: I'm sure he would, too. MR. STRAIN: I reviewed -- I tried to review that as well. That document was a little bit confusing, and then when Bill and I met that clarified some points for me. MR. MULHERE: The third thing I think is that it would behoove us at some point to go over the EAC. Perhaps when you get to the point where you're thinking about structuring a motion, you could also go over the EAC. We discussed quite a few of them on Thursday, but I don't know that we discussed them all and just in terms of looking at the motions that they made. MR. STRAIN: Bob, just so I understand the process that's going to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners, I'm assuming they're going to get a three ring binder with all the data in it something like we received? MR. MULHERE: Correct. At that point, we will be meeting Page 6 February 11, 2002 for the balance of this week to incorporate those motions by the EAC and the CCPC that the staff concurs with and incorporate those into the language, as well as correcting all the typos and all of the Clean-up language and implement, including the errata changes, into the documents so they really have a very clean document. Then if there are some recommendations from the Environmental Advisory Counsel, the CCPC that are conflicting, or if there are some recommendations that the staff doesn't support, we would highlight those as part of the executive summary so that the board would be aware of those, but those where there's concurrence, we'll just go ahead and make those changes. MR. STRAIN: So if the staff concurs with items that we discuss and vote on today-- MR. MULHERE: Unless--- MR. STRAIN: -- it will be implemented -- it will be put in the book. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If the staff disagrees, then it's going to be put forth to the BCC as a separate --- MR. MULHERE: Right. As an issue. Right. But the only change I would make to that statement would be that if there was a conflict between an EAC and a CCPC recommendation, we would probably carry that forward as an issue as well. MR. STRAIN: Then the bottom line then becomes after BCC, the language that's in this book is what becomes law; is that --- MR. MULHERE: Well, this is just transmittal but, yes. MR. STRAIN: But it goes forward from there as the language that's written in here, so whatever language is in the book is what we've got to live with. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: Supposedly. Page 7 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: That's correct, that's correct. Of course, generally some things will change between transmittal and adoption because we will get a formal, as Nancy indicated, objection, recommendation and comment report for the DCA. Now, we just received late Friday -- as I had indicated to you, we had distributed these documents to the DCA and to the agencies that make up this technical advisory group just so they would be familiar with them and that they could provide us with some comments. We received some of those comments from the DCA late Friday. I haven't had a chance to review them except a cursory review. They were largely supportive, but if there is an issue as we're discussing this morning then I can give you some information on that's the position of the DCA at least on a preliminary basis, I will go ahead and do that for you. I think really largely there were minor issues. They did indicate that they support the concept of Rural Villages, that they support the concept of Transfer of Development Rights but they raised a few issues. One was that in the TDR process they were concerned that you -- the same discussion that we had relative to Twin Eagles and the one for five developments and the marketability and their recommendation was that there be an urban transfer included to further strengthen the marketability of-- very similar to the discussion you had here. They asked a little bit about some additional data and analysis relative to the impacts of the potential increased density on public facilities and we are prepared to provide that for them and will be working over the next few weeks to develop that. Probably will not be committed prior to transmittal, but with adoptions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. Page 8 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: I'm ready with questions here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. STRAIN: Do you want me to start out, then? MR. PATICA: Excuse me. Just out of curiosity, these Rural Villages, such as Twin Eagles, that is a golf course development; is that true? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm going to tell you one more time. MR. PATICA: Is that true, sir? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sit down and be quiet or I will send for a deputy. MR. PATICA: Does that mean we have to have at least a million-and-a-half dollars to live where we're at? MR. MULHERE: Let's call the -- do you want me to call the deputy? MR. PATICA: I hope you wrote that. (Mr. Mulhere made a phone call.) MR. MULHERE: He'll be right up. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: I would think you already answered, started to answer some of the questions I had and on Page 6 of the FLUE, well, actually, it's the table --just past the table of contents, so it's right at the beginning of it. Under the Protection Of Natural Resource Systems, the third bullet, it reads the broader offsite Transfer of Development Rights provision set forth in this element primarily applicable to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. What -- the question I had was basically what I think DCA informed you on Friday is that they are supl~orting the fact that they should be now spread over the urban designated area in Collier County. MR. MULHERE: To some degree, either that or actually I think Page 9 February 11, 2002 their recommendation addressed both the issues we discussed on Thursday. One was potentially an urban transfer that would increase the viability of that process. The second was some sort of a minimum density or something for golf courses, so they threw out both options that we also discussed on Thursday. MR. STRAIN: Golf courses for sure is coming up, too. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. RICHARDSON: This -- we talked about it coming to the infill. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. RICHARDSON: Urban infill, not urban --- MR. MULHERE: Correct. No, they don't specify-- the DCA letter is very general. It just says you should consider an urban transfer as well. MR. STRAIN: So I'm assuming staff, by the time it gets to the BCC, is going to put something together -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: -- with that in mind? MR. MULHERE: Correct. If you, at the time that you take your motions, support the concept of, for example, an urban infill transfer then we will -- we will support that as well and we would just incorporate that into the recommendation. MR. STRAIN: The last bullet on that page, natural resources are also protected through close facial and temporal coordination of land development with the availability of adequate infrastructure of public and private facilities to insure optimized accommodation of human impacts. My concern there is the word "availability of adequate infrastructure" on the Rural Villages. Is that going to mean that the Rural Villages cannot be Page 10 February 11, 2002 developed until, say, Immokalee Road is adequately sized and water and sewer lines going out to them? Or does it also mean that the water and sewer lines have to be interconnected to existing facilities in Collier County or can they be a separate plan, like Orange Tree, have a plan. MR. MULHERE: The way that it's written is -- you are correct in your first assumption that the way that it's written is that the applicant for a Rural Village would have to provide a report, an analysis on the impact to public facilities and services. Now, in addition to that, based upon preliminary comments by the DCA, we'll prepare a report that will show the maximum potential increase in density and we will try to develop an analysis on each of the public services that are of concern. Those would be transportation, sewer, water, solid waste, storm water management, et cetera. However, the applicant will still have to prepare this report and the board, as part of its deliberations, when that time comes, will have to determine whether or not there are in fact adequate public facilities in place or are there some things that need to occur prior to commencement of construction or prior to C.O., however it's worded at the time, that would insure that they'll be in place. The sewer and water, the question of sewer and water, the way that the language is written, it anticipates extension of the county's facilities, sewer and water, central sewer and water; however, it does allow for an interim package treatment plant but that approval rests solely with the county to allow that. Someone can ask for it and the county can grant it on an interim basis, just like any other development. MR. STRAIN: My concern with that statement is more, I'm hoping that after today's meeting the proposed receiving area by Corkscrew is taken out, but as example if that remains, I'm very concerned that the land in between that Rural Village and urban Page 11 February 11, 2002 boundary, because sewer, water and roads leading all the way out to that land are in place, that that's going to encourage infill between those two points for more Twin Eagles and I thought Twin Eagles was what spurred this whole problem and if we are encouraging more of that kind by interconnecting to the urban boundary those lines instead of making them free-standing out there, we could be creating a worse situation instead of a better. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a very good point. Let me just go to the map for a second on the visualizer. The intent here ultimately would be to extend those lines from the Orange Tree, which the county -- the Orange Tree utilities -- which the county does have the right, legal right to take over. I think the year is 2011, it could happen sooner, so it's probably somewhat distant before that would happen. It's, you know, eight or nine years away. However, I think you're right, as we move forward in these discussions it's likely that that issue will probably go away because of the removal of the receiving designation in that area and then it would just remain as available for well and septic. One of the things, though, to get more directly to your point is that we had discussion with the utility staff on this very matter, and they were going to write some policy language that would identify, I think it's 300 feet from the -- adjacent to the line serving the receiving areas, they could connect but not beyond that, and I don't know that that language has been finalized yet, but there was going to be policy language. We have similar policy language elsewhere to the estates where lines run through and connect. Those that are almost immediately adjacent do have the right to connect but beyond that no more. MR. STRAIN: Well, even if the Corkscrew receiving area gets eliminated, I do know from a conversation I had with Utilities that they intend to connect the Orange Tree plant at some future date to Page 12 February 11, 2002 the North Naples plant. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: Can we put language in this document that's being put forward now that's strong enough to prohibit any connections onto that line that goes through or out along Immokalee Road and connects Orange Tree whether the receiving land of Corkscrew stays in place or not? I didn't spot any provisions in here. I know you just said that staff was going to propose something, but they're going to propose it on the basis of a mixed use -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. STRAIN: -- district that we're talking about, but what do we do in the case where they're going to be connecting? MR. MULHERE: If the Big Corkscrew Island Community is taken out of the receiving designation, then they will also be taken out of the sewer and water map, and so that will reflect only those receiving areas, those will be the only areas that are eligible for central water and sewer. MR. STRAIN: But if Orange Tree, which does have a plant, and eventually from what I understand the connection will be made to Orange Tree from the North Naples plant -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: -- whether we've got the Big Corkscrew Area in it or not. MR. MULHERE: So you're talking about -- excuse me -- are you -- you're talking about perhaps an issue in this area in here. MR. STRAIN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Which is the connection, and, yes, the language that was proposed would prohibit any connection, basically other than those adjacent to the linear, like 200 feet, so if you were immediately adjacent or within 200 feet, then you could connect with Page 13 February 11, 2002 that line. Other than that, you cannot. MR. STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney had a question or comment. MR. MIDNEY: Yeah, my comment was I was on the Immokalee Water and Sewer District for six years and it's very expensive to, water and sewer, to get pressure from a water line over even to extend it even one mile. It's pretty expensive, and I would imagine, you know, getting two, three, four, five miles, I can't imagine how you'd get good water pressure on the sewer side. It would be very similar, you would have to have a lot of lift stations and I think it would be extremely expensive to try to run lines, you know, out five or ten miles. Of course, that doesn't mean they wouldn't try -- might not try to do it, but --- MR. STRAIN: They're just now raising water rates and sewer rates so they'll have the expensive money to do that, so I think their intent is to do it, from what they were saying. That's what concerned me. MR. MULHERE: We will make sure that that language is included and, again, I understand, that really doesn't apply here because you're adjacent to the urban area and in this area here there is a direct connection the urban area as well, as well here. It really becomes an issue here and then that area where you extend to Orange Tree. MR. STRAIN: I was asking the question in case that somehow doesn't get taken out. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. RICHARDSON: Following up on the infrastructure question, I have noticed that throughout the growth management plan we talk about infrastructure and the potable water and sewer and all that but I don't see any mention of road capacity. Page 14 February 11, 2002 How does road -- how do --just educate me, how do roads fit into our growth management plan? MR. MULHERE: Well, there's a couple ways that we would deal with the roads. First is that you have a five year plan, and presumably the five year capital plan is based on those roads that are determined to be either deficient or based on modeling will be deficient during that period of time and then they are prioritized through the public process. The second thing that we do that is done by the NPO is that generally a 25 year financially feasible plan and that looks at revenue streams and then determines what, based upon a 25 year population projection, and then the attendant impacts on the road network, what roads will be needed. When we evaluate the transportation impacts for the Rural Villages, it will be done two ways. One, we will be meeting with transportation staff to evaluate it initially as to develop some data analysis as part of our adoption of these growth management plans and the second -- and we'll look at that 25 year plan and determine whether or not there are some additions or changes that need to be done in that 25 year plan based upon these receiving areas, and so we'll do it largely by receiving area and by the potential increase in density. Now, I've done some preliminary calculations and we're talking about a maximum -- and this is a maximum -- up in the neighborhood of 7,000 dwelling units and you spread that out over three or four villages, it's a fairly small impact when you look at the overall population projection. However, we would do that and then the second thing would be then -- that's sort of a planning tool, then you want to look at the impacts as they are being proposed, and that's why there is a requirement for an analysis to be done at the time that an Page 15 February 11, 2002 applicant brings in an application for a Rural Village. Now, at that point, then the County may have some improvements planned, but also the applicant may be required to make some improvements or may wish to make some improvements relative to retaining or maintaining capacity on the road system to serve these Rural Villages. If the capacity isn't there, then the project can't go forward. MR. RICHARDSON: In terms of level of service which we specified for other components of the infrastructure, why wouldn't we have level of service included in our growth management plan? MR. MULHERE: It is. There are levels of service for roads, but that's a whole other issue that's currently being dealt with as we speak and in the very near future you're going to see comprehensive plan amendments that are going to be brought forward by Norm Feeder. It will deal with the whole definition of levels of service and concurrency management. Those will apply to this area and every area of the County, so that's kind of not something that we're involved in as part of this Rural Fringe. You'll actually be seeing those, as I understand it, within the next six weeks or so. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, that's what I thought. I was under the impression this was the growth management plan that we were looking at. MR. MULHERE- MR. RICHARD: MR. MULHERE: Right. This is not all of it. Well, this is just part of it, and this is really just those issues dealing with the Rural Fringe area and some are county-wide as a result of the final order, but not the revisions to the transportation and concurrency management portions. That's coming forward and that's really under the direct management of Norm Feeder and his staff. Page 16 February 11, 2002 MR. RICHARDSON: I'm relieved. Thank you. MR. STRAIN: The next question, if we go to Page 9, Page 9, Item D under special issues, it talks about build out and the fact that there is enough area in the urban boundary for 275,000 building units with a population of 458,000, expected to carry us through the year 2019 to 2046. Are those -- is this inaccurate? MR. MULHERE: Yes.. Probably they are. We had some discussion, in fact initially I had proposed to revise this but the determination was collectively that we would not -- and David Weeks is here and he can probably speak to these issues a little bit more specifically if you would like, but--- MR. STRAIN: My concern is are we prematurely bringing new land in to be sparsely populated and extending our infrastructure when we haven't even met the -- where we could be with the existing land we zoned? MR. MULHERE: I would say, no, we're not and the rationale is a couple reasons. First of all, those numbers need to be adjusted and will be adjusted during the upcoming in the next EAR process. We didn't propose to do that as part of this because really the focus of these amendments was the final order impetus and not necessarily going in and correcting, tweaking everything that needed to be corrected. However, even having said that, there is a couple of reason for looking at -- the increases that we are proposing are relatively small. There are bonuses associated with creating those Rural Villages. Those are the types of developments in rural areas that are supported by 9J5 and Chapter 380 and specifically referenced in the final order. Now, even though you're increasing the density slightly as a bonus, I mean slightly when you look at the overall scale, maybe a lot in one area but slightly when you look at the overall scale, the Page 17 February 11, 2002 benefits of those outweigh the negatives and the bottom line is that those Rural Villages will have beneficial impacts in dealing with the existing straw conditions that we have really no other way to remedy, short of taking perhaps -- I mean, you could go into the Estates and take out chunks and make some sort of a Rural Village there, but these areas just coincidentally happen to be located in proximity to the Estates and can easily serve those areas as well. So -- and then there is a third reason and the third reason is that in trying to balance the Natural Resource Protection strategies with the impacts on private property owners. The transfer process is probably the key component and so while you're increasing the base density in the receiving area, that element alone doesn't have an overall increase associated with it. It's just taking density from one area and putting it into another, so the only area where you're seeing increased density to any degree is the Rural Village concept and the Rural Village concept, as far as transportation and other things, derives its benefit from the economics of scale of having a compact development out there to serve in and the surrounding area, and then not make it necessary for every individual that needs to really do anything to have to travel some distance for that. MR. STRAIN: The demographics and the statistics that correct or clarify this particular paragraph, were they provided to the committee that put this package together so that someone is basing the decision that this document has on accurate demographics projected? MR. MULHERE: There were demographics provided but we didn't sort of revise these numbers in this analysis. MR. STRAIN: I understand that now. When we were presented with this, I read this document from the beginning assuming that the beginning of it is leading us into what's coming and that seems skewed compared to --- Page 18 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: I think it is, and they do need to be revised but, again, that really wasn't part of the process. We knew that we'd be going into the EAR process in the relatively near future and we'd be using the 2000 census data and other, you know, as amended by the University of Florida statistics. Do you want to make any comments? MR. STRAIN: Well, it kind of leads up to my next question on Page 17, Policy 4 point -- I think it's now 7. MR. MULHERE: 17 you said? MR. STRAIN: Yeah, Page 17, Policy 4.7. It does require maintain annual demographics and that's kind of what I was wondering, were those used-- MR. MULHERE: Yes, they were. MR. STRAIN: -- in determining this document. MR. MULHERE: And we do maintain those. Those are adjusted annually in July of every year. MR. STRAIN: Did the committee receive those, make these --- MR. MULHERE: They did, they received the previous -- last year's revisions. MR. STRAIN: On Page 18, Policy 5.3, it references the urban designated areas. Are these new lands, the receiving areas, also going to be concerned or called urban designated areas? MR. MULHERE: No. MR. STRAIN: Or are they a separate category? MR. MULHERE: They're a separate category. They're considered a transitional area and then specifically they'll be called Mixed Use Residential -- Mixed-- Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. MR. STRAIN: On Page 19, Policy 5.7, encourage recognition of identifiable communities within the urbanized area of Western Collier County. Page 19 February 11, 2002 Where has that been done and how are we doing that? I know this is old stuff, but --- MR. MULHERE: No, that's okay. MR. STRAIN: If we applied some of this to what you guys are doing now -- MR. MULHERE: That's okay. MR. STRAIN: -- maybe what you're doing now doesn't need to be as wide as -- spread out as wide. That's what I'm getting at. MR. MULHERE: No, I think that's fine. I can answer those questions, and where I can't I'm going to defer to these gentlemen behind me Largely, that's been done in the urban area in terms of planning communities. You have -- and in the rural area, too. I mean, there are I think 11 planning communities, 12 planning communities in Collier County, and in some cases it's been done at the sub planning community level. I mean, although Marco Island, for example, is an incorporated city right now, but prior to that, I mean, a lot of specific focus was directed towards Marco Island, towards Golden Gate in terms of creating a separate master plan for that area -- for those areas. Immokalee has a separate master plan. Immokalee also may be a specific planning community but, for example, I'm not sure -- was Marco Island also a separate planning community? Yeah, in that case, the city was within a larger planning community so it's been done mostly at the planning community level and, again, there are 12 of those. It has been done through the sub planning community to some extent, but largely that's a process that's driven by those communities and they organize and come in and say we want to have a plan developed specifically for our sub-area. MR. STRAIN: And at the same time, then, if you allow TDRs to be transferred into the urban area you'll be meeting the intent of that policy. Page 20 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Page 21, Item 1 under Urban Designation, third line says it is intended that urban designated areas accommodate the majority of the population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. This gets back to why are we having these receiving lands so far out of the urban designated area? Was that considered when -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. STRAIN: -- this program was put together? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it was. Again, these are intended to be Rural Villages and, beyond that, not only in terms of their size and their intensity, but also in their design and although that hasn't -- that's not part of the comprehensive plan, the next step in this process is to develop a comprehensive set of development standards for these Rural Villages, and those Rural Village design standards should include elements that have a rural character to them. MR. STRAIN: That leads right into my next point, then, on Page 25, we're talking about Traditional Neighborhood Design Sub districts -- MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MULHERE: Yup. STRAIN:-- TNDs. MULHERE: What page was that? STRAIN: Page 25, it starts and goes to Page 26. MULHERE: Yeah, at the bottom. STRAIN: That seems like a real good idea for the receiving areas. Is that program going to be implemented as a requirement for the receiving areas or are we going to go beyond that in scope and size? MR. MULHERE: I think we will go beyond it and those elements of the traditional neighbor-- you're absolutely correct, the Page 21 February 11, 2002 elements or the characteristics of the Traditional Neighborhood Design are also very desirable within receiving areas, particularly within Rural Villages, but perhaps the scale and the scope of those components of Traditional Neighborhood Design might be a little bit different. You think about things just as simple as having mixed residential types, having perhaps some commercial co-located with residential, maybe on the first floor, second floor office, those types o f things. The way that you apply that in the urban area is certainly going to be at a larger scale and the way that that would be intended to be applied in these Rural Villages, so they will have separate design standards. We've actually started to work on some of the standards but they really don't belong in the comprehensive plan. MR. STRAIN: I was gonna ask you, the next step is ULDC amendments -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: And we'll bring that into play. MR. RICHARDSON: Just to clarify, the way this document's organized, you've got these Roman Numerals on the side and I couldn't correlate them with anything. I'm sure it's obvious. Like on Page 21 it says Roman Numeral IV, next to a sub-A. What do those refer to? MR. MULHERE: Those correspond to previous amendments for the plan so that they can be -- on the first page there is a key to those. In this case, when we amend the plans we'll be adding another one and we'll be removing some, so --- MR. STRAIN: My next issue, Bob, was on Page 32, Density Blending. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. Page 22 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: And it's new language that you have put in there or someone's put in. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: Basically, from what I understand is because of density blending, if someone has a higher density area and they take in a lower density area, they can blend the two together? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Generally, that's the intent here. However, the primary rationale or reason for being permitted to do that has to do with natural resource protection, and I can just go over to the map and give you an example, that would probably work better. MR. STRAIN: Well, why don't you use the quarry area that's being designated as a receiving land as an example, because it's close enough to the intersection of Immokalee and 951 so that someone could easily take advantage of the 40 acres of commercial and convert it to residential and move a lot of high density into a receiving area that was never-- up to now I thought they were going to be limited to I think it's 3.5 or something like that. MR. MULHERE: Actually, they can't increase the density through this provision; they cannot increase the density beyond the maximum that they are already permitted. MR. STRAIN: Well--- MR. MULHERE: For the whole project. The way this works is you take your -- it's for projects that --- MR. STRAIN: Did you read the next page? I don't mean to interrupt you, Bob, but it says for residential development, for a project that is within the boundaries of a mixed use activity center-- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: Which is not within the urban residential, fringe sub district or close to a fringe sub district, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. Page 23 February 11, 2002 So that means, and I'm specifically looking at the Intersection 951 and Immokalee Road where you've got a large activity center with commercial-- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: -- on each comer. That northeast comer is right next to one of the new receiving areas, and so is the southeast comer, for that matter. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. The way that that is -- just let's start with the density planning and then I'll get to the other policy. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Density blending is strictly applied to projects that straddle the urban and rural areas, Rural Fringe mixed use areas, and so if you have a project in this one that you're citing, I think it's four sections of land and I think somewhere around two sections are in the urban area and somewhere around two sections are in the rural area, and I haven't specifically looked at this area but I'm confident that that's about what the mix is, and we didn't specifically look at it because we certainly didn't want to entertain a specific project from staff's perspective or from my perspective as a consultant, while going through this process, we want these to apply generally and not specific to a project but in the example that we're using and we can even make it a hypothetical and that would probably be better. We've got four sections of land, two are in the urban area, two in the rural area. You have a certain base density that you're allowed in the urban area for the example that we're using, let's just say, you know, it's four acres, four units per acre, then you've got your density, your minimum density in the rural of one for five, one dwelling for five acres. What this says is if you first are able to protect the best natural Page 24 February 11, 2002 resource native vegetation areas or habitat areas, you may distribute that density that you are permitted either in the urban area or in the rural area, really anywhere on the site providing you do protect the best natural resource areas on the site and you have to meet the higher preservation standard for the whole project. What I mean is the preservation standard, the 40 percent in the Rural Fringe versus 25 percent base in the urban area, if you avail yourself of this process you must meet the higher standard for the whole project, both urban and rural, so that's the basis for that. Now, you have moved on to another--- MR. STRAIN: Well, I'm looking at the conversion of commercial to residential and because it comes under-- it's a -- commercial could be in that particular project in one mile, which is where you talked, is one section. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: So you are looking at two sections side by side, you are looking at two miles of development that could easily occur by one ownership. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: And if that happens and they don't want to put in another shopping center like, say, Pine Ridge and Airport Road so you've got one in every comer, say they want to do something different with one of the comers, could they then take all that commercial density and convert it to residential as is stated on Page 33? MR. MULHERE: Well, they would have the right to ask for that as part of the zoning process, yes. MR. STRAIN: And then they could spread that, though-- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. STRAIN: -- into the receiving areas that we're creating here today. Page 25 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: That's -- well, they could spread it, yeah, into the rural area. It just happens to be a receiving but, yes, they could spread that under the density blending. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Whatever their base, whatever their maximum based density, regardless of whether it's urban or rural, you take the total and, in your case, in the case at hand, if during this the zoning process they were permitted to convert 40 acres of commercial to a higher density, then that would become their base density, then they would be permitted to spread that density anywhere within the project, providing they are protecting the highest value natural resource areas, habitat areas, et cetera, et cetera, at the higher preservation standard. MR. STRAIN: But then with the density blending and there are several other bonuses we'll get to later this morning. MR. MULHERE: I don't -- this -- to my way of thinking, this is -- the density blending doesn't provide for any density bonus. MR. STRAIN: It does in consideration of the receiving areas. The way this procedure, the presentations last week seemed to indicate was that the maximum density in the receiving area was going to be X. MR. MULHERE: It is. MR. STRAIN: Well, now it's going to be X plus whatever somebody can blend or contribute in another manner. Is that - MR. MULHERE: Well, here's the point. If we weren't having this discussion in the receiving areas, if you were just talking about the urban areas, they come in and they get -- whatever their base density is they get. They can build that and they can build that today and they'll be able to build that after these amendments. MR. STRAIN: Within the urban boundary, though? MR. MULHERE: Correct. Page 26 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: All right. MR. MULHERE: And what we're saying for projects that straddle both and in a receiving area. The example, probably a better example was the project Naples -- I think it's called Naples Grand, Naples Reserve, and it's down in here, right up in here. They had a couple sections of land, the section in the urban area had the -- really the pristine native vegetation. The section in the rural area was cleared to tomato fields. Based on the way our language was written without the density blending, we would have caused them to go in and clear everything in that urban section except whatever they needed to preserve the 25 percent, because they couldn't utilize the density in the rural portion. Now, once we made these receiving areas and we created the density blending, we allowed them to be able to protect a higher percentage of the natural resources that happened to be located in the urban area by spreading that density throughout the entire project and that's the same thing that we're proposing. MR. STRAIN: It's going to be more intense up in that northern area, though. MR. MULHERE: Correct, but it's not -- technically, it's not a density bonus because it's not getting any more density than they would otherwise be permitted. MR. STRAIN: And I understand. My-- the basis of a lot of the presentation simply was that there is a maximum, there is a cap on what can be received, what the receiving areas can use as a build out density. This affects that cap substantially if someone wanted to apply it that way. MR. MULHERE: It does. On a net basis, it could, yes. MR. STRAIN: Typically, every development seems to find loopholes to do these kinds of things, so --- Page 27 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: I understand. MR. RICHARDSON: And I'm persuaded with the argument, though, that overall we're protecting more natural features in the combined project than we would each of them by themselves, because 40 percent has to apply to the whole project. MR. STRAIN: I agree with you on that point. MR. MULHERE: You raised a good issue and I was just talking with Stan and David and we will take a look at that language, perhaps before the board meeting we'll take a look at it. You may have some conditions that you attach to your motion as well, but we'll go ahead and take a look at it, but, again, the intent was no more density, just you can spread it differently. MR. STRAIN: Bob, on Page 39, top of the page, there is an Item Number 3, the last couple lines, talking about the assessment or any phase thereof shall recognize substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development, which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture, and other predominantly rural land uses and provide for the cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. How is running these heavy infrastructure lines and all that being cost effective-- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: -- to Collier County as a whole? Because right now, because of some of the proposals here, we're seeing marked increases in water and sewer rates and installations and I'm wondering how that cost effective language is even applying? MR. MULHERE: I'd have to get the Utilities folks in here to indicate whether or not they feel it's because of these that these increases are coming or partially because of these, and to what percentage and extent, but let me just show you a couple of things. We already have substantial infrastructure indeed running out to Page 28 February 11, 2002 Collier Seminole State Park, which is somewhere around here not being used because at one point that was part of the urban area when the boundary was pulled back, of course, it wasn't -- no further improvements were made to the infrastructure there. As far as serving this area and this area, okay, there is a direct connection to the urban area so it's going to be relatively simple to serve these areas. When you look up here, keeping in mind that ultimately the County is going to take over the Orange Tree plant and connect the Orange Tree plant to the North Regional and expand it and connect it to the North Regional Treatment Plant. It's a relatively short distance, although we probably won't being serving this area because that's a different discussion, you know, but we may serve some of it on the southern portion depending upon what we discuss. So the investment isn't quite as significant relative to those, extending those lines. The second part of that is that you do get the economy of scale by only extending those lines or allowing for central water and sewer in, A, receiving areas, hopefully Rural Villages and, C, cluster development. Some of the cost is certainly going to be born by the applicant, certainly. MR. STRAIN: Did staff provide the committee with some kind of documentation to show them how the effects of the connected water and sewer to county infrastructure was going to be impacting the county-wide taxpayers on these or these lands that are outside and not contiguous to the urban boundary? MR. MULHERE: No. There was a presentation made to the board, however, relative to the utilities projections for serving these lands. Now, the only other thing was that, remember, alternatively to taking the density and putting it in receiving land you would have that density just occur at its current rate of one for five. That in and Page 29 February 11, 2002 of itself is going to have impact on a whole lot of other public service and facilities that are going to be more costly, based upon a spread out distribution. Give me one second. MR. STRAIN: I don't think Golden Gate Estates, as an example, is necessarily going to have an impact on Collier County's water and sewer. I was referring to police protection, libraries, parks, those kinds of things. There is an article in this journal of the American Planning Association and a study that was done relative to the -- does cost -- does straw cost us all. ! say the effects of housing patterns on public water and sewer costs and, basically, I mean, I can provide copies of this for you but the finding is that, you know, obviously it seems pretty obvious, compact development has an economy of scale and the costs are lower for providing those services under those conditions, but my point wasn't that. My point was if you think about all the other public services and facilities, you think about schools, you think about police, you think about E.M.S., you think about parks and libraries, if you think about all of those and you limit the area and you direct the growth, first of all, keep in mind that the premise is we have to direct the growth away from the natural resources, the valuable natural resource areas and we've got to try to address the impacts of directing that growth away from those areas on the private property owners, identifying those lands that are the least environmentally sensitive, will also have a beneficial impact on delivering all of these services so any study that would be done relative to the cost of providing services would have to include all of those services, and it's generally an accepted principal that more compact development, the less the cost of providing the service. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I don't know how we're going to Page 30 February 11, 2002 manage, I think we're constrained to finish this morning. MR. STRAIN: I've got another -- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thirty to go? MR. STRAIN: Probably not that many. I'm getting there. I'm sorry. MR. MULHERE: There is one more I think key -- key point to that and that is really the provisions for clustering and the provisions for the Rural Villages just don't work without central water and sewer. What we have is receiving areas that would be developed at a much more spread out area, but with the clustering provisions and the Rural Villages provisions you are going to have an economy of scale and are going to be able to provide those services for much less. Now, is there a cost for the infrastructure, running the infrastructure to these receiving lands? Yes, there is, and I know the Utilities department has evaluated that cost and included that in their long-range plan, capital improvement plan. I don't have the specifics of that, though, with me here today. MR. STRAIN: Why don't I move on, I'll try to get this going a little faster. Under the densities that are allowed to be increased in the receiving areas, is there an affordable housing bonus -- MR. MULHERE: There is. MR. STRAIN: -- that's applicable there as well? MR. MULHERE: There is in Rural Villages. Now, keep in mind you can't exceed the maximum. Now, the proposed maximum that we had was 3.5. That may or may not stand to be lowered, but whatever the maximum density that we establish for the rural village, whatever bonuses you use, whether it be affordable housing or the transfer process, you can't exceed the maximum density that's established, so if it's three or 3.5, that's the maximum you get. Page 31 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The bone of contention was whether there were two bonus units -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- or one. MR. MULHERE: But in addition to that, if we went to a one to one, Mr. Strain is correct, there is a provision for an additional half of a dwelling unit bonus for every affordable housing unit that's constructed within a Rural Village, but that only would lower your need to get units -- the density towards meeting your minimum density -- MR. STRAIN: Somewhere else. MR. MULHERE: -- elsewhere, right, there is still a maximum. MR. STRAIN: Bob, on Page 44, Item 5, emergency preparedness. MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh. MR. STRAIN: It references shelters. Is there any reason that prior to the use of the word shelter you couldn't use the word "storm"? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely no reason. MR. STRAIN: Storm shelter. Because if you're looking up definitions in the Federal level, shelters are more intense if they're called storm shelters and I think that was what the intent of the -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: -- of this would be, so you may want to -- anywhere you have the word "shelter" reference storm shelter. MR. MULHERE: I will make a note right here. And I -- you'll note that I -- the language allowed the County's Emergency Management Office to deliberate on that and make the determination whether one is necessary, because in some cases they really don't want folks in certain areas staying where they're at. MR. STRAIN: I'm just trying to see if I can pass on my notes Page 32 February 11, 2002 here. On Page 50, the open space environmental protection, there is a reference there to green belt averaging 500 feet. I have a couple questions about that, but before we to go that the CCME portion of this document on Page 31, there is a reference to -- let me find it. There is a buffer, buffers between natural reservation and more intensive open space uses. Those buffers are labeled at 300 feet. Is there a difference between those two designations? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the green belt-- what you're talking about under the CCME where you have the minimum of 300 feet, it actually could be larger as we discussed depending on whether there's a bald eagle's nest or if the draw down modeling required a wider buffer between the natural reservation and the more intensive open space use. Those generally apply anywhere where you have receiving lands or other lands adjacent to a natural reservation. The green belt is only within receiving lands and it can only be located within receiving lands because it's developed around Rural Villages, and it specifically says it has to be within receiving land. You cannot use sending land to meet your green belt. Also, the green belt is a little bit perhaps a terminology using the word green belt, it doesn't necessarily mean as we discussed before that that green belt has to be entirely natural area or native preservation. You have got a requirement you have to meet for your entire project, and it's assumed that you will largely meet that in the green belt area because obviously you can't do any development and you might as well put your preservation there because you are going to do more intensive development in the village. MR. STRAIN: You just said the word "preservation," which, from what I'm reading, they allow golf courses? MR. MULHERE: Yes, they do. Once you've met your Page 33 February 11, 2002 preservation, you can use golf course holes to secure the Rural Village and it's, again, it's in a receiving area, we allow golf courses in receiving areas, so it's -- I don't think there's any reason not to allow portions of the golf course to be within a green belt as long as you've met your preservation standards. MR. STRAIN: The average of 500 feet, could that be changed to a minimum of 500 feet? MR. MULHERE: Well, the only reason we left that flexible was that-- it could be, absolutely. MR. STRAIN: Someone could get down to zero, then, by average; right? MR. MULHERE: That could be, right. It just may have to be wider in certain areas, but it could be no less than 500, yes. MR. RICHARDSON: Is that language going to be changed, then? Is that the intent? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think you'll make a motion and then we'll --- MR. RICHARDSON: No, I just thought, was that your intent when you wrote the document? MR. MULHERE: The intent was not. The intent was to allow it to be somewhat flexible because you may need -- it was intended to be an average of 500 feet, you might be able to make it less in one area and more in other area to protect the flow way, to protect certain habitat areas, it might be a thousand feet here, might be a matter of a couple feet here, but there is no minimum, I think Mark is right. MR. STRAIN: Bob, there are some obvious questions that occur in some of the uses that are being allowed in some of the areas that I think, instead of reviewing them in this language, when we go to vote I will bring it up to the committee that we address it from these charts and by doing so you will know how to correct it in the document then? Page 34 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Sure. Absolutely. MR. STRAIN: I go to the -- past the FLUE into the CCME now. We're making a little progress here. We'll get there, Ken. Page 23 is my first one. It's Item F, the fifth line, starts five acres in size, native vegetation clearing allowance shall be at a minimum 20 percent or 25,000 square feet. Shouldn't that be maximum? You don't want to force somebody to clear 20 percent, you want them not to clear more than 20 percent, or am I reading it wrong? MR. MULHERE: This question has come up before. Let me read it again. The point is that -- maybe we worded it wrong, but on a smaller parcel if we applied the preservation standards, we would be overly restricting those smaller non-conforming or smaller parcels, so we want to allow, we want to allow, at least a certain amount of clearing regardless of the other application of those preservation standards and what we're saying is 20 percent or 25,000. It's also -- it's also -- becomes a maximum so that --- MR. STRAIN: So they've gotta clear 20 percent but they can't clear more and if they're forced by code then to clear 20 percent whether they want to or not? MR. MULHERE: Well, no, we don't want them to do that either. MR. STRAIN: No, I would think not. MR. MULHERE: Right. I would say the wording, the intent of the -- was to allow an individual to be able to clear that as Bob kind of called it as a maximum, but we don't -- we don't -- we're not requiring them to clear it. MR. STRAIN: So we do want to change the word to maximum, then? Page 35 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Well, I think I would propose "at least." Shall be at least. MR. STRAIN: Again, why are we forcing someone to clear their property? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's not the intent, we're allowing -- we have to change the wording. MR. STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to say. How do we undo that so it doesn't become the -- because when someone reads this, it could be taken--- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I agree. It seems like maybe, at least the way I'm reading it right now, I think you're correct. I think by saying at maximum works. MR. STRAIN: If you go down a few lines --- MR. MULHERE: There was a reason we didn't put it in there, but I can't remember what that is right now, so --- MR. STRAIN: If you go down a few more lines it says for lots and parcels bigger than five acres but less than ten acres a minimum of one acre may be clear. Again, did you intend that they have to clear an acre? MR. MULHERE: No, but, again, they can clear more than one acre so maximum doesn't work in that case. MR. STRAIN: Right. Wouldn't you want to reword it to what you're trying to say instead of-- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we would. Yes, we would. So I'm making a note to do that. MR. RICHARDSON: Reword it to what they mean. Novel approach. MR. STRAIN: Also, the last line refers to amount of clearing a person can do to minimize wildfire fuel sources. Wouldn't that clearing also be part of the maximum allowance? MR. MULHERE: It's not subject to -- it's not subject to that Page 36 February 11, 2002 clearing because they're being -- they're permitted to clear brush or under story vegetation, so I don't know that that's -- normally you'd do it immediately adjacent to your structure but you're not limited in terms of that. Your not limited for the -- the other clearing refers to really clearing the site as opposed to under story and brush. MR. STRAIN: Page 25, this is just a small grammatical thing. Policy 6.2.3, beginning at the second paragraph, large connected wetland systems that exist at the landscape scale in Collier County, you have got are protected through various land use designations, isn't it shall be protected? What you're trying to do here is put stuff into the code to protect them. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. STRAIN: Page 31, paren 1.A.2. Just-- I thought something -- I'm trying to understand, golf course roughs maintained at a natural state. How do you maintain something in a natural state? MR. MULHERE: I'm not certain. MR. STRAIN: I mean, I just thought that was interesting. How are they going to go - MR. LORENZ: No watering, no mowing. Exotics removal would be allowed. MR. MULHERE: I think we actually referred to it elsewhere as non-irrigated, non-mowed or something along those lines. Maybe we can look to make sure that language is the same because we do address it elsewhere in the code as well. MR. RICHARDSON: It sounds like the description of my front yard. MR. STRAIN: The Audubon group had suggested some changes, some that I agree with, some I don't but I would assume that Page 37 February 11, 2002 we could bring those up through their submittal instead of going through this document and whatever actions this board takes you can inter them into this document because some are on that page, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: -- I'm just gonna bypass those for now. Page 38, the clause is 7.3.1. The County shall apply the lighting criteria contained in policy 7.1.2(2)(d), and I think if you look back you mean C. D doesn't refer to any lighting criteria. MR. MULHERE: That would be correct. MR. STRAIN: There was one other similar reference to another item like that, I don't know if I even marked it. You might find it as you go through. I'm done with the CCME. Sanitary sewer sub-element, Policy 1.1.2. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What page? MR. STRAIN: Page 1. It refers the -- that this plan will be consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan. The plan that's attached to this doesn't show any extensions into the Rural Fringe area. I'm wondering if that needs to be corrected or is that something that should have been updated with this recommendation? MR. MULHERE: There is -- there is a map, but it looks like it was only included, PW-8, but it looks like it was only included under the sewer-- MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- language and it's called Rural Transition Water and Sewer District and it's on Page 8 of the Sewer Sub- Element or, no, I'm sorry, it's just labeled PW. I guess it's Page PW- 8. MR. STRAIN: Yes, there--- MR. MULHERE: And that also would be included in the water, Page 38 February 11, 2002 but you raised a good point, if you look at Policy 1.1.2 that you just read --- MR. STRAIN: It's not written for what you guys --- MR. MULHERE: Right, and if you at look at policy on Page 5 - - sorry, on Page 6, if you look at 1.5.1, and if you look at the last sentence there, where we've actually referenced and the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, I think you are correct, I believe that that also probably it would be beneficial to put that same language in 1.1.2 for clarification purposes and I appreciate you bringing that up. MR. STRAIN: Ken, I think we've reached the end of that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Good. MR. RICHARDSON: Okay, now I'm going to start on my list. Just kidding, just kidding. MR. STRAIN: I think the hardest part is going to be to correlate pages of recommendations that we have received and discussed. I've made lists of them plus I've got at least ten pages of some right here. MR. RICHARDSON: We can do that. That's why I didn't bring up -- re-bring them up MR. STRAIN: in this language. MR. O'HARA: Sir, I just have a question. Could you define the sending area? We're from the North Belle Meade area, just quickly define the sending area and how it's going to directly affect us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In North Belle Meade? MR. STRAIN: Ken, he is going to have to identify himself for the record. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Could you hop up here and tell us your name? MR. O'HARA: Yes, my name is Robert O'Hara and I would like to know if you could just quickly define the sending area. We Page 39 February 11, 2002 live in the North Belle Meade area and the reason we're here is we're just concerned of how it will affect us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I think we can do that. MR. MULHERE: I can and I will also make a suggestion that you may want to contact Bill Lorenz, who is the natural resource director or Max Hatcher -- Max is right here. Because I think they can get you some maps that are a little more detailed than what we're going to be able to show you right here. If you'll look up on the television screen there, the North Belle Meade sending areas are in orange here, here is 1-75, and -- I'll put my glasses on -- this is Golden Gate Boulevard. These areas in orange are designated as receiving areas -- I'm sorry, sending areas, thank you, and the NRPA -- do you have a map that shows NRPA better? Anyway, it basically, the Natural Resource Protection Area runs just about at this line here. There is about a section north of it that's designated as sending, but it's not Natural Resource Protection. You can see it a little bit better. Now I'm going to explain the sending and receiving, I think you asked that question. This map here also shows that these -- this area here is the Natural Resource Protection Area. These two sections here are sending, this is all sending as part of the Natural Resource Protection Area, and these -- there are six sections over here that are also sending. These sections here are receiving and the difference between the sending and receiving is that in sending lands, including the Natural Resource Protection Area, you have limited ability to utilize to clear the land, that you have an 80 percent native vegetation requirement, retention requirement in sending lands, 90 percent in the Natural Resource Protection Area, and you are only Page 40 February 11, 2002 allowed to develop one dwelling unit per lot or parcel that existed on June 22nd, 1999, which is the date of the final order. You are, however, permitted to transfer your dwelling units from sending lands, including the Natural Resource Protection sending lands to receiving lands and you're permitted to do that at a rate of one dwelling unit per five acres. That's pretty much it, but if you'd like to get together with Bill or Max or myself to discuss the specifics, we'd be happy to do that with you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does that give you a general idea for the time being? MR. O'HARA: That cleared it up a little bit. MR. MULHERE: I did have the -- I didn't know, really, how you'd like to maybe take a look at the EAC recommendations, if you wanted to go into that now or -- that would help in terms of helping you to structure some motions, a motion or motions. We could put that hot button list up. I've got some notes here on some issues that you discussed on Thursday. MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman, why don't we just go through the EAC? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: First set or second set? MR. MULHERE: Second, yes. It's got 23 motions. We have discussed most of them, but not all of them. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You are talking about the 23? It would help, I think, in terms of if there is total agreement with respect to a motion, we can, you know, put a check mark next to it. MR. RICHARDSON: I would ask the attorney, Marjorie, we're only five strong here, I suspect there may be some difference of viewpoint even at this level, whether we may not have a five to zero Page 41 February 11, 2002 vote. MR. MS. adoption. MR. MS. ADELSTEIN: We don't need one. STUDENT: That's okay, we're a transmittal, we're not an For adoption, we need five votes to adopt. RICHARDSON: Thank you. STUDENT: You're welcome. MR. MULHERE: Motion number one was recommendation to remove the receiving area designating on the five sections of land that constitute the Big Corkscrew Island Community, leaving these lands in a neutral that is neither sending nor receiving status, and that motion carried unanimously at the EAC. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we need any discussion on that one? MR. STRAIN: I'm in favor of it myself. MR. RICHARDSON: I'm in favor. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think we're all in favor of that. Next? MR. MULHERE: Just for clarification, you know that the five sections doesn't include the entire -- doesn't include this entire area but it includes all of the land north and about -- a portion, about that much of the land south. We have the map that the folks gave us and we would look at specifically those sections. MS. STUDENT: I have a -- Mr. Chairman, I have a question, when you say that we're all in agreement with that, does that mean that that's going to be reserved for formal motion at the end of the proceeding? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I was hoping we could make an all inclusive motion as to the ones we're in unanimity about. MS. STUDENT: Okay, fine, thank you. MR. MULHERE: Motion 2 is recommendation to designate Page 42 February 11, 2002 lands located in the eastern portion of the Rural Assessment Area directly east of Orange Tree and Everglades Boulevard and directly north of County Road 858 and forming a notch surrounded on three sides by Golden Gate Estates as receiving lands and I'll help you out with that one. That was the recommendation by Maureen Bonness. This is I guess a fill pit operation out here and this is that notch. Now, the staff's position is that may be a good recommendation; however, it's not part of the Rural Assessment process. The eastern lands folks are looking at that and, of course, if it's an appropriate location to receive the density, I'm sure it's going to rise to the surface of that process. She made that motion as a trade CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: off. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But we don't need a trade off. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I suspect there's unanimity in opposition to that? MR. STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. RICHARDSON: That's going to be deferred to the --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's maybe not germane and it has been overtaken by events. MR. MULHERE: Motion Number 3 is recommendation to allow for Transfer of Development Rights into the urban area in conjunction with infill development. MR. STRAIN: I support that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes, I've been thinking about that guy who came in here with his several hundred acres of sending lands, wondering what in the world he does if nobody wants to receive them and I think this may be -- MR. MULHERE: Will help. Page 43 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- a good solution to his problem. So are we in unanimity on that? (All indicate approval.) MR. MULHERE: Motion 4 was recommendation to maintain the current boundaries of the Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area and not to exclude a one mile wide strip running north and south immediately adjacent to the Urban Fringe lands. That was the recitation that Tim Hancock made to you. If it helps you before you deliberate on that, if you would like, Bill has done some preliminary reviews of the data and would like to, if you would like, he can share his preliminary review with you. MR. ADELSTEIN: I would, because otherwise I vote no on this. MR. LORENZ: Well, unfortunately as we reviewed it we haven't been able to come up with the exact numbers from their data. We have to get back with them because their numbers haven't added up in terms of the totals, but what I -- but what we have looked at, what we will be looking at is basically the total vegetation within that one mile strip as a percentage of the total area. In the other strips, it's roughly in the mid to upper 90 percentile. In other words, total vegetation is greater than 90 percent. When we look at the data that they have provided us, again, which doesn't add up exactly, their numbers is around 83 percent. I guess what I am saying, however, is if that is a lower number for total vegetation, that eventually when we work with them, that number still is a very high number when we're looking at Natural Resource Protection Areas and non-NRPA sending areas, so that's why our preliminary analysis is to say that it raises -- certainly rises to the level of a sending area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Before we get into a data war, how many are inclined to favor Mr. Hancock's position? Anyone? Page 44 February 11, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm in favor of it to a degree, that being that we hold that particular strip as a neutral area until you make your final determination and let your final determination be the end result. MR. MULHERE: Prior to the board meeting? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes, prior to the board meeting. I don't want to put him out at this stage of the game because you aren't through with your study, so if we could put it neutral until the time you have made your study and your determination would be satisfactory to me. At that point I could go along with it. MR. MULHERE: So you would say, based upon staff review, if the data supports not excluding that from the NRP designation, you would support that? MR. ADELSTEIN: Right. At this time it will be neutral until your decision is made. MR. STRAIN: One comment, Bill, you may want to look into and Friday afternoon there was a meeting with several of the water agencies, Big Cypress, South Florida, this Collier County, DEP and Rookery Bay, concerning rehydrating that 951 canal out of the Golden Gate main canal. If that were to occur, the reason why these lands are supposedly bad is because they've been dropped in -- their water table has been dropped and this would have a pretty positive effect on that. I don't know how that will factor into that. MR. MULHERE: As I said, our analysis and numbers aren't matching up. We do agree that the types of vegetation that we originally proposed as more wetlands vegetation has shifted to more of a, let's say, non-wetlands vegetation, perhaps because of that reason, but we're also saying that, remember, vegetation is important for wildlife and other listed species, total vegetation, so to some degree our parameter is to look at how much total vegetation still is in that area and at the moment it still rises up to a very high level. MR. RICHARDSON: I was persuaded in the same line from-- Page 45 February 11, 2002 Mr. Midney made some very persuasive comments and his analysis of that and the forestry person, if that's the right categorization, made the same kind of comments, that and this coupled with the fact we have got to draw the line someplace and since this is where our best analysis has led us so far I see no reason to undo that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, for symmetry purposes, as I read this, they recommended maintaining the boundaries. We recommend that as well, unless staff finds the data supports the other conclusion. MR. MULHERE: That's what I needed. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's all I'm asking for. MR. MULHERE: That's what I noted. Motion 5, recommendation to remove asphalt and concrete batch making plants and facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste from the list of permitted uses in receiving lands. I just want to say, again, the staff's position here is that if you are going to allow the development in the receiving lands you do need the ability to collect and transfer the solid waste. The second point would be, and I think the concern, on behalf of the EAC, based on the question, was does this allow landfills. Well, yes, it does but you also allow transfer stations. And then as far as asphalt and concrete batch making plants, my concern there is that this -- there is a limited amount of aggregate materials and that, you know, we're protecting the most valuable Natural Resource Area, we're not allowing it in those areas, we're limiting the usage in those areas. If it's appropriate that you have an excavation in a receiving area and I think it is, then you may have the need to have an asphalt and concrete batch making -- that's my -- I think that's the staff's position on that. Page 46 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: There's a certain degree of emotional appeal to this position, but I assume that the interveners would want their agreement with the EAC noted for the record, but I think staff probably makes a better point. MR. RICHARDSON: I think so, too. You know, nobody wants an asphalt plant, but if you don't have it there you're going to have to transport it in from someplace and it's going to be on our roads, so why not put it where it's going to be used. These things have to meet certain environmental conditions regardless, so it's not--- MR. MULHERE: They have to come in for a full-blown public hearing in any case. MR. STRAIN: We have adequate industrial areas in Collier County to place these plants. MR. RICHARDSON: Why place the plant there, though, Mark, because then you're going to have to transport them out ten miles to where it's going to be used. Why not have it right where it's going to be done? MR. STRAIN: Because of the negative impacts on the neighborhood. Right now, I don't know -- I don't believe Marco Island has any asphalt plants or concrete plants but they get their roads done and they get their houses poured. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. That's true, however, I think the real impact is the excavation but maybe in addition the asphalt and concrete plant, but in terms of excavation, that obviously has to occur where the materials are, so that's why there is a public hearing required for that condition of the use to look at the transportation impacts of each on a case by case basis. But, you know, this is a separate matter. This is really not dealing with the excavation but dealing with the utilizing that material and turning it into something that can be used to build roads or for fill or for whatever reason. Page 47 February 11, 2002 say. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's see what Ms. Payton has to MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I just wanted to clarify that Florida Wildlife Federation is not in agreement with Motion 5, that we feel that it's appropriate consideration in the receiving area, not, of course, in the sending area. They have got to be somewhere. MR. STRAIN: Industrial areas, that's what they're for. MS. PAYTON: Well, there may be some industrial areas within the receiving area. I'm not sure. MR. STRAIN: Well, that's true, but remember these have always been permitted in the rural ag in addition to industrial. I just need to, you know, put that -- these have always been permitted in the rural agricultural district, in addition to being permitted in industrial areas. We're de-aging (sic) it, so to speak. MR. MULHERE: Well, we are, we're changing that designation so we're actually prohibiting the uses in a whole lot more places than they previously were. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: They just stick out like a sore thumb in that whole list of A through R. MR. DUANE: For the record, I'm Robert Duane, I represent one of the interveners. I would encourage you to keep that use in the receiving area that we're discussing and my client has made no secret of the fact that he wishes to introduce earth mining in the receiving areas within Belle Meade and those are two uses that we'd like to have to go along with our mining operation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: North Belle Meade? MR. DUANE: That's correct. I agree with Mr. Mulhere that provision has always been in the code, they are special provisions Page 48 February ll, 2002 that are evaluated at the time of zoning to determine whether it's appropriate and I would submit to you that that should be satisfactory. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Midney? MR. MIDNEY: I'm just kind of ignorant, I don't know what an asphalt and concrete batch making plant is or what it would be like. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not an expert, I'll tell you, but I think we have several right now operating and they're not in the industrial areas. There may be one or two in the industrial areas, but there are several that are in close proximity to the aggregate source, the mining operation and, you know, there is usually, I don't know, a tower and it brings the rock up and then they crush it and then make some material and then they put it into a truck and drive it to the road or whatever they're using it for and so it's normally done in terms of economy of scale in close proximity to the usage and it should be adequately addressed as part of the public hearing, how do you minimize the impacts of that use on adjacent lands. MR. MIDNEY: What is an asphalt plant? MR. STRAIN: It's beautiful. MR. MIDNEY: I've never seen one, I don't know. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if I could describe that. I mean, it looks like an industrial, you know --- MR. MIDNEY: Do they mix the asphalt there? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, they do. They can only go so far, I think, because, you know, it's got to stay hot. Probably somebody up there knows more about it than I do in terms of what they look like. MR. STRAIN: Unfortunately, I probably do. MR. MIDNEY: Do they have one in Immokalee? I'm wondering, I know we poured asphalt -- I mean, yeah, asphalt there. MR. MULHERE: It might come out of Lee County. Page 49 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: I'm not sure if there is one up there or not. MR. MIDNEY: I don't have any objection to allowing these things in the receiving areas. MR. RICHARDSON: I support that. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm in favor of the receiving areas also. MR. STRAIN: I'm against it, so it's four to one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do you want to pull that one out and vote on it right now? MR. STRAIN: Motion 4 I'm in the same position. I don't agree we need to change the boundaries. I don't think we need all the additional density we're putting out past the urban boundary as it is. I'm probably going to be on a four to one with you guys on that as well. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, I thought we were in agreement on four, that, if they find -- the new photos that came in have not gone over yet. You don't care what the new evidence shows? MR. STRAIN: I think there is more than adequate acreage already been planned for expanding the urban boundary and I can't see doing it anywhere else. MR. MULHERE: Well, he's not asking for that. MR. STRAIN: Well--- MR. MULHERE: His proposal is to leave it neutral at one for five, which is the density they enjoy today. I got to clarify that. MR. STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: His proposal was leave it neutral, don't make it a sending. MR. STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And what you said is you support leaving it in the NRPA, leaving it as a sending unless, based upon the staff evaluation of the data, there is some, obviously some reason why his Page 50 February 11, 2002 argument is correct, because it's based on natural resource values. MR. STRAIN: But leaving it in a -- if they don't take advantage of the TDR program, then it still stays where it is anyway; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, for lot or parcel, but only for lot or parcel. You don't get the one for five, you only get one dwelling unit per lot or parcel, so it's a lower density. In other words, you can't subdivide those acres into five acre parcels. MR. STRAIN: So by putting it in neutral, we're actually increasing the density than what's already there. MR. MULHERE: Not than what's there but than what's proposed, yes, because what's there is one for five, what's proposed is to limit that to one per lot or parcel so, yes, your question is correct, you would be limiting -- you would be increasing the density beyond what we're proposing. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Where does that put you so far as MR. STRAIN: I'd still be against it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Still be against it. MR. STRAIN: So let's do four and five. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: As to Motion Number 4, I understood the majority was of the view that we would agree with the motion of the EAC subject to staffs analysis of the Hancock data. MR. ADELSTEIN: And until that's done, it will be put in a neutral basis. It will only be a week or two. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I didn't know the neutral basis. When does it come out of the neutral basis? MR. ADELSTEIN: It would be -- it would be -- if it wasn't this, it would be in a neutral basis, it's not sending or receiving, it's neutral. MR. MULHERE: We'll know, we'll know the answer, you know, in a week or so. Page 51 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: It's not necessary to say that. Who is in favor of accepting the EAC recommendation without conditions of any sort? MR. STRAIN: That's an easier way of putting it. (Vote taken.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's four to 1 then. That one carries. Motion 5, asphalt and concrete batch making plants. MR. STRAIN: Solid waste. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Facilities for collection of solid waste, motion of the EAC was to remove them from the permitted uses in receiving lands. All who agree with that raise their hand. (Vote taken.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (Vote taken.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay, so that would be two to three. Now we move on to Motion 6. In other words, we did not agree with the EAC on 5. MR. MULHERE: By three to two. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: By three to two. MR. MULHERE: I got it. Motion 6, recommendation to eliminate all density bonuses in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District requiring any density increase to be achieved solely through the TDR process. Now, Mr. Sansbury dissented on that, six to one. Again, the staff position is that as far as the Rural Villages goes, there needs to be some incentive and you have indicated that you didn't support it two to one or just generally in your conversation on Thursday, probably one to one was more likely something that you Page 52 February 11, 2002 would support, but that really doesn't have to be discussed as part of this motion because that will come later, but the question is do you agree that there should be no density bonus of any kind or -- because that was the EAC's motion relative to that. MR. RICHARDSON: This position of EAC effectively kills the Rural Villages, as I see it. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. RICHARDSON: So that's the linchpin of us trying to solve the urban sprawl problem. MR. MULHERE: I would agree, and I can tell you the DCA in their preliminary analysis was very supportive of the Rural Village concept. MR. RICHARDSON: So on that basis I would not go along with this motion. MR. ADELSTEIN: Nor I. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All who disagree with the recommendation in Motion 6 raise their hand. (Unanimous vote.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. Five-0 or 0-five. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Seven is recommendation to prohibit the TDRs from privately held properties in sending lands where such lands have a conservation easement or other similar development restriction or preservation status in perpetuity, and just to let you know, if it helps, that the staff does concur with this, that there needs to be, as policy, a prohibition on transferring development rights where you've already got in perpetuity some, you know, limit on your property relative to that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any disagreement with that recommendation? MR. MIDNEY: Are you going to ask for discussion? ! have a question. Page 53 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sorry. MR. MIDNEY: You can have a conservation easement but, I mean, there's degrees of it. MR. MULHERE: Correct, and you may have a conservation --- MR. MIDNEY: Sometimes there's a gray area. They may say, well, you know, I only, you know, agreed not to allow my easement of this kind of development, but in this motion we're saying that they can't do TDRs at all. MR. MULHERE: Actually, we would -- what we would do is word the policy such that it would make provisions for whatever allowances are in the conservation easement. Again, some conservation easements you are absolutely correct would allow development. What we're talking about purely here is residential development and we're talking about where it's precluded as part of the conservation easement. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. Under that situation, I would support it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. We'll get that one, everybody seems to agree with it. Eight? MR. MULHERE: Recommendation to prohibit golf courses except unimproved -- here it is -- natural and non-irrigated rough areas from being located in green belts around Rural Villages or in any other preservation areas. Again, that was carried six to one with Mr. Sansbury dissenting. So, basically, what they've said here is no golf courses except unimproved rough in green belts or other preservation areas. Now, we don't allow golf courses in preservation areas under our own proposal but we do allow golf courses in green belts once you have met your preservation standards. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Might be the only golf course in the world that knows nothing about roughs, the way this reads. Page 54 February 11, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: They're tough enough as they are. MR. RICHARDSON: I suspect the concern here is a multiplicity of Twin Eagles. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that they felt -- no, I think -- again, you know, I'm somebody that can probably take exception because I'm just going to tell you what my impression was of that, was that the EAC wanted the green belt to be a natural area. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Rather than a profit center, huh? MR. MULHERE: Right, rather than allowing golf courses. That was not our intent when we created the green belt. It was to not allow residential development or physical vertical construction in there, but there could be, even in our opinion, agriculture use in the green belt. You still have to meet your preservation requirements, but nothing should -- it's still open space and it's still green space. So, we didn't think that it was right to prohibit a golf course in that area or agriculture in that green belt area, recognizing you still have to meet your native preservation standard and, look, you may have some listed species concerns, you have to deal with those, too. MR. RICHARDSON: Bob, if we agree with this motion, what impact would you assess this would have on the economics of the Rural Villages? MR. MULHERE: I don't think it would be a very -- it would be an extremely large impact. It would just mean that the green belt is basically retained in its natural state and, you know, the bottom line is that if a golf course is to be part of a Rural Village it just means that they have to acquire a little more acreage or do more strategy in terms of the design. I don't think that it would have a -- it would be a critical flaw or kill the concept. MR. ADELSTEIN: I do, I think we create a real problem. I see no reason for that acreage around not being used for something Page 55 February 11, 2002 especially for something that would help cohabitate the area itself. MR. MULHERE: Well, I agree with you, but I'm just saying I don't think it would kill the concept, necessarily. MR. ADELSTEIN: We need to better that concept. The question is this is the linchpin of the whole system, if it doesn't work, the system isn't going to work and to put anything that may make it more difficult for these Rural Villages to work seems to be opposite what we're trying to do. MR. MULHERE: I really can't argue with you there. MR. ADELSTEIN: I feel that in fact this motion I would have to vote against it, and I think it should actually pass to help preserve the village situation. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You can say the same thing about the density bonus. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm not worried about density, I'm trying to see if a Rural Village could have that land surrounding it not be used. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I understand that, but you are saying anything that mitigates --- MR. ADELSTEIN: Not anything, almost anything. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. STRAIN: Back to this, we talked previously about the buffer, the 300 foot buffer, if you were to eliminate this green belt with golf courses that meets right up to the edge of the receiving area you have nothing but whatever you put in there, say, a golf course, is there any other buffer in between a receiving and an existing? MR. MULHERE: Well, there, ifI understand in this area that you have indicated, you have a rural village, around it you have a green belt. MR. STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Within that all or part of that green belt -- most likely it's going to be part of it, you have got some golf course Page 56 February 11, 2002 development -- and that golf course development, then, where that begins to approach a Natural Reservation Preservation Area or NRPA sending area or non-NRPA sending area, any of those, then the buffer comes into play, then you've got to have the minimum 300, you've got to do the modeling for draw down and you've got to have a larger buffer if there are listed species concerns. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe the board would consider that this apply only in areas against NRPA when --- MR. MIDNEY: In other words, rejection of this motion. MR. STRAIN: Well, reject it with that modification. MR. ADELSTEIN: With that modification I think that --- MR. STRAIN: Because if it's up against the state's lands or any others, those lands are already designated for development so but a NRPA would be still protected by it. MR. MULHERE: And it exists that way. That's the way the language is. In fact, you can only have the green belt in receiving and anywhere in receiving where you're adjacent to a natural reservation, those buffer standards apply. MR. STRAIN: Okay, but here the green belt would have to be maintained without the use of a golf course along the NRPA. What that does is effectively increases the buffer to 500 feet and more or less around NRPAs instead of 300 feet as you could go down to with the golf course. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: That's kind of where I'm going. MR. ADELSTEIN: I like that idea. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't you state it as a motion, balancing it against the EAC recommendation? MR. STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The degree to which we agree or disagree with the EAC. Page 57 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: I make a motion that we approve, recommend for approval Motion 8 of the EAC only where it interacts or borders a NRPA boundary. MR. ADELSTEIN: Excepting that area? MR. STRAIN: This would-- they're prohibiting golf courses where it buffers -- where it goes against a NRPA boundary. MR. MIDNEY: We don't really have to make that motion, do we, since the NRPA boundaries are already --- MR. MULHERE: Actually, I think what Mark's motion does is it ends up creating a minimum of like 500 foot, minimum of a 500 foot buffer where a green belt and a natural reservation interacts. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's a good point. Excellent. MR. MULHERE: I think that's what that does. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any further discussion? MR. MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor. Before we move on to the next one, would the gentleman in the black T-shirt, would you like to -- where did Mr. Letsinger go? There he is, when he returns to his seat, why don't you go over and speak to him and see if whatever you were raising your hand about right be resolved by him as we move along. Number 9? MR. MULHERE: We're on 9, right? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Request a thorough review of-- this one we talked about -- request a thorough review of the legal constraints on regulating ag. Now we have the review from Marty Chumbler, now we have a legal opinion from Tom Reese, so again I'm sure you are going to have to deal with this issue as part of your motion but this Page 58 February 11, 2002 motion really doesn't have any bearing, it's been done. Number 10 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't we just move to delete it? MR. MULHERE: It's been done, it doesn't even apply. Recommendation to require agricultural uses to adhere to the same preservation standards as other uses in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. So, again, you have an opinion from legal counsel for the County that says you cannot do this, the EAC did not support that legal opinion and certainly wanted to restrict ag uses, and so they made this motion that would say that the ag uses had to meet the preservation requirements in the Rural Fringe District which are respectfully, you know, 40 percent not to exceed 25 percent of the site for receiving lands and 80 percent in non-NRPA sending and 90 percent NRPA sending, so what that does is it would say that in those sending -- in the sending lands whether you're NRPA or non-NRPA, you basically would have extremely limited allowance to clear for agricultural. Now, again, in the opinion of Marty Chumbler, that would be regulating agriculture and, in her opinion, we're not, as a County, permitted to do that under the Right to Farm. Again, there is a different opinion, so it's part of that whole issue that I think if you just wait until you determine what you want to do in terms of regulating ag, then that will deal with what your position is on this motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. So we'll take no position on that, then. MR. STRAIN: We're actually going to discuss it ourselves. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But not as concerning those Page 59 February ll, 2002 motions. MR. MIDNEY: I would imagine that if you did nothing, and if somebody did clear or try to clear land of the NRPA, then if the County felt as though that went against the ordinance then they could sue on that. MR. ADELSTEIN: It's too late, it's already been done. MR. MIDNEY: So you want to prevent them doing it. MR. MULHERE: I think you need to have the policy one-way or the other, whichever way you're gonna go. MR. MIDNEY: I see. MR. MULHERE: Motion Number 11, recommendation that staff explore with the BCC and with DCA the possibility of using North Golden Gate Estates as a receiving area. MR. STRAIN: I can tell you I cannot agree with that. MR. MIDNEY: That's outside of the scope of this --- MR. STRAIN: Outside of the scope and it's -- I know -- I mean, I've worked in Golden Gate for 25 -- almost 25 years, and I can tell you we don't move out there for increased densities and cluster. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We'll vote that one down when we do our all encompassing. MR. MULHERE: It's our position, the staff's position was that it is outside the scope of this study area. If it was to be considered at all, it should be deferred to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Commission. MR. ADELSTEIN: That should just be removed because it's out of scope. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The angel's on the head of the pin. MR. MULHERE: Number 12, recommendation to remove all currently approved PUDs and other approved projects from the sending designation in order to prohibit the Transfer of Development Page 60 February 11, 2002 Rights from these lands. Now, on the face value, it seems like a legitimate question and issue. However, there are -- it's a little bit more complicated than that, than when you look at it at face value, because we have already said previously that we would preclude TDRs where there was a conservation easement or some other instrument disallowing residential development. To simply remove a PUD from -- or other approved project from the sending designation -- I'll show you on the map an example, this little area in white, down here, is a approved golf course and it's actually. --- MR. STRAIN: Is that Sabal Palm? MR. MULHERE: Sabal Palm. It's actually shown in orange on the more recent version of that map. It's not part -- it's not designated as part of the Belle Meade NRPA because it does have this approval and because the final order exempted projects from certain provisions and they were allowed to go through the process. However, we are proposing to designate that as a sending area because the conditional use approval only allowed the golf course use, it did not allow the attendant residential use and by designated as sending this property owner would lose the right to use -- to build that residential use except one dwelling unit per lot or parcel, but would retain the right to transfer those units to offset the lost value from that. That's just one example where I think it makes sense to still be able to transfer the units. Other examples, you might have an approved PUD, I don't think it's likely but you might have an approved PUD that's in a sending area, although I can't think of any offhand, where a property owner may chose to send units from that, thereby reducing the development within that PUD. But I can't think of any, it's kind of really a non-issue because really the only one that I can think of that's approved up there that potentially would be Page 61 February 11, 2002 Mirasol and that has -- that's in a receiving area, so it doesn't apply. MR. STRAIN: Bob, was there any residential development included within the PUD for Sabal Palm? MR. MULHERE: No, it was conditional use and only for free- standing golf courses. MR. STRAIN: Then how would he have any right to transfer something he never had to begin with? MR. MULHERE: Well, see, that's a legal -- that's an argument that he still has -- there's -- the residential use is an underlying right. You don't lose it, you don't lose that, that's going to be a legal question and I'm sure Marjorie needs to comment on that, but I think you don't lose your-- if you ask -- let's give you an example. If you were in the C3 district and you came in and asked for a commercial -- for a movie theater -- for conditional use for a movie theater and you were granted that conditional use when you built that movie theater, the question is do you then lose the right to have any other use that's normally permitted by right in the C3 district? MR. STRAIN: If that was one contiguous parcel, so wouldn't they have had only one house for the whole thing anyway? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: So you're going to let them transfer one house? Is that what your argument is? MR. MULHERE: Well, when they -- I mean, we're letting -- no, we're letting -- no, they would have had one for five under the old plan. They would have had one for five under the old plan. The way we're proposing to amend it they would only get one per lot or parcel. See, every other property owner in sending is allowed to transfer at a rate of one for five, so by not letting him do that we'll be singling that property owner out saying, because you have the golf course approval you can't send any units and you can't develop any units even though that's a right that you enjoyed prior to that. Page 62 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We're getting into hypotheticals and sort of bizarre situations, aren't we? MR. MULHERE: This actually exists on that one example and, you know, it's -- maybe Marjorie would speak to the legal issues. MS. STUDENT: Well, I will. I guess Mr. Adelstein wants to be recognized. MR. ADELSTEIN: I can't see how any group could remove a currently approved PUD. It has been approved, it is there. You can't remove it. There is no way legally you can do that. So we're wasting -- I mean, it's a nice thing to say, except the fact is that they are approved as they are approved, we can't do anything about that. MR. MULHERE: But their suggestion was to disallow the sending designation and you can do it by policy, you can say any development order or project or PUD that was approved prior to the date of adoption of these shall not be permitted to transfer units if they are in a sending designation. MR. ADELSTEIN: That's not what this says. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does anybody want to agree with the recommendation as it reaches us? MR. MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You do? MR. STRAIN: I do. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, let's vote, then, or do you need to hear from Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Well, what I was going to say about this conditional use is I have never known one that was a conditional use and then they decided to dismantle it and come back and -- I think they'd have to -- the board approves conditional use and they have a certain amount of time to act. I think it's still three years, and if they get the approval, if they then act and don't get it renewed, then the conditional use automatically goes away. Page 63 February 11, 2002 We've never been faced with a situation like somebody gets one and they come in and they build something and then they tear it down and they say, well, we don't want this conditional use anymore, and we want to do something else, but I think what would have to happen in that case is if they did, they would come to the board and say, we dismantle the conditional use, we don't want it anymore, they still have their underlying zoning and I think the board would have to perhaps do something to recognize taking the conditional use off the property since they didn't want it there anymore and then they would still have their underlying zoning, and the only thing I think would require board action -- again, this has never, ever happened because the conditional use is on here, and the other thing that could possibly happen if they dismantled it and it wasn't being used, it would automatically expire, you know, in that year period after it was dismantled or three year period if it was dismantled and not used, but it's never happened so it's kind of hard to talk about something that's never happened, but you still -- that isn't a zoning district. In my opinion, you still have a right to the underlying zoning. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Go ahead. MR. STRAIN: Bob, let's forget the example you brought up because it gets kind of confusing, but on a broad scope most PUDs in Collier County don't reach their maximum build-out. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. STRAIN: In fact, they have excess units and they use that to negotiate for the deals or future deals. Under this case, these excess units could then be sold as TDRs. MR. MULHERE: But there is no example -- that's true, if we went forward. The point is there aren't any approved PUDs in a sending land, there is zero, there is none out there, so -- but there is a golf course that has a conditional use approved on it and under the language of Page 64 February 11, 2002 the EAC motion, they're not only talking about PUDs, they are also talking about approved projects. So this golf course down here, it would be our recommendation that that be treated like any other private property in a sending land and be allowed to transfer units, because think of the converse. If you didn't do that and they could develop the residential, they would be developing the residential component in the middle of North Belle Meade. They have the golf course, that's already approved, but they don't have the residential so we should allow them to send those units off so that they don't get built. MR. MIDNEY: It would be an incentive to them not to build it. MR. STRAIN: I'd go along with that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. So we'll approve that one. We're all against it. We will disapprove it. MR. MULHERE: Number 13. MR. STRAIN: Twelve. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, 13. MR. STRAIN: Thirteen. MR. MULHERE: Revised proposed CCME policy 6.2.7 to prohibit any loss of storage or conveyance resulting from direct impacts to wetlands. Well, it should read shall -- it should read -- what they're saying is amend CCME 6.2.7 to read any loss of storage or conveyance resultant from the direct impact of wetlands shall not be permitted. Currently, the way the language reads, and Bill can find it in there, is that you have -- it's almost impossible to have some -- not have some impact under most conditions, but the way it's currently written you are required to make up for the loss in storage or conveyance. What they're saying is any impact is prohibited in their motion and I think, Bill, maybe you want to speak to that issue. MR. LORENZ: I'm trying to get to the exact language. The Page 65 February 11, 2002 exact language that we propose is loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetland shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on-site and within or adjacent to the impacted wetlands, so our concern is that the capacity be allowed and if it's going to be compensated for on-site, we consider that to be maintaining the function. The EAC's motion was to not even allow the opportunity to impact it to provide additional compensation. MR. STRAIN' So they could drain the wetlands with a lake but as long as the lake could hold the water and the wetlands die, it's okay? Is that what it boils down to? MR. LORENZ: Well, they still have to meet the other -- what impacts the functional loss of wetlands so to the degree that those wetlands are impacted, they're going to have to mitigate it for-- to maintain those loss of functions. We've actually -- this is a dual requirement that the -- the way we've listed to insure that we have a no net loss of wetland functions and typically that's mitigated for -- with regard to wildlife functions or vegetations types of considerations, habitat considerations, but we've added this item in our proposal to insure that a storage or a capacity is not lost on-site either. MR. MULHERE: There's two components. One is the quality of the wetlands and the other might be capacity or conveyance mechanisms associated with the wetlands, so if you have an isolated - - even severely impacted exotic wetland, that under our policy you can impact, you have to mitigate for that impact, and you go through the permitting process and you are permitted to impact it through mitigation, but this provision would preclude that because it would have an impact on capacity or conveyance and what we said is even though you may be able to under certain circumstances impact Page 66 February 11, 2002 wetlands, you still have to address not only the natural resource impact for mitigation but also the conveyance or storage impact in the way that you design your site. Is that correct? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: This is applied just to -- I mean, across the board to all lands or can this apply just to sending lands? MR. MULHERE: No, it's to all. MR. LORENZ: All. MR. MULHERE: It would probably would be less likely to apply to sending because there is such little development permitted in MR. STRAIN: I'm thinking of adjacent to. MR. MULHERE: It's to apply to all of them. I mean, any -- you have to make up for -- any way that you would impact, the way we proposed it, it's understood that you are going to have some impact in certain conditions. Obviously, if you are preserving the wetlands you have no impact. If you are enhancing the wetlands, you probably have a beneficial impact, but if you were going to take away some of the wetlands that are on site and mitigate elsewhere, then you will have an impact on conveyance and storage, and in those conditions, only where it's permitted under all the other restrictions that apply, you still have to make up for that loss of storage or that impact on conveyance under our proposal. Under the EAC's motion, because presumably they didn't want to see any impact to wetlands, you would not be able to in any way, shape or form impact capacity or conveyance associated with wetlands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mr. Mulhere, I have difficulty with double negatives to say nothing of triple negatives. Page 67 February 11, 2002 Is there a way we can -- the staff wants us to disagree with this motion of the EAC, is that right, or is it better if we turn around and say what we think ought to happen to the CCME Policy 6.2.7? MR. MULHERE: Well, as it's written right now, under a provision -- any provision where you would impact capacity or conveyance you have to make up for it on site. That's the way we've written it. So if you support that, my recommendation to you is that you don't support this one but you support the recommendation of staff. MR. MIDNEY: I agree. MR. RICHARDSON: That's fine with me. We explored this at considerable length at our last meeting and I'm satisfied that the no net loss and when they come in with the development plan they've got to provide the details necessary to support that position, so we're not -- it's not a pig in a poke, we'll know in advance, so I think this prohibition is unnecessary. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Mark? MR. STRAIN: I'm just concerned about how this applies to a buffering area up against a wetlands that may be off-sight. MR. MULHERE: Again, if that's the case, as you come in through your process, you're adjacent to a natural preservation, you have got to do your up front modeling, you have got to do your listed species and natural resource EIS and so ultimately, anyway, the staff determines an appropriate buffer based upon draw down issues or natural resource listed species issues, minimum of 300, maybe more. Within that buffer, we cannot impact any of the wetlands and so you can't impact any of them. MR. LORENZ: We are speaking of a direct impact in this policy and it's defined as a dredging or filling of the wetlands that's on-site. So these policies deal with wetlands on-site. The buffering policies, if you will, and the other sections deal with not only Page 68 February 11, 2002 buffering or protecting wetlands that are within these natural reservations but any other listed species or other habitat concerns. MR. STRAIN: My concerns are the areas that are not designated urban and the areas that are not designated receiving. As long as the impacts on those are protected, I'm satisfied. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are we in agreement, then, that we will disagree with EAC's resolution of motions 1 ? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. I would like to take one more motion and then stop for five or ten minutes for the court reporter and for coffee processing. MR. MULHERE: Good thought. Motion ! 4 is recommendation to remove the proposed secondary receiving designation from the land south of Immokalee Road and that was merely loosely worded because there was only one secondary receiving area south of Immokalee Road. The staff is in agreement with that. It's these lands right in here, which a large percentage of them are now publicly owned and they wouldn't be able to utilize the receiving or transfer process anyway. What we would propose to do is, as I think we discussed somewhat at length on Thursday, is to designate those as neutral and you'll see later on they're the same recommendation with the other secondary receiving lands that are in the Merisol (phonetic) PUD, by policy they can't really use those anyway, so we'll just take the whole secondary receiving designation out of the proposal and -- but as far as that motion goes, we would support it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We all agree that? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. All right. Let's take ten. Let's try to make it ten. (Recess Taken.) Page 69 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Moving right along, Number 15. MR. MULHERE: That is a recommendation to amend the CCME's Policy 7.3.2 to include regular inspections as opposed to nightly inspections to insure coastal properties comply with proper lighting -- this is relative to sea turtle nesting season -- and also to insure compliance with prohibitions on overnight storage of furniture and other equipment. Those proposed prohibitions exist in the plan, but the way it read it required nightly inspections and the fact of the matter is that there is not and will not be nightly inspections by the staff but there will be regular inspections by the staff. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What has this to do with the Rural Fringe? MR. MULHERE: Not all of the amendments apply only to the Rural Fringe. The ones dealing with Natural Resource Protection may also apply county-wide as far as the non-compliance issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So what do we do with 15? MR. STRAIN: I like it. MR. RICHARDSON: You're in support of this? MR. MULHERE: Yes, in fact we recommend it. MR. RICHARDSON: Then we support it. MR. MULHERE: Sixteen. MR. STRAIN: Sixteen, 17 and 18 are basically endorsements of the rest of the proposals. MR. MULHERE: Right, we can skip to -- MR. STRAIN: Nineteen. MR. MULHERE: -- 19. Now, because the EAC met a second time, these next five motions were made at the second meeting. MR. STRAIN: What is 197 MR. MULHERE: 19, on Page 48 ofthe FLUE, delete 6 a)l, 6 a)2 and 6 a)3. I'll defer to Bill on that one. Page 70 February 11, 2002 MR. LORENZ: Those are the residual agricultural uses and the TDR program. We need to get to that. MR. STRAIN: That's going to be separately discussed anyway. Ag uses a TDR, whether agriculture can be done in TDR, that's what motion 19 refers to. It's removing all the ag uses. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Remember, I think based upon your discussion -- discussions as well that the first was to prohibit any -- the first allowance is that under the way we proposed it, if you had some existing agriculture in a sending land after you transferred the units you could continue to utilize that, but after we had discussions with the outside counsel, their recommendation was to prohibit any further agricultural activity once you transfer it and so we support that portion of this motion. The second-- I don't have the language in front of me, was cattle grazing in unimproved pasture and we would continue to basically support allowing unimproved pasture, cattle grazing in unimproved pasture to continue during the after condition, after, after units have been transferred from these properties. The third was other agricultural uses that do not require clearing of existing vegetation, and at this point we would support removal of that third allowance so that the staffs position would be that after you transferred units, the only use in terms of agriculture that you could continue to have would be unimproved pasture. The EAC's recommendation was to remove all three of those, agricultural operations in existence at the time of the transfer, cattle grazing on unimproved pasture where no clearing is required and other agricultural uses that do not require clearing of existing native vegetation. MR. RICHARDSON: So you support cows but nothing else? MR. MULHERE: Correct, unimproved pasture. MR. STRAIN: Providing no clearing? Page 71 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Everybody on with that? MR. RICHARDSON: No horses? MR. STRAIN: 6 a)2 would come out of that motion 19, as far as our approval goes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Maybe we ought to vote on that. All in favor of supporting motion 19 with the exception of 6 a)27 (Unanimous Response.) MR. MULHERE: Twenty is all new agricultural activities including expansions of existing agricultural uses that negatively affect wetlands shall be prohibited. Again, this gets back to your larger question of the degree to which the County can regulate bona fide agriculture under the Right to Farm Act and, frankly, whether or not you impact the wetlands and to which degree you're permitted to do that are subject not only to the Right to Farm Act but also to the review and permitting by other jurisdictional agencies and not the County. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we would not agree to that? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's one that I think rises to the whole discussion of regulating ag in sending lands. MR. STRAIN: Which is still something we probably get into on our own. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So should we bypass it? MR. ADELSTEIN: We're talking about all new agriculture. In other words, I would assume that means agriculture after this act. MR. MULHERE: It means, forget about the TDRs because this is not related to the TDR. MR. ADELSTEIN: I understand that. MR. MULHERE: This is correct, this would be any new Page 72 February 11, 2002 agriculture and right now you have two opinions, one says you can't prohibit the modified agriculture under the Right to Farm Act, the other one takes exception to that. MR. ADELSTEIN: If it is presently not in existence. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. ADELSTEIN: I think we have a right to make a decision on that whether they're wrong --- MR. MULHERE: Well, but the only thing I'm saying is under Marty Chumbler's interpretation you do not have the right to regulate bona fide agriculture, whether or not they impact wetlands because whether or not they impact wetlands becomes -- MR. ADELSTEIN: Somebody else's. Is he talking also about the new ones? I realize we can't do anything with agricultural farming as it is now. MR. MULHERE: She's talking about any new existing -- in her interpretation of the Right to Farm Act, you cannot regulate bona fide agricultural uses for which best management practices have been adopted. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's bypass 20 until we come to our position on ag. Does that make sense? MR. MIDNEY: When are we going to get to our position on ag? MR. RICHARDSON: Right after this. MR. MULHERE: It's coming up, I think. Motion 21 is a little bit of an odd one. It says beach raking shall be prohibited during sea turtle nesting season. It carried six to one. I say it's odd because the County just adopted in the last six months standards for this and it allowed raking after -- only after inspection has been done by the County staff, so this now would change that. Page 73 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, we disagree with that, don't we? MR. STRAIN: We just don't have to react to it. It's not part of the Rural Fringe assessment issue, is it? MR. MULHERE: It could be tied in as a Natural Resource Protection strategy. MR. LORENZ: It's going forward. I'm not supportive of the blanket prohibition, the way the EAC recommended. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't we disagree with it? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Disagree. Motion 22. MR. MULHERE: At the interface of receiving lands and NRPAs or conservation lands, as we have otherwise referred to them, natural reservations, in areas A and D only, there shall be a one-half mile buffer and this is the buffer discussion that we've had. The EAC originally was looking at a mile and then it was revised to a half mile and the motion was made to apply that only to A and D because that's where the majority of the interface between the natural reservation and the receiving lands occurs, and I think as you know the staff's position is we have this -- we've established a minimum of 300 foot buffer, which can be increased based upon the data that's done during the review process, the modeling in terms of the hydrologic impacts and/or the impacts as it relates to specific species of concern. MR. RICHARDSON: And wetlands. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Since we already have that we can vote MR. MIDNEY: opposed to this. MR. STRAIN: Well, now, we don't have a half-mile, though? MR. MULHERE: We have a minimum of 300 feet and it could Page 74 February 11, 2002 go to whatever. MR. STRAIN: This would only apply to the giant area to the south, really, where the NRPA lands are because that other section in A is the Corkscrew one which is hopefully going to go away. MR. MULHERE: Well, yes, that's true. MR. STRAIN: If it doesn't go away, it would be a good thing to apply there as well because it's the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. MR. MULHERE: Right, and I think that was probably part of the rationale behind it, but if this is removed as a receiving, then it wouldn't apply there, then it would only apply here, and it would be a half mile buffer. MR. STRAIN: Against the NRPA. MR. MULHERE: Again, the staff's position is that's not really - - and I'll let Bill talk to it, but I think the position is there is really no scientific basis for that from our perspective. There is more scientific basis supporting a case by case analysis of the impacts associated with development. Bill, did you want to --- MR. LORENZ: The same discussion I think we had Friday, again, our position is that the modeling that you would do to evaluate that hydrologic impact will tell you as to what the appropriate buffer should be given the site specific situation and the degree that you're providing control elevations lower than the existing water tables, so that would come through the modeling efforts as opposed to a presumptive number such as a half mile or a mile. The EAC also made this motion to some degree in the context of fire management and controlled bums when they had this discussion at their last meeting, or half-mile buffer. MR. STRAIN: If we at some point today got into the limiting of the interface so that there is no water table draw down on the wetland edge, that would probably meet the concerns that I think this Page 75 February 11, 2002 probably was generated from because if I am not mistaken last week the issue seemed to be distance that water draw downs affect the wetland edge and how much space that needs to be, whether it's a half mile or in the case of like the 951 canal it's proven to be further than that, so actually by putting that kind of language in the motion that we make at some point today that might solve this problem as well and wouldn't need to take any action on this. MR. RICHARDSON: But I think we already have that in the proposed language so I don't see that there is anything necessary. That language is already there. It's a functional definition, not a linear foot definition. MR. LORENZ: That's right. MR. RICHARDSON: I view this as being unnecessarily restrictive. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Is there a consensus to not support Motion 22? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. (Unanimous response.) MR. STRAIN: I think it should be limited to the actual scientific draw downs, which could be even greater than a half mile. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we will do that. MR. MULHERE: The last motion was to support the concept of having a minimum density associated with golf courses, that is tied to the TDR program and you will recall that I raised this issue as part of the discussion on -- this originally arose as part of the -- it really has nothing do with trying to be a disincentive for golf course development or anything like that. It really had to do with enhancing or strengthening the TRD market and so the question I think probably for you to consider is whether or not you think that an urban transfer, which you have already supported, would be sufficient enough to strengthen that market. Page 76 February 11, 2002 Keep in mind that Dr. Nicholas, in his evaluation, you know, concurred that, sure, there is a market out there for folks to come in at build one for five for the golf courses, which they wouldn't need TDRs but he felt that there is also a sufficient market incentive for folks to look at the issue and perhaps go out and acquire some to further their economic benefit, but, you know, this issue still remains, I think, one for discussion. MR. STRAIN: See, from a profit viewpoint in Collier County, we're not creating lands for Rural Villages. We may think we are. It might be a nice thing to put forward, but in essence we're just creating lands for overseeing golf courses and that's all you're gonna see out here in the end. If that's going to be the final result, we might as well get something out of it in the TDR process and that's my argument. I don't see what we're doing here is going to give you what you're saying you would like to see. I mean, it's great, Bob, but in the end this is going to be all golf courses. MR. MULHERE: I really can't, you know, without the crystal ball, I can't argue with that. I can only say if we have the appropriate incentives for a Rural Village I hope we'll see two or three of them, there will be some discussion, but I can't, you know --- MR. STRAIN: I'm worried the profit margins for a Rural Village for a developer aren't going to be nearly as great as the profit margins on golf courses and that may be where the bottom line is. MR. MULHERE: And that would be another reason to support some sort of a minimum density under those provisions, by the time he does all the infrastructure and all that. MR. STRAIN: That and just getting people wanting to live that distance from the amenities that would attract people to Collier County, which is mosquito spraying and the beach and things like that which you don't have far out. Page 77 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He's carrying the can until all that comes to pass. MR. MULHERE: My initial and the staff, our initial evaluation was that if we were going to -- and this is not firm, but if you made a motion to support a concept like this we would have to go ahead and take a further look at it prior to the board meeting, but we talked about, at least at some point we talked about requiring a half of a dwelling unit per acre of the project or residential golf course project or one dwelling unit for five acres of the acreage dedicated to the golf course and that may be whatever is less or whatever is greater type situation. So point being that I think Mr. Strain put it pretty succinctly that you would end up then at least getting, insuring that there would be utilization of the TDR process and some reasonable density within these developments in conjunction with the golf courses. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What's the pleasure? MR. MIDNEY: Wasn't the recommendation of our economist that you want to have as little interference as possible and he was sort of against this idea? MR. MULHERE: Well, he said two things. One, make the process as simple as possible and that was an overriding principal and he didn't think that, in his opinion, he didn't think that although he understood there was a market for the Twin Eagles type of development, he didn't think that that was such a critical flaw that people wouldn't use the TDR process to enhance their position and he felt like there was a sufficient market, and that's paraphrasing but that's pretty much--- MR. ADELSTEIN: I think we should allow TDRs in this area. MR. STRAIN: Well, I think we ought to require TDRs associated with golf courses in some manner. MR. ADELSTEIN: Let's try to make it work. Page 78 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So we're in support of the Motion 23? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That concludes --- MR. MULHERE: I just had to add one thing, in being fair, I did want to also add that that same issue again was also raised at least at the preliminary view by the DCA and they said let's take a look at this issue, too, so they kind of also raised the issue of let's have some sort of minimum density. That's not a formal review, it's a preliminary comment. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. MULHERE: So now--- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me summarize where I think we are and somebody can make an all encompassing motion in support. With regard to motions one, three -- four, five and six were handled separately -- one, three, seven, 14, 15, we support the position of the EAC, semi-colon. With regard to --- MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, it would appear at the moment we don't have a quorum. One member has -- I'm sure it's just temporary -- left the room but before --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He is still in attendance, isn't he? MR. ADELSTEIN: He can still go forward. We are not voting at this moment. MS. STUDENT: I think when you come to the actual vote --- MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes, absolutely. MR. STRAIN: Your first summary, didn't we just agree 23, we're all in agreement on? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I'm sorry, yes, and 23. Semi-colon, Motion 2, 11, 12, 13, 21 and 22, we disagreed with the action of the EAC. Page 79 February 11, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: Including 9 also? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No, motions 9 and 10, we bypassed as we did 20, 16, 17 and 18 by their nature didn't require motion. That leaves 19, which we supported five-0. MR. STRAIN: With the exception of we deleted 6 a)2. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 6 a)2. Motion 8 was supported five-O, Motion 6 we disagreed zero to five or disagreed five-O; Motion 5 we disagreed three to two, Motion 4, we agreed four to one so if anybody would like to say so move --- ALL MEMBERS: So move. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Checking it twice. MR. STRAIN: The only thing I'm wondering is do we need to go as far as saying we do not support motions of the EAC or just leave it, let them have their say without any influence from us. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Then I think we should have our say. MR. MULHERE: And you are going to because I think you are going see some motions. MR. STRAIN: I have no other comment, then. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Does somebody want to second? MR. MIDNEY: Second. MR. ABERNATHY: I will. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Now we go to our own generated list, do we not? MR. STRAIN: Well, there's -- I want to mention, there might be a couple ways to approach it. There is a few moments that we need to spend on maybe these charts, it says summary of allowable land uses, site development standards. I purposely did not get into this in the language because I Page 80 February 11, 2002 thought we could take a moment to address some of the concerns that were expressed at the public hearing last week on that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's do it. MR. STRAIN: Mostly, it centered around the second page in talking about the uses and the last three columns, which is the non- NRPA sending lands, the NRPA sending lands and the conservation designated lands. I'll try -- I made some hen scratches on this thing, so let's try and see where we can go. The suggestion last week was to eliminate Number 5, essential services; eliminate Number 8, commercial uses; eliminate Number 10, staff housing in conjunction with safety service facilities and essential services and eliminate Number 13, oil and mineral extraction related processing. I think those -- I think I got it straight. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oil and mineral are Number 10 under --- MR. STRAIN: Well, they give us a new one, I'm still using the old one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oil and minerals are ten under non-NRPA and NRPA and 13 under conservation. So, what was your -- your ten was staff housing? MR. STRAIN: Staff housing in conjunction with safety service facilities and essential services. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. That was Number 9 under non-NRPA and NRPA. MR. STRAIN: I have to convert these to the other numbers. MR. MULHERE: I'm not so worried about the numbers, I'll be able to look at the numbers by the uses but if you could give me those uses again. MR. STRAIN: This is my suggestion, and it's up to the board to say yea or nay. Page 81 February 11, 2002 The first use to be eliminated, essential services, eliminate commercial uses, where they are accessory to other permitted uses such as restaurant accessories to the operations of the private reserve MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. STRAIN: Eliminate the staff housing in conjunction with safety service facilities and essential services, eliminate oil and mineral extraction related processing. MR. MULHERE: Now, may I just make a couple comments on that? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Of course. MR. MULHERE: The -- I think that there may be some essential services uses that the staff doesn't feel necessarily have to be permitted but there are some that we're afraid we may not want to exclude outright and it may be the fact that you may want to run transmission lines from point A to point B or something else, and we haven't really had the chance to go back and look at it after your Thursday meeting, although we will. I mean, we'll take whatever motion you make, but I just want to let you know we're going to go in and look at those and maybe what we would propose to do would spell out those specifically that should be precluded and allow, there may still be some disagreement on that. MR. STRAIN: See, my thoughts, Bob, centered around these facilities that are going in, housing, fire, E.M.S., sheriff and all that, now it's not even practical varying with the population, so why even open the door for it. MR. MULHERE: I agree that they are most likely not going to go there, but I'm thinking about, for example, Big Cypress National Preserve, may have staff housing for a wildfire fighting team. They certainly have some staff housing already out there. MR. STRAIN: Well, existing uses will remain. Page 82 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Right. Another way to do this might be, and it's just something to throw out, really what you are concerned is, I think would be concerned about are the fact that some of these uses are probably not practical and not even going to happen, number one, so why put them there and, number two, with respect to others that are making impacts is it's difficult to foresee at this point in time, if they were permitted, and another approach might be in addition to looking at these uses and determining which ones outright shouldn't be included in, say, the list of essential services that you find in the LDC, spell those out. Another approach might be to make a number of these uses conditional uses. MR. STRAIN: Why don't we make them all conditional uses and just leave it like that. MR. MULHERE: That clears it up. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's do that. MR. STRAIN: Yeah, that would make it real simple on a case by case basis and the public's got a shot at it, too. MR. ABERNATHY: Totally agree. MR. RICHARDSON: That leaves us with oil and mineral. I support the idea of taking those out. MR. STRAIN: As testified, there are deed restrictions which means the holder of that deed restriction is the only person entitled to those right now, so why put it in there for everybody. It just makes it worse. MR. ADELSTEIN: Why don't we state it that way, except as for the deeds. MR. RICHARDSON: You don't have to. MR. STRAIN: You don't have to, deed restrictions are beyond our scope. MR. MULHERE: David just brought up a couple issues that we'll have to exclude, there are practical issues and we'll go ahead Page 83 February 11, 2002 and look at them but, for example, we'll have to exclude under conditional use a private well or septic tank, those kinds of things that an individual, you know, three or five acre parcel owner -- there are some, there are some inholdings in conservation lands and they enjoy, you know, rights on those inholdings so we'll have to look at those things that would, you know, preclude them from enjoying the use of their land such as well and septic, but that's relatively easy. MR. STRAIN: I'm comfortable. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We need a motion. MR. STRAIN: I will so move. MR. RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion is to -- MR. STRAIN: They want to make those specified uses. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: The specified uses and make them conditional uses. MR. MULHERE: In sending and conservation lands. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Sending and conservation. MR. STRAIN: Well, NRPA, non-NRPA sending, NRPA sending and conservation. Well, that's three columns on your chart. MR. MULHERE: Right, but it includes sending and conservation, got it. MR. ADELSTEIN: I will second it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, just for your information, like I said last week I made a listing of things that this board seemed to be interested in and then I also would like to respond or go through the - - there is not that many issues left on the Audubon Society's sheet that was passed out to us last week because there are some important Page 84 February 11, 2002 issues here that ought to be double checked to make sure we have addressed them either positively or negatively. Under the FLUE, Page 42, and I'm not going to go through the book, I'm just going to read what they're suggesting, they're recommending adjusting the sending and receiving numbers based on conservation easements extinguishing density that may be in sending areas but won't send. Do you know what that is? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think that's an exercise that's not necessary. If we have a policy that says you can't send on those conservations you've already voted on, then you go through and quantify that. MR. STRAIN: No, I just want to make sure it has been addressed. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: Rural Villages need modification, limit to three, make smaller, increased density for efficiency and increase distance between two more than three miles, explicitly follow smart growth principals. Wouldn't most of that come out of the ULDC process? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it would, but some of the issues are legitimate and I don't know whether you want to stop and talk about the Rural Village concept now and deal with it now, we could. You are talking -- I think the issues that you all raised collectively as a body, which were the separation distance between them, which would be a way to limit the number, or you could outright limit the number. You talked about lowering the size except there was I think some good testimony put on the record relative to D, and if I could just step over to the map. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Reducing the physical size. MR. MULHERE: Maximum size, from 2,000 to something Page 85 February 11, 2002 less, but in Area D, which doesn't have the component of being surrounded by Estates lands and can't serve those lands, I would increase that size or leave that size a little bit higher. You don't have any ability in D to serve the surrounding Estates lands. It's really surrounded by -- largely by the NRPA and little bit by the urban, urban fringe. So that was another issue. Let's see, density, size -- oh, bonus. MR. STRAIN: Density, size, distance. MR. MULHERE: But the smart growth principals, it is the intent to very strictly adhere to the smart growth principals as they would apply to the Rural Village and then this predominantly mixed use and then also, you know, compact development of the center extending outward with public places, public squares and those types of things and, as I said, that really needs to occur as part of the -- it will be a separate public hearing process. MR. STRAIN: One item they said limit to three. I don't know, I think there's five shown on here. MR. MULHERE: Well--- MR. STRAIN: And the one little one, Section 24, is pretty close to that north -- there's two in the Belle Meade. MR. MULHERE: We don't really know how many might come in. We know that there will probably be one in here because of the settlement, you know, in the allowance for one in here, it's down the road, certainly, but if we take this area out then that disappears. If you limit it to three or four and you put a separation restriction on them, a couple miles or whatever the case maybe, I think you might want to preclude D from that, but, you know, you are likely going to see potentially one in this area, one in this area and one in this area, and so I think that from a practical perspective, you're probably not going to see more than three or four. MR. STRAIN: Then there would be no reason why we just Page 86 February 11, 2002 couldn't limit it to two or three? MR. MULHERE: You could, you could. MR. STRAIN: And say three miles between the villages? MR. MULHERE: Because it would always have to be revisited by the board in the future anyway. MR. STRAIN: What's the --- MR. RICHARDSON: My inclination is that we're really in a technical issue area here, and the numbers are going to try and match up with the marketplace, and we're going to see if this thing works, and I said this earlier, I don't feel comfortable in trying to second guess the economist's and staff's assessment of this to date, and I would rather go with the numbers that they proposed and have a monitoring system where we can see how this is going to turn out and make the adjustments that we have to down the road. I think making the adjustments in advance as opposed to the staff and the economist's input, I am just not -- I'm -- that's not where my mind is and I don't feel capable of doing that. MR. STRAIN: If you didn't see maybe the need for the limitation to three, but the distance factor, I mean, Dade County is a prime example. You drive through Dade County you are passing a different town every mile. I don't think we want to see that here. Maybe if we just limited the distances between these activity centers or these rural centers would be the smartest way to go. MR. ADELSTEIN: I agree, that's what I was afraid of. MR. MULHERE: Also, don't forget, you have the overriding limitation as it is attached to the total number of TDRs that are available. You have only got 5,000, so if you have to buy one for one for each acre, if you have, you know, three of these come in and they average 1,200 acres each, basically you've exhausted all the TDRs. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What if we just sent the County Commission a message to the effect that based on what has been Page 87 February 11, 2002 available to us, our best judgment is that they probably should be limited to three, total of three and at least three miles apart. MR. MULHERE: I think that--- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That kind of--- MR. MULHERE: I think that's good and the only thing I would suggest is, in my perspective, you may want to go -- I'm just thinking three is pretty extensive. You may want to go to two. I'm looking at this area here, and you might -- I mean, I don't know, probably one is all you could get in there, if you raise the limit on there, you go to 3,000 in this area, but limit it to 1,500 in the other two areas, I think you could go three miles. I'm not sure what this distance is here. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, we have these other limitations to fool with as well, don't we? MR. MULHERE: Area and bonus. I can walk you through them in terms of when you get ready to try to structure a motion, I can, you know, raise the issue and you can tell me what your consensus is. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, let's do it. MR. MULHERE: To me the first thing would be the bonus. Again, the current proposal was two units for each .8 dwelling units that you acquire through a TDR and I think the discussion you had was make it one to one. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's my feeling. MR. MULHERE: The second was the maximum size. Currently the maximum -- the minimum and maximum sizes are 500 acres minimum, 2,000 acre maximum, and I think your inclination was to reduce the minimum a little bit and reduce the maximum a little bit, and 300 acres is what the minimum is in the agreement between -- in the North Belle Meade. MR. ADELSTEIN: Let's make the minimum 300. Page 88 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: And then the maximum, I think you had talked about 1,500 at one point. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What is North Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: I don't think there is a maximum spelled out. But if you look at 1,5000, what you are doing there, I think, is, I mean, it's a reasonable size because if you talk about a population, if your minimum density is, say, two, you are talking about 3,000 dwelling units, which translate in that example to 1,500 or 3,000 dwelling units, which if you use 2.5, you're talking about 7,000 population max, and then you've got the surrounding areas to achieve your eight to 10,000 of service. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If we put a limit on the max, what does that do to the Belle Meade agreement? Can we impose that since they have a no max? MR. MULHERE: I think we could ask them if they could live with that maximum. You are talking about 1,500 acres? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: 1,500 acres is a proposed max. We have an expression from the back of the room. UNIDENTIFIED: Isn't it a separate agreement? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we agree that there is no maximum in your agreement? UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. Chairman, that is correct, and I'm not in a position--- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: To commit? UNIDENTIFIED: No. I mean, it took six months to get where we were. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Why don't we just except that particular one? MR. MULHERE: Separate language for that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So 1,500 otherwise. MR. MULHERE: And now the question was, as far as that Page 89 February 11, 2002 goes, my recommendation would be that you go a little bit larger in Area D because they do not have that surrounding area, this is all cleared ag fields. It's already got extension of infrastructure and I think you might want to go, you know, 2,500 or 3,000. It's up to you, but I think you would want to go a little larger in D because otherwise you are just not going to see it happen because they won't have the capture rate you are looking for. MR. STRAIN' Didn't we agree to limit the distance to three miles so if we go to a larger one in that area, that's about the only one that will be in there. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: So that award will be it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So it's 2,500? MR. STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Got it. They are all couched in terms of based upon the information available to us, our best judgment at this point. MR. MULHERE: Yep. And then the last thing, I think the last thing would be the distance and if you are talking about three miles on--- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I thought we already crossed that bridge. MR. MULHERE: I didn't realize that, okay. I think that's really all the issues. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have a motion to -- MR. ADELSTEIN: I so move. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: MR. STRAIN: I will second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: -- to package that? All in favor, aye? Opposed? Page 90 February 11, 2002 (No response.) MR. STRAIN: You got that, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I do. MR. STRAIN: I'm going on with the Audubon's list, and C on their list was the golf course TDRs, we already addressed that. D was the elimination of the Corkscrew Island area from a sending unit or a receiving unit, and I think we ought to take a formal consensus on that as well. MR. MULHERE: You might want to do that now. MR. STRAIN: Eliminate this -- could you point your finger to that one? MR. MULHERE: It's the area, all of the area of the -- north of Immokalee Road in the northernmost receiving area, currently receiving area, and a portion of the area south. It's approximately five full sections of land. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five sections commonly known as? MR. MULHERE: Big Corkscrew Island Community. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Corkscrew Island Community. Motion? MR. STRAIN: So move. MR. MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Unanimous. MR. STRAIN: The other item they had was in order to maximize the viability of TDR consider strongly expanding Orange Tree at approximately four units per acre in TDR areas only. I think because that area was outside the Page 91 February 11, 2002 Rural Fringe Study Group, it's not something we can address. MR. MULHERE: My guess is that's going to be an issue that is going to be considered by the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Restudy Committee. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. You are looking at it. So we'll pass on that one. MR. STRAIN: Item F on their list was allow transfer of TDR units to the urban area, which should be a prime receptor for density, we've already agreed that was something that we want to do. One of the other on this one page was --- MR. MULHERE: Can I just interrupt you for one moment, and I apologize, but relative to the urban transfer that you voted on supporting the EAC's motion, just so I don't forget, the recommendation that we made was that that be tied to urban infill, that was also their recommendation which I supported. Currently the urban infill size limitation is ten acres and our recommendation would be to increase the size for qualifying to 20 acres. That gives you a little flexibility since 20 acres is a pretty small parcel. MR. STRAIN: I would definitely agree with that. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to make sure that that was put on the record. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Do we have concurrence with that? MR. ADELSTEIN: I have no problem with it. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: The next Audubon issue was the ag lands and whether or not how they are being treated and that's an issue we've been referring to to get to so let's get to it. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Here we are. MR. RICHARDSON: You characterized this as dueling legal Page 92 February 11, 2002 opinions. MR. MULHERE: I think that's basically what we have. MR. RICHARDSON: I don't have any new wisdom that would tell me which position is appropriate. I think the sense that I got from what we've talked about so far is we'd like to have Collier County have some control over the density and use of agricultural land, just as a matter of something to make all of this work, because it's an open problem for Collier if it can continue to go ahead and fill in wetlands and clear lands and whatever, albeit there is restrictions placed on it by other agencies. Nonetheless, it's going to I think cause a severe problem to the implementation of this overall plan if we don't have some local control. So, my sense is that I'd like to see this staffed in terms of the legal opinions, and that that be brought up to the BCC. I don't think we can resolve that. MR. MULHERE: There are some things that you can deal with, if you didn't deal with the issue -- well, if you didn't take a position relative to the dueling legal opinions, which deal with being able to regulate or prohibit ag, regulate or prohibit ag in the sending lands, which we all concur are the most valuable natural resource areas and which we want to protect. No one is taking a position that we don't want to do that. The question is legally can we as a county regulate agriculture such that no additional clearing or no further intensive action occur. You have one opinion that says, no, you cannot do that under the Right to Farm Act, you have another opinion that says, no, what she said is wrong, you can do it. There are some other issues, though, that rise, that are related to this and those were the ways that we proposed to regulate ag on a voluntary basis attached to the TDR process. Remember, the one thing we have already dealt with is what you could do after you Page 93 February 11, 2002 transferred and that was one thing. The second thing was having a more extensive prohibition on utilizing TDRs, if the property owner in a sending area chose to clear, so regardless of whatever happens from the board, at the board level with respect to this, if an individual in a receiving land ultimately, because the Right to Farm Act could clear for agricultural purposes and they did, then we talked about a 25 year period in which they could not enjoy or 15 -- I mean, we proposed ten at this point in time, but you all talked about a longer period of time. MR. ADELSTEIN: Twenty-five is what we talked about. MR. MULHERE: That's another issue. I don't know, was I clear on that? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: As a disincentive. MR. STRAIN: But there are other issues, too, in Ms. Chumbler's, her report, she indicated there were two or three issues that could be utilized to have some control on ag that Collier County was not utilizing, so I would recommend that we -- every issue that we can utilize we proceed with. MR. MULHERE: Well, actually, I think we weren't currently but we would be now. Now, because the way we proposed the language is that agriculture is permitted as a use in these sending lands under the provisions or subject to the provisions of the Right to Farm Act, so conversely any agriculture that's not consistent with those provisions is prohibited. That's the way we word it, so you have got to have the best management practices adopted and implemented, and if you have that, and you are consistent with those, then you have the right, if you agree with Ms. Chumbler's interpretation, to farm, and that's the way we worded the language in the plan. Page 94 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: In the amendment that's in front of us? MR. MULHERE: Correct. Now, converse, the other way of looking at things is that there are some other things that the County could do but I don't see them doing as part of this process. Remember, she said that if lands were part of a wellfield protection zone, you can regulate agriculture and unless you all wish to see the County examine their wellfield protection zones, and unless and perhaps some of these areas ultimately could be considered a portion of a wellfield protection zone, then you have an entry into regulating agriculture, the way I understood her memo. I don't think that's going to happen as part of this, but it certainly could be a recommendation for the board to consider future direction when we look at our wellfield and aquifer protection mechanisms. MR. STRAIN: Could we format some kind of recommendation to the board that we are not in -- we do not agree that the sending lands ought to be used for agricultural purposes once the TDR process is completed? MR. ADELSTEIN: I would be --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Just say that. MR. STRAIN: That's where I'm at. That way it's up to the board to figure out how to fight that legally and somebody besides us is going to have to be fighting that, we can't. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Bearing in mind that only three percent of the lands in the Rural Fringe are ag anyway. MR. STRAIN: Today. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's where the problem is. MR. STRAIN: So our recommendation is what I just stated. MR. ADELSTEIN: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) Page 95 February 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: You got it, Bob? MR. MULHERE: No agriculture uses should be permitted-- MR. STRAIN: In sending lands. MR. MULHERE: In sending lands in conjunction with the TDR or period? MR. STRAIN: In conjunction. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In conjunction with the TDR. MR. MULHERE: Right now they have a right to be there. I'm not trying to stop that. to fly. Although I'd like to, I don't think that's going CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: In conjunction with the TDR as part of the motion. MR. MIDNEY: Can you put in something about the 25 years? MR. RICHARDSON: That's Policy 6.1.4, revise that from ten years to 25 years. MR. STRAIN: I second that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? There's a motion to increase the -- MR. MULHERE: Prohibition from--- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Prohibition from ten years to 25; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: Okay, there's a few on the back of the Audubon sheet that I would like to run through. The CCME --- MR. MULHERE: We have a question on that last motion. You mentioned a policy number. Page 96 February 11, 2002 MR. RICHARDSON: That's what I'm reading out of the book, out of your book. Maybe I got the wrong one. MR. MULHERE: Which is the --- MR. RICHARDSON: 6.1.4. MR. MULHERE: 6.1.47 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Ten years. Bill, we've amended this to include a prohibition on participating in the TDR process also for ten years and their recommendation was to extend that portion to 25 years. MR. LORENZ: Okay. But you also want to have this one for 25 years as well? MR. MULHERE: Which is the clearing. No other use other than the ag, okay. Got it. I see what you're saying. MR. STRAIN: Okay, Objective 6.2, of the CCME, starting at Page 25, they have five concerns. Let me just read them to the board members and maybe we can come up with one solution to all five. A, needs strong local protection program for small seasonal wetlands, usually written off by the agencies. Included in such a program would be increased ratios for higher quality wetland construction, no allowance of wetland compensation for wetland destruction, minimum quality and functioning of mitigation of acres to destroy acres. B, do not lessen mitigation when impacted wetlands are exotics infested, wetland functions are still also there. C, stronger protection of Collier wetlands, will require increased staffing, poor staffing is a big reason the Army Corps, DEP and water management district struggles with ineffective wetland protection permitting, make this recommendation to BCC. C, clustering policy should have a smaller minimal lot size for Page 97 February 11, 2002 effective clustering more efficient. D, we must defer to the agencies on wetland protection and institute a new policy of requiring agency permits or at least letters on both wetlands and listed species issues, before issuing local building permits. This is a good idea regarding the program. Some of these I think are fine, we can apply at this level. Some, I think ULDC issues, I don't think we're going to be able to enact a local protection program sitting here today. I think the best thing we can do there is to go along with their idea of defer to the agencies on wetland protection, if we are going to do that, and institute a policy requiring agency permits or at least letters on both wetlands and listed species issues before issuing local building permits. I was wondering how the staff feels about that. MR. MULHERE: I think we've gone a long way towards addressing those. If we go through the errata sheet, Page 25, and also I think perhaps Bill or Barbara Berkson (phonetic) may want to comment on some of those. Page 9 of 17. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: As soon as he finishes, Brad. MR. MULHERE: The way it works, as we would propose it, first of all, we wouldn't authorize any -- there would be very limited development authorized prior to getting those permits in hand. Single-family homes is the exception. And that particularly would apply to Golden Gate Estates because the board has pretty consistently upheld the policy. Now, this doesn't say that they couldn't change that policy, but they have pretty consistently in the past upheld the policy that they really didn't want to have a single family home owner in Golden Gate Estates having to have that permit in hand prior to application, especially since in some cases it doesn't apply, but that's the only condition where you prior to commencement of construction Page 98 February 11, 2002 wouldn't have to provide evidence of having these permits from the jurisdictional agencies. Now, as far as the zoning process goes, the degree of information which you have, as I think Barbara indicated at the last meeting, the way we worded this, couple things. Once, we have precluded the use of upland as a form of mitigation for impacts to wetlands, so that was one of their issues, and the only way that we can be sure that the mitigation is going to be appropriate is by having at least an approved WRAP score and that gets you some distance into the process but may not cause you to have to be all the way to have a permit to them during the zoning process, but you are going to have to be in the process and you're going to have to have the agencies provide you with a letter or approval of the analysis of your wetlands so we know what quality they are and what the mitigation should be. Barbara, do you want to add anything or speak to that issue? MS. BERKSON: For the record, Barbara Berkson with Planning Services. Just to expand so that you understand that there are other circumstances besides the Golden Gate Estates. Any time that there is a single family building permit that doesn't go through a larger development process such as a single family building permit pulled on agricultural zoned land or lands -- just as an example, the area north of Willoby Acres has property that is situated as single family lots of varying sizes, they are not required to get wetland permits even though that's an area that South Florida and our Collier County wetland programs or John Bolt's group is concerned about, the flooding issues in that area, and there are a number of other Estates areas that are not even sure are considered Estates off of, for instance, off of County Barn Road, the ag and the Estates lots and those areas where there are wetland issues, would be issued single family Page 99 February 11, 2002 building permits prior to requiring wetland permits. MR. RICHARDSON: Miss Berkson, would it be staff's view that it would be helpful and important to your review process to have these permits in hand even on the single family houses? If you had your druthers, what would you like to see? MS. BERKSON: ! think that because the County environmental staff does not have any ability to review single family building permits, that it would be -- again, maybe this is better if I step back and say that only for that reason alone, it may be helpful to the County to assure that those wetlands are addressed prior to them issuing building permits because they don't have staff looking at that to protect that resource or that possible impact of wetlands first. You might consider that there are a lot of other counties in the state that do require wetland permits prior to building permits and Lee County is one that addresses it through certain criteria, so maybe limited criteria could address needing wetland permits, so it might be something that you could direct staff to investigate ways of assuring that could happen or processes that we could put into place if you are not comfortable with a blanket statement that it's required in all cases. MR. RICHARDSON: I realize I put you in an uncomfortable spot because it's against current policy, but I think from our standpoint we should consider recommending that to the BCC. MR. MULHERE: I would even add on top of what Barbara said, and this is an issue that has been discussed a lot of times and another problem, really, frankly, is that there is an unintended consequence of the County not having those permits in hand when you have individuals who may be from out of town or don't know that they are required, whether the County requires it or not, of getting the permit. They get the building permit and think they can commence and end up in a compliance issue with state agencies. So, there are a lot of valid reasons. What we have done, though Page 100 February 11, 2002 -- I just want to make sure the record is clear, what the County has done is, of course, it clearly states it in bold print on the permit that you may have to get permits. We have tried for several years, the County has, to work with the jurisdictional agencies to create some maps where there would be at least a proclivity or the data would show the fact there is a likelihood of wetlands and then in those areas, you would limit the impacts by requiring that permit in those areas, rather than saying for every single family home for which, you know -- because it's not going to apply in every area and you may be unnecessarily costing folks some money to say, do I need a permit or do I not, and that's been part of the complicated issue. I think there is a DEP staff member now in attendance over at the County reviewing these permits and I think that person is then indicating to the applicants whether or not they may or may not, there is a good likelihood that they'll need a permit, but I will defer to Barbara. MS. BERKSON: There is a staff person from Department of Environmental Protection that works out of our offices on Horseshoe Drive and what she does with building permits that are brought to her attention that probably have wetlands or may have wetlands she'll do a site visit, she sends a letter to the property owner and says this property is either deemed to be wetland by the state or not. However, even through that process she does not have the ability to require them to get the wetland permits prior to so, again, it becomes a property owner's final responsibility and, as Bob stated, we do have a number of people that call and complain because they get put into a position of violations with the state and are concerned as to how we got them in that position. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Doesn't seem like it ought to be that difficult. MR. STRAIN: No, but I like Bob's suggestion. If there are Page 101 February 11, 2002 maps out there that give the building department or the review agencies a heads up as to what areas are in proximity of wetlands, we can include that language in here so that those areas, agency permits or letters are obtained. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I like that. MR. ADELSTE1N: I do, too. i like that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: But there is somebody looking at them now and making some kind of determination as to whether they are or aren't and what if they fumble. MR. STRAIN: That is -- they don't have any authority over, right? MR. MULHERE: Well, that, and that's the theory. You know, if we -- the County has attempted to work with the agencies so the agencies would concurs with the map such that if there is perhaps an error it's not the County necessarily that says these are where you need a permit and these are where you don't, because they don't have that jurisdiction, it's the jurisdictional agencies, so if we can get the agencies to work with the County to develop a set of maps that the GIS data shows there is a likelihood of wetlands here, before you issue a permit, they must come in and either get a permit or be told they don't need one. MR. MIDNEY: Soil maps already exist. MR. MULHERE: Let me add to that. On Page 29, we do have the provision that within one year of the adoption of the amendments the County would look at working with those federal and state agencies to create a series of maps that we could have some degrees of probability of whether there are wetlands or not on site. Now, that specific policy that we propose is limited to North Golden Gate Estates. I think Barbara -- one of her points was that it's just not within North Golden Gate Estates that we may want to do that analysis on, Page 102 February 11, 2002 so we can maybe broaden that particular portion of the policy; However, the caution is this. Any time that we create a map, that map is going to be based upon aerial photographs, the soils data which of course we know has been altered because of the drainage systems in the County. We cannot give anybody, you know, a hundred degree certainty that they are going to find wetlands on site, a particular site, or may not even have -- or may have wetlands on site that we said that probably won't be there. That still requires a biologist to go out in the field to identify whether the wetlands are on site or not. So, to the degree that we can create some assistance for the home owners is okay, but we'll not be able to use those maps in a strictly regulatory mode. MR. STRA1N: But we're using nothing right now. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. STRAIN: So we are at least making a leap forward. MR. MULHERE: Right, and that's within one year that we would do that. MR. RICHARDSON: The upshot of this is really we need to staff this and you understand our concerns, they're really concerns you have already expressed, let's see if we can't put some wheels underneath it and get it done. MR. MULHERE: I understand. I think that should be part of a separate motion that you make as a recommendation to the board relative to staffing needs. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let's hear from Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Brad Cornell with Collier County Audubon Society. The point of this whole consideration is that there be more cooperation between the County on permitting and the agencies that have jurisdiction over these wetlands, and another aspect of that is Page 103 February 11, 2002 requiring letters or permits and also the wildlife species input. Another aspect would be to require these letters and permits before rezone, before it comes in front of the Board of County Commissioners, before you all, that you have at least the letter from the agencies before rezone of a piece of property so you know what you're actually talking about and that assists and promotes that coordination between the agencies and the local level. Thank you. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Are you looking to be recognized, baseball cap? MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I think you came in after we announced that we weren't taking public input, but you have been very long suffering so why don't you tell us what you have to say. MR. MITCHELL: I thought they were part of the public. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: No, they are interveners, those are people that brought the lawsuit that brought this all about. MR. MITCHELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So go ahead. MR. MITCHELL: All right. My name is Curt Mitchell and I live in Section 13, I own property out there in North Belle Meade and I have a tree farm out there and I'm looking at all this and I'm wondering if I'm going to be put in jail for growing trees. Is that what's coming next? MR. RICHARDSON: Perhaps, Stan, perhaps you can explain it specifically. MR. MITCHELL: How much restrictions are we going to have out there to perform agriculture? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Well, it depends on whether you're in a sending or receiving area. MR. MITCHELL: I've been told I'm in a sending area that's non-NRPA. Page 104 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: Well, at this point, until it goes to the board, there is two sets of opinions relative to regulating agriculture and the type of agriculture that you are talking about, which would be ornamental tree and shrub production, nursery --- MR. MITCHELL: Primarily I grow live oak trees and I have a peach orchard. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think that that falls under the best management practices. I talked to Marty Chumbler about that, she felt it did fall under partly agriculture and other seasonal produce and vegetable, so there are best management practices, so it's going to end up depending upon what the Board of County Commissioners chooses to do relative to these two legal opinions as to whether or not you can continue that use out there, but the way it stands right now, the recommendation is that you would be able to continue that use. MR. MITCHELL: That's good, that's good, because we have canals that run around our section and our property drains rapidly and it's ideal for agriculture. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. The best we can do is give you a Roger wave out and see what the County Commissioners do on the 27th. You might want to show up for that as well. MR. MITCHELL: Oh, I will. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: And they will take public input. MR. MITCHELL: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We did it last Thursday. MR. MITCHELL: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Thank you. MR. STRAIN: Do you want to make a motion that all the stuff we've talked about, certainly the board then could modify it --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: If you can do it. MR. STRAIN: I make a motion to require agency permits or at least letters on both wetlands and listed species issues before issuing Page 105 February 11, 2002 local building permits in areas where existing data shows proximity to wetlands or species habitats; modify Policy 6.2.10 paren 4, undeveloped Collier County, recommend increased staffing for wetland protection review and species habitat review and require the same apply to rezones before they come -- as they come before this board. MR. ADELSTEIN: I will second that motion. MR. STRAIN: Is it close? CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: That's close, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to go that far. The property owner is going to have to get these permits before building permit, so he goes to the building department to find out if he needs the permits; is that not right? MR. STRAIN: Or he'll go to one of the agencies, South Florida Corps of Engineers. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: He is going to stumble into the building department because he may not know about these other agencies, so can they straighten him out? MR. MULHERE: Yes. If I understood the motion, maybe there might have been a little bit of conflict, which I want to raise for you, you said permits or letters, meaning most likely letters that no permit is necessary -- MR. STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- prior to issuance of a building permit, and then you talked about the increased staffing, you said apply it to the entire County and then you also said same thing would apply to rezones and when I get into the rezone perspective, I mean, this is always the chicken and the egg thing, to have someone go through all the way to get their permits through the rezoning process is going to be very, very difficult. What they are required to do is submit an Environmental Impact Statement. The County does generally work with those agencies Page 106 February 11, 2002 because, you know, it's distributed to those agencies for their review and comment, but we don't necessarily require the issuance of the permit. In some cases you can't even get a permit from that jurisdictional agencY because all they do is make comments. So it might be difficult in the rezone process. MR. STRAIN: I tend to agree with you, Bob. I haven't done that myself a lot. MR. MULHERE: I think what happens is -- you're right, though, we certainly can coordinate with those agencies, and -- but one thing as far as the wetlands, getting that WRAP score during the rezoning process, at least gives the staff the ability to analyze the quality of the wetlands and appropriate mitigation strategies if they are going to be any impacts and which wetlands should be saved versus which ones might be acceptable to impact so we do have that. As far as the listed species, maybe Barbara, you know, it would be good to get her up here to speak about the issue, but I assume staff works with the agencies at least to get some feel for where their -- and we also use their strategies under our own wildlife protection language. The management plans for those listed species are either specifically spelled out or deferred to the agencies for input. I don't know if Bill or Barbara wants to talk to that issue. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We've got 20 minutes. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we've got that. MR. STRAIN: I'll amend my motion to remove the rezone of the property. MR. ADELSTEIN: I will go along with that. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: What we have modified in your motion to instead of require that right away, that the staff takes steps to determine the feasibility of implementing that sort of a system. MR. STRAIN: As long as we can rely on the fact that if somehow something happens in regards to --- Page 107 February 11, 2002 MR. ADELSTEIN: In this motion, as far as I see, there is no reason for us to modify it. It will be modified before it's approved above us. I think we should say it as strongly as we can so that they do as little modifying as they have to. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We are only advisory anyway. All in favor? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, would you also wish to include conditional uses? Oh, no, you are not going to include the rezone, so conditional uses falls out, I'm sorry, go ahead. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: There is five small items left, I can get through them quickly. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right. MR. STRAIN: Then we have got most of our list as being done by the stuff we have already done today, so we are just about wrapped up here. CCME objection 6.5, Page 30, natural protecting, natural reservation from receiving land project, needs complete fix. A -- by the way, this is Audubon's language, not mine. A, no intensive development should be allowed within 300 feet of the boundary of the reservation, including residential yards and walls. I think we hit on this but I'm not sure we talked about it, and basically they are saying the buffers stay as buffers, that we don't put any intensive development in them and that would be including the option where the language in the thing now reads that you can take a residential backyard wall and put it right up on the line and make that 300 feet useable backyard and that I don't agree with myself. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. STRAIN: A buffer is a buffer. Page 108 February 11, 2002 MR. MULHERE: It applies and it is a buffer except that the language allows an exception for only single family homes with a fence or wall, so they are taking exception to that and I will defer to Bill to talk about whether -- maybe you can just make a motion or --- MR. STRAIN: I had it marked when I went through that and it happens to be on their list as well, so it was something I was concerned about. You might want to get the board's opinion on it. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, let's keep it 300 feet. MR. STRAIN: With no exceptions. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I agree with you. EAC didn't touch that one? MR. MULHERE: Well, they went to half a mile and they --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Oh, that's right. MR. STRAIN: But if it's going to only be 300 we ought to leave it with no exceptions. That's my -- I'll make it so moved. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: So moved. Seconded? All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: There's another one that says even though implied, explicitly state that no development should be allowed in any wildlife corridor trails. I have no problem with that. MR. MULHERE: No harm saying it. MR. STRAIN: Why would you have a wildlife trail or wildlife corridor if you're going to have development in it. I mean, one doesn't work with the other. MR. MULHERE: I know we weren't expecting they would Page 109 February 11, 2002 have to go through the front door and out the back door to get where they were going. MR. STRAIN: Okay. Is that a-- I mean, I don't know if we need to make a motion now. You know the intent of the board's -- include sending lands in the definition of natural reserve. Is there any pro or con to that? MR. MULHERE: I think, you know, I think it was intended, it was a NRPA --- MR. LORENZ: We specifically identified the natural reservation as conservation and NRPAs, National Resource Protection Areas, not a non-NRPA sending area. MR. STRAIN: How many non-NRPA sending areas do we have? MR. MULHERE: Where there is an interface you have it here and here, but that's covered by the North Belle Meade agreement, okay, so that one comes out. You don't have it anywhere here, that's all NRPA. That's all NRPA, that's NRPA, that's NRPA, and that's all conservation, so really the only place where you have it -- MR. STRAIN: And there's an agreement there. MR. MULHERE: -- and there is a separate agreement there. MR. STRAIN: So it becomes a moot point. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All right? MR. STRAIN: One more, explicitly state that buffering of all wetlands shall require no water table draw down at the wetland edge, assure no negative property impacts on County's wetlands. I think we've made that point. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: We had that. MR. STRAIN: already. MR. LORENZ: Brad is reading it differently. Do you recall, Bill? I think we addressed that Unless -- I think our policy covers that unless The way the statement for the Page 110 February 11, 2002 buffering states, you know, this is buffer versus wetlands. Buffering states that we would utilize the South Florida Water Management District's procedure to define what that no impact is, but there's a lot of details within that procedure. MR. CORNELL: I was just-- Brad Cornell again. I put that in there only to be extremely clear about what our goal was, rather than defer to the South Florida Water Management District process to protect that wetland, to using that process, also, be clear in our plan that our intention is not to have any impact to our wetlands. That was the intent of putting that explicitly in there. No draw down. And then the mechanism apparently is using the South Florida Water Management District process for delineating that edge and those draw downs. MR. LORENZ: On Page 32 where we have this language, we're speaking of the boundary is the natural reservation boundary. That could be a wetland boundary or that could be an upland boundary as well. MR. CORNELL: We had that discussion. MR. RICHARDSON: So in terms of a statement of policy, you don't have any problem with it? MR. LORENZ: I think it covers it. I can't speak for Brad. MR. CORNELL: It was the same thing, it's just being explicit about, you know, rather than making our measure -- making the policy require familiarity with South Florida Water Management District's process, it's just saying more simply what it is we are trying to do. MR. MULHERE: I think what you could do is state the intent in the same, and then go into what the requirements are to meet that intent, so the intent will be such that there be no impact on wetlands as a result of draw downs, the following is required and then I think Page 111 February 11, 2002 you have got it. MR. CORNELL: MR. MULHERE: incorporates that. list. It's a small point, but that was why. Just change the language a little bit and it MR. STRAIN: No problem. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I have no problem. MR. STRAIN: The last -- well, that's the items on the Audubon Mr. Chairman, I'm keeping track of the issues that we brought MR. aggregate MR. 1,500, it's 500. up last Thursday, and it looks like we addressed every single one except, well, maybe one that came up today where we talked about the green belts having a minimum of 500 feet instead of an average. We talked about it but we didn't actually take a motion on it. MR. RICHARDSON: Let's vote. ADELSTEIN: At the moment, isn't it set up so that it's an of 500 feet, it's not the minimum of 500 feet? STRAIN: It's average. It could be zero or it could be got to be an average of 500. This would say a minimum of MR. ADELSTEIN: I could go along with a minimum of 300 in the 500 area. MR. MULHERE: That's what I was going to suggest. MR. ADELSTEIN: You if you go 500, then you are going to put the absolute maximum or minimum. MR. STRAIN: I don't think any of the board wants to go along with that. I think something as a minimum ought to be there because you are going to have people going to zero and saying the average is by going to another area. MR. ADELSTEIN: I would think 300 would be a good figure for an absolute minimum. MR. MULHERE: I think that's a very good suggestion. Page 112 February 11, 2002 Well, 300 minimum is really very good and appropriate and it's consistent with the minimum natural reservation buffer and it doesn't get -- I think, Mark, you raised a very good point, that it could be zero, which wasn't the intent. MR. RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Move by Strain, second by Richardson. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: Just the last clarification, we did strongly mention that we don't want the Corkscrew Island Area --- MR. MULHERE: I've got a motion. MR. STRAIN: You got the point on that, everything's fine with that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. STRAIN: Other than the normal motions to transmit this thing, I think we're -- all the issues on my list are done. MR. MULHERE: I got one that still remains out there. Since the school board is not here, we didn't-- I would like to get a motion, our recommendation was that we reduce the minimum preservation from 40 percent to 30 percent, for schools co-located with other public facilities in receiving lands and we had really no objection to that, but also as far as allowing schools in sending, our strong recommendation is that we not do that. MR. RICHARDSON: Do we need a motion? MR. MIDNEY: I will make a motion to do that. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Discussion? Page 113 February 11, 2002 All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. RICHARDSON: I have nothing further. MR. MULHERE: You only need, I think, to take three separate motions, then, subject to every motion that you have already taken, just like the EAC did for the transmittal of the CCME -- the FLUE and the CCME --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Just like 16, 17 and 18? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Let me state one thing, since we have a couple of minutes. I am still concerned about these people who have land that is going to be popped into these sending areas and who are sort of hanging out to dry until somebody buys their TDRs. Has anybody given -- nobody knows whether this program is -- this dog can hunt or not. Has anybody given any thought to some sort of a time frame at the end of which an individual landowner could opt out of the program? MR. MULHERE: We haven't considered that, because we are sure that that would raise an issue with the DCA because then the protection measures, the protection measures to save the natural resource areas would go away, so but we do understand the need to review this process and let's just think in terms of timing. What we said is within one year the County will develop the specifics of the TDRC program including consideration of creating a TDR bank. The County, I think -- this is just my opinion -- but is probably going to have to hire some help in terms of structuring that or look Page 114 February 11, 2002 how others have structured it at the very least, anyway. Then the program from there on out, and Nicholas struck this point very succinctly in his report, will need to be monitored and tweaked accordingly to insure that it is working, you know, correctly and successfully. So, I do require an annual report to the board on the success of the program, you know, in this language, and that annual report would allow for the opportunity to treat that, but you are talking, in my opinion, you are talking probably two years out before anyone has even a minimal appreciation for how well this will work. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. It just seems to me that the people who came in here on Thursday and talked to us in sort of cataclysmic terms, that this is really what they are trying to say, insofar as overreaching by the state is concerned. MR. MULHERE: It's unlikely that there was any immediate urgency to develop those lands in a way that they are currently being concluded within that one year to two year time frame anyway, so I think you'll have a better idea in about two years and no one I think is inordinately injured during that period because I don't see the great demand to go out and do something to those lands anyway in that period. You can still build your single family home and you can continue to do those types of things that you already have in place --- CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Or sell it to somebody who wants to do that. MR. MULHERE: Or sell it to somebody, right. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Okay. I won't belabor it. We are running out of time. MR. ADELSTE1N: Is there any other motions that we need to have passed? MR. MULHERE: Just those three. Page 115 February 11, 2002 MR. STRAIN: I will make the following motions. Marjorie, can I make all three in one lump? MR. ADELSTEIN: Let's do them one at a time. MR. STRAIN: Okay. To the foregoing recommendations, amendments, additions and deletions, that we have made and spoke about, motion to approve the transmittal draft, GMP amendments to the Future Lands Use Element, the FLUE, and Future Land Use Map, the FLUM. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: I second the motion. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response. ) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: Subject to the applicable foregoing recommended amendments, deletions, additions that we previously spoke about, motion to approve the transmittal draft GMP amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. MR. ADELSTEIN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Motion and second, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. MR. STRAIN: Subject to the applicable amendments, additions and deletions that we've all spoken about, motion to approve the Page 116 February 11, 2002 transmittal draft GMP amendments to the Public Facilities Element, potable water, sanitary sewer sub-element. MR. ADELSTEIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: Five-0. That's it. MR. STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the board members for enduring my questions. MR. ADELSTEIN: I think they were very necessary, thank you for bringing them up. MR. RICHARDSON: I want to thank staff for the quality work that they have done and their patience with us on the questions we've asked. MR. MULHERE: I think from everyone's perspective this was very helpful in helping us. A lot of the issues that were raised were -- that's why we go through this process, so we can hopefully in the end have a better process. MR. ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I move the meeting be adjourned. MR. RICHARDSON: Second. CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN ABERNATHY: All in favor? Thank you. Page 117 February 11, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Kenneth L. Abemathy These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected ~ as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY JACLYN M. OUELLETTE Page 118