Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/06/2002 RCollier County Planning Commission County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES June 6, 2002 Chairmen Kenneth Abernathy called meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. ATTENDANCE Commission Members: Kenneth Abemathy, Russell A. Budd, Mark Strain, Paul Midney, David Wolfley, Frank Fry, Lindy Adelstein Collier County: Joe Schmitt, Stan Litsinger, Marjorie Student Others: Robert Mulhere, Bill Lorenz, David Weeks, Norman Feeder, Donald Scott, John L. Cowan, Donald Pickworth, Ty Agoston, Rich Yuvanovich, Esperaza Aunero, Suzette Morales, Arlain and Yolanda Fuentes, Don Lester, John G. Vega, Ernie Cox, Ken Cuyler, Mary Stamatinos, Lynda Hittinger, Karol Montalto, Gary Davis, Brad Comell, Tim Hancock, Bruce Anderson, Robert Duane, Milly Haylock, Nancy Payton, Tom Doty, Ron Talone, Tom Conrecode, Reed Jarvi, David Ellis, Rob Palmer, A1 Zichella II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL BY CLERK Kenneth Abemathy called the roll. attendance. Lora Jean Young and Dwight Richardson were not in IV. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Mr. Abernathy asked if there were any addenda to the agenda. Mr. Schmitt answered there was nothing to add and noted they had a very busy schedule. The schedule is 1) Rural Fringe amendment, 2) moratorium ordinance, and 3) growth management plan amendment for concurrency. He felt that there was a lot of misinformation regarding the Rural Fringe amendment. He stated the ROMA and its' impact to the Golden Gate Estates area has nothing to do with the Rural Fringe amendment and it would not be discussed today. Mark Strain stated that they have yet to receive the amendments to be discussed at the Monday meeting and he doesn't feel it is appropriate to be given such short notice. Mr. Schmitt stated the packets are being prepared and asked if he wanted to reschedule for VI. VII. VIII. IX. those issues. Mr. Strain stated that he received his packet, but the ULDC amendment had been omitted. Marjorie Student stated that if they reschedule, there would probably not be enough time to readvertise before June 19th, SO they would not make this cycle. Mr. Schmitt added that there was only one issue being sent separately, then Mr. Strain didn't have a problem. Mr. Abemathy stated they would go forward as scheduled and decide on Monday what they have time to hear. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 18, 2002 Mr. Abernathy asked for approval of the minutes for April 18, 2002. Mr. Strain stated he had a correction on page 12. Russell Budd motioned to approve the minutes, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Mr. Abernathy asked for absences on June 10, 2002 and there were none. For June 20, Mr. Midney will be absent. BCC REPORT - RECAPS FROM MAY 14, 2002 There were no comments regarding the recap from May 14, 2002. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT There was no Chairman's Report. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ae RURAL FRINGE ADOPTION HEARING Kenneth Abemathy asked what was the methodology for discussing the Rural Fringe Amendment. Bob Mulhere - RWA, Inc. Mr. Mulhere stated that there had been public inputs on this issue and the state and all appropriate agencies had reviewed the amendment. He felt they should cover the objections, recommendations, and comments report from the DCA. He stated that he did not want to hinder the public's right to speak on this issue. Mr. Abemathy wanted to address the letter from the Conservancy to see if they still agree since some of the requirements were loosened by the BCC. Mr. Mulhere stated that in the ORC report, an objection that is not addressed could be a basis for non-compliance where a comment could not. The EAC made a motion to forward the amendments with three conditions. He said they would be using three documents; the staff report, the Errata handout and the FLUE, CCME, or Sewer and Water sub-elements. Page 4 (of the Staff Report) - There was an objection to the provision for density blending. The DCA was concerned with providing additional data analysis to indicate where density blending may be utilized and for the county to identify what projects they know are under unified control and may be eligible. Mr. Mulhere stated the two provisions where density blending may be utilized. They have prepared a map to show projects under unified control and they have asked the property owners to provide any environmental data that they had. He pointed out the sections eligible for density blending on the visualizer. There were a total of 7-½ eligible sections. He believed that this process can be very beneficial from an environmental prospective. Mr. Abernathy noted that the class is open until June 22nd. Mr. Mulhere stated this was true, but there are some limitations. Mark Strain questioned the boundaries of the Marisol PUD. Mr. Mulhere stated it is just outside the activity center of Immokalee Road and CR951. Page 5 - This was concerning agricultural/rural land use designation. There was a recommendation to revise the plan to define and specify the intensity standards and development controls that will be applicable to commercial and industrial uses within the ag/rural land use designation. They have modified this language to specify exactly which districts and sub-districts allow commercial and industrial uses. There was also an issue raised over the commercial node at SR29 and US41. They had proposed to create a 1 O-acre five on each side, but upon examination, they agreed with the DCA and took out the SE quadrant and limited the SW to the 2.5 acres called for in the plan. Page 7 - This concerned the TDR rate and there was an objection to the board adjusting the TDR rate without a comprehensive plan amendment. They have changed the language to require a comprehensive plan amendment if the rate is changed for TDRs. #5 - This dealt with the Coastal High Hazard Area extending to south of US41. The DCA was concerned that since it is a Receiving area, the density could be increased. The staff wasn't concerned with that because most of the area is already zoned or in development. Mr. Abernathy questioned if it was east of CR951 and it was decided the area was south of US41 and east of CR951. They have changed the designation to Neutral. #6a - The DCA had concerns over the locational restrictions on Rural Villages, on page 65 in the FLUE. They have added additional locational restrictions. They changed language that a royal village shall not be located any further than 3 miles from another Rural Village. They indicated that no more than one Rural Village may be located in each of the distinct Receiving areas depicted on the future land use map. Also, a Rural Village shall have direct access to a roadway classified as an arterial or collector. Rural Villages should be located where potable water and other sewer facilities already exist or are planned. #6b - This dealt with a greater definition of character of Rural Villages. #6c - This concerned the public facilities impact analysis in support of a Rural Village. On page 1, #2.1 of the Errata, they've amended their plan to include a statement of fiscal neutrality. They have strengthened language that the analysis has to demonstrate that the cost of providing these necessary facilities will be Neutral. Item #2.2 of the Errata stated that there would be no degradation to the adopted level of service for public facilities and infrastructure identified in the Errata. #6d - This discussed Rural Villages allowing mixed uses including residential, commercial, institutional, etc. In the FLUE on page 67, they have provided specific language to address this comment. They identified the maximum size of the neighborhood centers, the neighborhood center commercial, the village center, the village center commercial, and the research and technology part as well as civil uses and public parks (#9 in the Errata). On page 64, they recommended there be a greater definition of what the county expected to see. They have placed additional language to develop a good Rural Village concept. Page 8 - The DCA gave three options on how to handle their comments relative to Rural Villages. The staff chose the third option. Page 10 - Item #7 dealt with residential uses in the Conservation designation. The recommendation was to revise the plan to clearly specify the uses allowed in the Conservation designation consistent with the need to protect natural resources; the county should establish that publicly owned Conservation lands would have zero density. They had no problem with this and have amended the plan accordingly. Page 11 - Item #8 dealt with natural resources protection areas. The DCA's comment was to revise the amendment to include the permitted types of uses, development controls, and environmental protection standards that will apply to the natural resource protection areas irrespective of their location. They have provided for these standards under the Sending designation. They also added the appropriate language in the NRPA overlay portion (page 79 of FLUE). In the Errata on page 5, #7.4 was amended. They raised issues about lands that were designated rural/agricultural, were not in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District but were within a NRPA. They wanted the county to change and further regulate the land uses on those lands. The staff was concerned that if they followed the DCA's recommendations, they would be taking away the owner's property rights without compensation. They told the DCA they would identify these lands. Mr. Mulhere identified the "hole-in-the-donut" and the Panther Island Mitigation Bank areas on the Future Land Use map. When this is applied, the whole area will be designated Conservation. Mr. Adelstein questioned about #8 on page 11, where it stated that Sending lands will receive 80% onsite preservation with 25% requirement may be met offsite. Mr. Mulhere stated that the DCA's concern was with the identification of permitted uses 4 and also the issue of those lands that are outside NRPAs. Mr. Adelstein stated that his concern was that it seemed as though they would preserve 55% of the actual land. Bill Lorenz - Natural Resources Director Mr. Lorenz answered that they will allow the property owner to mitigate up to 25% of that requirement offsite, but they are required to mitigate at a ratio of 3 to 1 and they have to be contiguous to other Sending lands. This is policy #6 on page 25 of the CCME. Mr. Mulhere stated that was the conclusion of the DCA's objections. They also had some comments. Page 11 - There was a correction changing "Receiving lands" to "Sending lands". The DCA suggested that they needed to reexamine the organization of the plan within the ag/rural designation, under which several sub-categories exist. The staff concurs with the DCA that it needs to be reexamined, but they informed that now is not the time, but it may be more appropriate in 2004 with the required evaluation and appraisal reporting period. They also raised an issue for reexamination because some uses, for example industrial, seem inconsistent. He felt there was a misunderstanding that the ag/rural designation only applied to two existing areas. Page 12 - Item #3 stated that the plan requires greenbelts around Rural Villages, but allows golf courses in greenbelts. The DCA felt this may defeat the purpose of greenbelts and believed golf courses may be more suitable in Urban areas. Mr. Mulhere disagreed and stated that they only allow golf courses in Receiving areas, which have the least environmental value. He stated that the purpose was to not have the greenbelt be utilized for any type of vertical development. The greenbelts are proposed to be in Receiving lands and golf courses are permitted in Receiving lands. The staff saw no reason why golf courses should not be allowed. They did make two changes on page 66, they changed "greenbelts shall only be designated on Receiving lands" and that "golf course turf areas shall first be located in areas within the greenbelt that are already cleared or otherwise disturbed". Mr. Abemathy asked if there was required to be 500-foot greenbelt around the perimeter of the Rural Village. Mr. Mulhere noted the minimum is 300 feet. Mr. Abernathy questioned if there was an assurance this was going to be a cleared or disturbed area, and Mr. Mulhere said there wasn't, but there is a preservation requirement in Receiving of 40%. Mr. Abernathy was concerned about buildings place around the perimeter of the golf course, which is allowed. Mr. Mulhere noted it would be at the controlled density, which is a lower density. He stated the question was whether golf courses should be appropriate within a greenbelt. He added that the EAC and the DCA both objected. Mr. Abernathy stated he was leaning that way. Paul Midney pointed out that golf courses are not allowed in the Conservation areas in the Rural Fringe, but they are allowed in the Conservation areas in the eastern lands. Mr. Strain asked if they could compromise by saying that a golf course could not at any time get closer than 200 feet to the buffer that's a non-Receiving area, this would maintain the natural vegetation in the buffer and discourage the development of houses. Also, he suggested they take out the word "first" to alleviate a lot of the destruction of natural vegetation. Mr. Mulhere agreed. //4 - There was an inconsistency that has been corrected. #5 - They enhanced the description of Rural Village and design components. #6 - This indicated that rock-mining activities are proposed to be expanded in North Belle Meade. The concern was that with this expansion, there would be an increase in truck traffic and they recommended alternate routes for this truck traffic. Mr. Mulhere stated that the staff was not recommending any change. This issue was to be discussed later in the meeting. Page 13 - This dealt with the density bonus for additional native vegetation. It was recommended that an amount should be stated in the plan. They have removed the density bonus from the CCME and placed it in the FLUE and have calculated a scenario that should address this concern. #2 - It appeared the intent of policy 6.2.5 was to achieve no net loss of wetlands, however according to the FWC, the wetland functionality assessment method which the county intends to utilize has the potential to result in less wetland mitigation than destroyed. Mr. Abernathy suggested it state "...wetland mitigation than could be destroyed". Bill Lorenz stated that this has the potential to occur, so the county needs to look at it on an area basis. There could be cases where you have mitigation on an acreage basis that is less than is actually impacted. They suggested a change on page 32 of the CCME that states within the Rural Fringe district, any mitigation to occur should at least have an acreage per acreage basis. Lindy Adelstein said that there was a potential to lose wetlands and asked if this change would prevent that from happening. Mr. Lorenz stated that on page 32 of the CCME, the language they are suggesting would say the acreage proposed for mitigation be less than the acreage being impacted. #3 - This concerned the use of deed restrictions to protect preservation areas. Staff was recommending to remove the reference to deed restrictions and to make sure there are conservation easements that are separately platted, on page 34. Mr. Adelstein asked if Mr. Lorenz's office would track this and make sure it happened, and Mr. Lorenz agreed. //4 - This concerned the addition of road underpasses for wildlife corridors and it has been added to the CCME in policies 6.5.2 and 7.1.2. #5 - This stated it may be appropriate for the county to require federal/state agency review and approval for all listed species, wading bird rookeries, and shorebird 6 nesting areas. They do have policy 7.1.3 that requires all developments shall comply with applicable federal/state permitting, and together with all other guidelines, Mr. Lorenz felt would adequately covered the comment from the Game Commission. #6 - This comment was to ensure they have wildlife guidelines for management plans for wood storks, kestrels, and white ibis. The wood storks are listed in the multi- species recovery plan. They just received a technical report for kestrels and they can recommend the kestrel technical review document. For white ibises, there are no guidelines, but if there were technical guidelines brought forward, they would definitely recommend it to be added. Also, they have added language that mitigation for black bear habitat shall be considered in the plan, yet there are no specifics. Page 14 - This issue dealt with the public facilities element. The recommendation was to revise policy 1.5.3 to clarify its' intent regarding the provision of potable water and sewer services in Receiving areas. They recommended that those types of facilities should only be permitted in areas where the county has existing or planned infrastructure. They have modified these provisions to make it clearer. SSI - There have been revisions to policy 1.2 to clarify exactly where the provisions are applicable by name and map reference. They also clarified 1.4, which dealt with package sewage treatment plants. SS6 - There were revisions made to clarify issues in the water sub-element. Mr. Mulhere stated that they were now to changes other than those identified in the ORC, based on staff review or board direction. Page 15 - It was requested to add back to the FLUE the existing rural/industrial sub- district on the north side of US41 that was left out of the plan. There was also an issue raised about an area that was designated a secondary Sending area. Mr. Mulhere stated they did not feel there was any real development potential. The owner's recommendation was to either make the land primary Sending or return it to ag/rural. They have changed it back to ag/rural and the DCA was comfortable with that. There was an issue to modify the residential infill density bonus within the density rating system to require the utilization of TDRs for the first dwelling unit bonus and provide for administrative approval of such. The board's direction was to allow for transfer of development rights from the Sending lands into the Urban area for projects that qualify for residential infill. The size has been increased from 10 acres to 20 acres. Under the residential infill provision, projects that qualify may ask for up to three additional units from their base density. The first of the three needed to still come from the transfer process. Mr. Strain asked if there was a chance to provide incentive for workforce housing and he recommended that language to be added to link the use of the first TDR in the Urban infill area to be used for workforce housing. They suggested adding a note to the rural transition water and sewer district map stating the location of lines on the map connecting to various services are conceptual, they may change with certain circumstances. There was a suggestion to add exemption text in the FLUE and CCME to recognize rezoning contingent conditional use petitions approved prior to June 18, 2002 for projects allowed by Final Order and not allowed by these amendments. On page 68 of the FLUE, #4 there was a specific revision stating that existing uses shall include those uses for which all required permits were issued, or projects for which a conditional use or rezone petition has been approved by the county prior to June 18, 2002. There may be some comments regarding this issue later in the meeting. The next issue concerned the countywide wetland and wildlife protection policies. The board had directed some language to be removed from the transmittal package because there was some question to how the amendments were advertised, but they have corrected this problem and the standards have been put back in. Bill Lorenz noted that on page 22 of the CCME of policy 6.1.1 are the vegetation and preservation standards, and native vegetation retention standards exclude single- family dwellings. There is a 35% vegetation retention standard for golf courses outside the Rural Fringe and a 50% retention standard for industrial areas in the rural lands. On page 34, they addressed policy 2.6.4, which allows for recognition that the federal and state permitting standards will apply, except in the Immokalee wetland system. Objective 6.3 addressed submerged and marine habitats, which gave more specificity to the standards and included manatees and sea turtles. Mr. Lorenz mentioned that the interim status for south Golden Gate Estates will be removed and it will be given a permanent natural resource protection area status. In policy 6.1.6, the language was changed to state that 2.5% of a ponds area is a literal shelf. Mr. Abemathy asked what was the purpose of this requirement. Mr. Lorenz stated that without a literal shelf you would lose some habitat. Mr. Abernathy questioned why it had been reduced to 2.5% and Mr. Lorenz clarified that it is 2.5% of the pond's area rather than 10% of the shoreline. Mr. Mulhere noted that the board requested the staff to contact Dr. Nicholas and asked him to make recommendations on perhaps variable TDR rates or increase in TDRs based on location proximity or value of certain properties. Stan Litsinger - Comprehensive Planning Mr. Litsinger summarized Dr. Nicholas' letter and conversations. They had wanted to see the feasibility on having something other than a one to one TDR transfer rate' from Sending to Receiving. Dr. Nicholas came to the conclusion that there are hundreds of possible ratios or supplemental transfer programs that the board can adopt. He provided a rational supplemental transfer rate based on established land values in each section based on most recent sales and combination of tax assessments as a good common sense "what if' scenario. The result would allow for an additional 5,000 TDRs to be generated. Mr. Abernathy stated that if you double the number of units, then you would devalue the property in the Sending areas. Mr. Litsinger agreed, unless you do a corresponding increase in the potential Receiving areas. Mr. Litsinger noted that if the board implements the TDR program, it can be modified and must be reviewed every year. Mr. Abernathy asked what would happen if they took out the TDR program, and Mr. Litsinger responded they would be left with the basic regulatory structure that was designed to protect natural resources. Mr. Mulhere informed that the EAC had voted on the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan for the Rural Fringe areas. The vote failed three to two on the motion that stated the proposed changes to the transmittal subject to the following conditions: 1) golf courses not be allowed in greenbelts, 2) agricultural uses be more restricted after a property owner uses the TDR program, and 3) delete the uses of sewer lines and lift stations from Conservation Designated Lands, Sending Lands, and NRPAs. He felt the two members of the EAC who voted against the motion were due to conditions within the motion that they could not agree to, rather than a lack of support for the adoption of the amendments. Mr. Abernathy wondered if the 2nd portion of the motion was one of the conservancy's items. Mr. Mulhere stated that the primary issue was that agriculture could continue after the TDRs have been sent from Sending lands to the extent that previously existed. Bob Mulhere explained that third part of the motion was concerning that the plan allows under a conditional use for water transmission and sewer collection lines to potentially run through Conservation lands and Sending lands. Mr. Mulhere described the process of directional bore. Mr. Strain stated that they are not designed for this long of a run. He noted that water and sewer lines are always along access ways and roadways. He suggested that if they limit this to right-of-ways or access ways in Conservation lands, then they are not really disturbing any more of the Conservation lands. Mr. Mulhere felt this was an excellent suggestion. Mr. Abernathy questioned what would happen if there weren't any through roadways. Mr. Mulhere stated that the concern was not over water lines, but the damage that would be caused if there were a problem with a sewer line. Mr. Mulhere mentioned the issue on the allowance of the restriction of gas and oil exploration and extraction, restricting it to a conditional use. (There was a fifteen-minute recess) 9 Public Speakers Mr. Abernathy called the meeting in session at 10:30 A.M. He said that they would now hear the public speakers on this issue and notified them that they had five minutes, unless they were part of a group, then they could have ten minutes. John Cowan - Mr. Cowan informed that he is a major owner of land in section 24, but he is not a developer. He has been buying land in section 24 for the past 9 years with the plan to build a ranch condominium, and he now owns 100-acres. Mr. Cowan wanted his 5-acre zoning density and was assured he would have this by the planning department. The section went to the board as Receiving lands, but section 24, except for the school, was changed to Sending lands. He claimed that with this change, he has lost over $700,000 value in his property. The board had changed the designation due to the protection of lands for the Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. He has hired several companies to do studies and there has been no evidence of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers, nests, or cavities. He requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the board to change the land in section 24 to Neutral or Receiving. Mr. Strain questioned where Mr. Cowan's property was located. This was shown on the map. Mr. Strain stated his understanding was that if you don't use the TDRs you still retain the right of building 1 per 5 on that property. Mr. Mulhere explained that they can still transfer at a rate of 1 per 5; however, the right to build was changed to 1 unit per 40 acres in the Sending lands, rather than 1 per parcel. He stated that the staff had recommended that they return the land to Neutral, but the board wanted to first have a study done by the county, and if there were no evidence of woodpeckers, then they would reconsider. He stated there is a provision in the plan for any non- conforming lot that existed before the adoption date; they are permitted to have a dwelling unit, even if the lot is less than 40 acres. Don Pickworth - Attorney representing John Cowan and Tom Buckley Mr. Pickworth stated that all the property in question were in place before the cut-off date. He noted that the school board area is designated as Neutral, but it has the same habitat as the other properties is section 24. He also noted that there were 1,500 acres in North Belle Meade with similar habitat that is designated as Receiving. So, if the rationale for this is habitat, then why are they not all designated the same. Mr. Pickworth believed the TDR concept would not work on this property because they won't compensate even the purchase price, nonetheless, the value of the property. Mr. Pickworth recommended that the commission recommend to the board that section 24 be returned to Receiving land, or at least Neutral. Mr. Abernathy asked if Mr. Pickworth was alleging this was a staff-generated change rather than a board-generated change. Mr. Pickworth stated that he felt the school board had a large influence over the decision. Mr. Strain commented that at the last meeting, they did not have any problems with this section remaining Receiving lands. Mr. Mulhere noted that this was a change made by the board when they gained information on the Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. The staff still recommended to the board that the land be designated Neutral. Mr. Strain was concerned because this 10 issue had never been presented to them. Mr. Pickworth felt there was an inequity that the property owner's in section 24 have to prove the non-existence of woodpecker habitat, but others in North Belle Meade with the same habitat do not. He stated that giving the land a Neutral designation was a reasonable compromise. Frank Fry questioned whether the reason for this change by the board was due to the woodpeckers or for other reasons. Mr. Mulhere believed that the board felt there was sufficient data and public comment presented at their meeting to keep the lands as a Sending area, then go out and do a study and they would change it if it was wan'anted. Mr. Fry had trouble with a situation where an individual had gathered land under the existing rules, and then at the end, telling him he doesn't come under the new rules and regulations. Mr. Fry felt the woodpecker could share the land under the 1 residence per 5-acre designation. Mr. Mulhere added it would be with a 60% preservation rate. Mr. Strain questioned how the board "left" it as a Sending area when it left the Planning Commission as a Receiving area. Mr. Mulhere that he misspoke, they were to designate it as Sending. Mr. Strain asked if the board as aware that the Planning Commission had not approved that map with the designation of Sending for section 24. Mr. Mulhere stated that it was clear and there was significant discussion about it. Ty Agoston - Former member of the Rural Fringe Advisory Committee Mr. Agoston was concerned that the recommendation on commercial space in Rural Villages is contradictory to business sustainability. He stated he did not see a lot of protection for district 5. Mr. Agoston felt that a 10,000 sq. ft. restriction for a store would not be sufficient. Mr. Abemathy questioned what was the Rural Village retail element. Mr. Agoston read "commercial intensity should not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area". He stated that those numbers would be for a mom and pop type operation, which have prices that are twice as high. Mr. Mulhere clarified that the commercial intensity should not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area of floor areaper acre. He calculated that there would be 450,000 sq. ft. of commercial that is permitted in a Rural Village. Richard Yuvanovich - Attorney representing Wally Lewis and some property owners in the Sending area Mr. Yuvanovich was under the impression that the area would be transmitted as Urban Industrial, but staff transmitted it as Rural Industrial. He believed that the property is in a location that is more conducive to the higher tech industrial uses. He requested it to be reclassified as Urban Industrial. Mr. Strain asked if an Urban Industrial is less intensive than Rural Industrial. Mr. Yuvanovich agreed. Mr. Yuvanovich was also concerned with density blending provisions for the Sending area. He suggested they increase the project size from 80 acres to 400 acres, which will reduce the number of projects eligible for density blending. He worked with the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Collier County Audubon, and staff to come up with these and they were able to reach a consensus on what would be appropriate density blending provisions in the Sending areas. He also had some issues on the 11 conservation element in the Rural-Mixed Fringe District. He questioned why the county is becoming the primary permitting agent in this area. He pointed out goal 13 in the CCME, which states, "County shall avoid unnecessary duplication of existing regulatory programs". He read policy 13.1.3 from the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Strain pointed out policy 13.1.2 that says, "County may adopt regulations to strengthen certain programs". Mr. Yuvanovich felt there was an internal inconsistency in the Growth Management plan, but Mr. Strain felt that the Governor would not have put out his Final Order if things had been working. Mr. Yuvanovich suggested they needed to come up with a definition of unified control for density blending, stating that either you own it or have a contract to purchase it before the adoption of the changes. Mr. Mulhere stated that the staff had no objections on the density blending recommendations. Mr. Strain asked what the purpose of going from 80 acres to 400 acres. Mr. Mulhere answered that the language he was referring to was that you do not need to count restored wetlands toward your maximum preservation requirement. Mr. Yuvanovich explained that the in the ORC, there were some concerns raised over having too large of an area eligible for density blending. He felt that by increasing the requirement for project size, this would address their concern over having too many eligible projects. Mr. Strain asked if this would have any negative effects. Mr. Mulhere stated it would not. Mr. Strain asked if there were any concerns over Mr. Yuvanovich's request to change from Rural Industrial to Urban Industrial. David Weeks - Comprehensive Planning Staff Mr. Weeks stated that the Rural Industrial allows for fewer uses than the Urban Industrial, but the most intensive uses appear in both districts. The difference is that the Urban Industrial also lists some lower intensity uses. Staff had no objection to taking the missing lower intensity uses from the Urban into the Rural Industrial district. Mr. Abernathy asked why it could not be changed to Urban Industrial. Mr. Weeks stated the county is consistent with not expanding the Urban boundary. He also stated that if they changed it to Urban, they would need to provide sufficient data. Mr. Abemathy asked if Mr. Yuvanovich would be comfortable with having a rural status with engrafting. Mr. Yuvanovich said they are not satisfied. He stated that they would provide data and have provided a Red-Cockaded Woodpecker study. He stated the problem is with the preservation requirement; in the Urban area it is 15%, in the rural it is 50%. He suggested that they could live with a preservation requirement of 50% not to exceed 25% of the site. Mr. Strain stated he would not suggest moving the Urban boundary line for this project. Mr. Mulhere added that if they change this designation, they would open the door to raise a non-compliance issue. But, he believed it would be appropriate to suggest 50% not to exceed 25%. Esperaza Aunero - Ms. Aunero asked for an interpreter, and Suzette Morales provided interpretation. She was concerned with the transfer of development rights. Mr. Abernathy asked where her home was located. Ms. Aunero answered Golden Gate Estates. Mr. Schmitt said that this issue does not apply to Golden Gate Estates. Ms. Aunero did not understand the wetland definition for Golden Gate Estates. Mr. 12 Mulhere stated that the wetland policies are already in place and they fall under the jurisdiction of state and federal agencies. Mr. Schmitt stated that he would help her understand this if she came to the planning department. Suzette Morales - Ms. Morales also lives in Golden Gate Estates and had concerns over the wetland definition. She has reviewed the Governor's Final Order and it requires massive public opinion surveys. The confusion was that it does not mention TDRs. Mr. Mulhere stated that the definitions of wetland standards have not been changed by the county, and it is the state that makes the determination of wetland status. He added that TDRs do not have any impact on Golden Gate Estates. He clarified that they are excluded from the Final Order, but they are never excluded from state permitting. Ms. Morales also raised a concern over the woodpecker migration. Frank Fry stated it might be necessary for a bi-lingual informational meeting. Mr. Mulhere stated that they have had several, but they will have more. Don Lester - Director of 15,000 Coalition, Inc. Mr. Lester passed out some exhibits for the board. He represents landowners in the TDR and ROMA areas. He had printed an advertisement in the Naples Daily News. The purpose was to object to the TDRs and he believed the process is unjust and unfair. Mr. Lester stated there was no scientific data to show this was a wetland and he stated a 1994 decision, as well as a 1999 lawsuit. He pointed out that the Sending/Receiving line is along the border of primarily one owner. Mr. Lester asked why there was a rush to process the TDRs so soon after getting the ORC report. He recommended they defer any action, or take it off the table, for the 15,000-acre TDR area. Mr. Abemathy asked if Mr. Lester was a property owner in this area, and he answered that he is not, but he is invested in it. Mr. Litsinger mentioned that the county was under an extended deadline to adopt the Rural Fringe amendments by June 22nd to avoid sanctions by the Governor. Mr. Lester stated that the Final Order does not require the county to use TDRs and he questioned if they could remove the TDRs and be in compliance with the Final Order. Mr. Litsinger did not believe so. Mr. Mulhere clarified that the issue is not only whether these are wetlands, but the county has an obligation under the Final Order to protect habitat. He stated there is data analysis that fully supports everything they are recommending. John Vega - Attorney for Dr. and Mrs. Hussey The Hussey's own property west of the NRPA area in which is currently designated Sending in section 32, the southern half of section 29, and most of section 33. The Hussey's will be losing over 210 residential units in density. They have had earth- mining as a potential permitted use and they have come to terms on an earth-mining contract. Mr. Vega estimated they would experience $7-$10 million in damages over the next 30 years. He read stated that APAC is permitted to mine and expand their operation by 2,000 acres, but a competitor, Florida Rock Industries, and the Hussey's are not even provided a conditional use for earth-mining for their 1,000 acres. He suggested that they consider amending this to permit earth-mining or transfer to Neutral or Receiving lands. 13 Ernie Cox - Representing Collier Resource Company He requested that oil extraction and related processing stay as permitted use. He discussed thc state and federal permitting process. If the land is conditional use, there arc still other uses that may bc available for the land. Mr. Abcrnathy asked if they lost the conditional use, then they would have no interest in the land. Mr. Cox agreed and said they only have solely an oil and gas interest. He requested that the commission recommend that in the Conservation lands and in the Sending lands in thc Rural Fringe, oil extraction remain a permitted use. Mark Strain asked if the drilling in Conservation lands could be reached from an angle off the site of the Conservation lands. Mr. Cox noted that if the oil is underneath the Conservation lands, then it would be conditional use even if you were accessing from an area outside of those. Mr. Strain stated his objective was to keep the Conservation lands pristine, but he thought a compromise would be angled- drilling so not to disturb the Conservation lands. Mr. Cox was concerned about other detailed regulations. Mr. Strain asked about zoning issues and requirements for drilling distances from residential areas. Mr. Cox knew there were requirements, but he wasn't sure what those were. Ken Cuyler - Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson representing Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Clark Mr. Cuyler's clients own property in North Belle Meade section 13. They have had a wetland vegetation and community assessment done on their property and they were submitted for the record. He noted that they would be talking with staff to work out something with them that could be a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Mary Stamatinos - Ms. Stamatinos informed that she had delivered a letter that was to be part of the record. She has owned 5 acres in section 30 since 1956. She read her letter to the board, which expressed her concern over the expansion of the landfill. Her recommendation was to exclude sections 24, 25, 36, 31, & 30 or make these sections Neutral. Mr. Strain asked why the commission did not have a copy of her letter. Mr. Weeks stated that the staff was to present a synopsis of the correspondence they have received. Mr. Adelstein questioned why it was advertised in the paper, yet it is not presented to the commission. David Wolfley stated he at least wanted to know about all the calls, which he felt was representative of the public's opinions. Mr. Mulhere stated that they are a lot of concerns about this issue and if they have not relayed this, then they have failed. Mr. Mulhere stated that a previously owned, 5-acre track would be exempt from the provisions even though it's in the Sending area, and he would not recommend that it be convened to industrial or to designate these 5 acres as anything other than Sending. Mr. Schmitt informed that there have been hundreds of hours of public meetings over the past 2-½ years. Mr. Mulhere added that in this particular instance, the owners wanted to build a home and nothing they have done will change that. 14 (Lunch Recess at 12:45) Mr. Abemathy called the meeting in session at 1:35 P.M. The commission decided to suspend the deliberations on this topic after the public speakers are heard. Lynda Hittinger - She lives in Golden Gate Estates and is concerned about the TDR area as a citizen of Collier County. She questioned whether the infill areas are all Receiving areas. Mr. Mulhere noted the infill was all in the Urban area and Belle Meade was not infill. Ms. Hittinger believed the TDR was taking away personal property rights. She noted that the elevation of the TDR area has one of the highest elevations in the county. Karol Montalto - She stated that she is a concerned citizen and believed the animals should not have more rights than the property owners. She suggested that the environmental groups should have to present their facts rather than the property owners. Mr. Abernathy asked Mr. Mulhere to explain why the TDR program cannot be an opt-in program like the program in the eastern lands. Mr. Mulhere explained there is an obligation to do three things; 1) protect natural resources, particularly wetlands and habitats for listed species, 2) protect prime or uniquely agricultural lands, and 3) identify lands that are appropriate for another use. When there are measures to protect the lands, it will result in impacts for the property owners. Florida law requires there be some compensation, and in this plan, it is the transfer of development rights at the same rate they previously enjoyed. There is no requirement to avail themselves of the TDR program and there is no proposal that calls for any action on the part of the county to acquire these lands. Mr. Abemathy asked what if the Sending people opted for a Neutral designation. Mr. Mulhere stated that they believe a Neutral designation does not appropriately protect those lands based on data and analysis. Mr. Abernathy stated that they could take the Sending area, sell the TDR, and turn it into ag. Mr. Mulhere agreed and added that the county could not regulate this if it's consistent with the Right to Farm Act. Mr. Abemathy asked if they could opt out, but Mr. Mulhere felt this might raise an issue of non-compliance. Mr. Litsinger clarified that every parcel in the Sending area up to 40 acres is entitled to build one dwelling unit and opting into the TDR program is optional. Gary Davis - Policy Director for The Conservancy of SW Florida Mr. Davis stated that the Conservancy supported the TDR program and they felt it would require adequate compensation for property owners. They are concerned with 1) the agricultural use being continued in the Sending areas after the selling of TDR rights, 2) the lack of incentives for Rural Villages in Receiving lands, 3) the greenbelts being golf courses, 4) lift stations for sewage in Conservation areas, and 5) NRPAs not having conservation status. Paul Midney asked if they could do "cookie 15 cutter" golf communities and consider them Rural Villages. Mr. Mulhere stated no, Rural Villages are required to have open roads in a gridded pattern with no gating, and they are required to cluster. Mr. Midney wanted to ensure there be no sewage leaks into the wetlands. Mr. Strain suggested making it along right-of-ways or making them conditional uses. Mr. Midney thought the right-of-way was a good idea. Brad Cornell - Collier County Audubon Society Mr. Comell expressed the Audubon's support for the general policy direction of these amendments. He distributed a memo that highlighted the Audubon's concems and he read this to the commission. They were concerned with allowing ag to continue after TDRs are sold, and he suggested only allowing passive ag uses. There was a concern over wetland policies and the need to better buffer natural reservation wetlands. He suggested they 1) keep the minimum 300-foot open space preservation buffer, and 2) add a prescriptive minimum setback distance, for water control structures only. Mr. Cornell also recommended adding a policy regarding wildlife protection requiring permits, letters, and approvals from outside agencies before the county issue any permits. He recommended that the commission support the compromise that was reached on section 24. He justified that Collier County needed to take control of protecting their natural resources. Mr. Strain asked for an explanation of the minimum setback distance for water control structures. Mr. Lorenz explained that the current requirement when determining whether it will have an adverse effect on the environment goes through a mathematical analysis to calculate the hydraulic gradient. They will adjust and compensate the setback distance based on this hydraulic gradient. Mr. Strain asked if there would be a simpler way to have this assurance without a set distance. Mr. Comell stated that they want to have something in addition to the mathematics to assure there was appropriate protection and he felt a minimum setback distance was reasonable. Mr. Wolfley questioned with the results of all these studies, how do we which studies are valid. Mr. Lorenz stated that the board had sufficient data to transmit these amendments and it was valid enough for the state to accept. Mr. Mulhere stated that there could be a case of dueling experts for section 24 and the board would have to decide what they felt was valid. Tim Hancock - Vanasse Daylor representing property owners in SBMA NRPA and Area D Mr. Hancock was representing property owners in sections 1, 12, 13, 24, and 25. His primary concern was thc protection of property values for residents in these sections. Hc was concerned that if they are going to require comprehensive plan amendments for someone to recoup the value of thc land, they needed to attach two conditions; 1) a specific amendment cycle be designated no more than 6 months from adoption for that purpose, and 2) all application and review fccs be waived. He also addressed thc 0-1 mile corridor. H6 stated that area has higher property values and hc suggested that 2.5 units per acm bc returned to that area. Hc recommended that staff take no more than 90 days to set up the TDR program. 16 Mr. Adelstein asked if the land is valued at $9,200/acre in the 0-1 mile corridor, then once TDRs are sold, the land is useless. Mr. Hancock agreed. Mr. Adelstein questioned if to be able to live on and enjoy this property, it was only worth $500/acre. Mr. Hancock agreed. Mr. Mulhere said this was correct in the Sending area. Mr. Hancock's second item was to represent a primary property owner in Area D, a Receiving area. He stated that he created the concept of Rural Village and this cannot be accomplished on 300 acres or 1,500 acres. The representative from the Conservancy indicated that if there's no market for the TDRs, then the program fails because you must compensate the Sending property owners. He asked for help to create a market with Rural Village incentives. He recommended that the acreage come up to 3,500 acres specifically in Area D, and he stated without large Rural Villages, there wouldn't be large land purchases. Mr. Hancock also asked about language on pages 54 & 55 that required golf courses to purchase TDRs. Marjorie Student answered that she would contact Ms. Lanan. Mr. Hancock was also concerned that on page 67, it stated that the school site be located within the village center, and he wanted to make sure this didn't take away from the village center acreage. Mr. Litsinger clarified that Dr. Nicholas' letter stated that a 1 to 1 TDR program would be successful in Collier County. Bruce Anderson & Robert Duane - Representing Intervener's East Naples Land Company Mr. Anderson addressed the issue raised by the DCA regarding truck traffic. He stated that the routing of trucks has been approved by his client, the county, the Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Wildlife Federation, and the Collier County Audubon Society. Mr. Anderson stated that people would retain underlying ownership even after they have sold off the development rights. He suggested that they consider giving 1.5 or 2 units per acre if they deed the land to a government agency or a non-profit environmental protection agency. Mr. Abemathy asked what percent of the Receiving lands are in his clients' lands. Mr. Anderson stated that it was about 70-75% owned by his client. Mr. Strain noted that there is only one way for the trucks to leave the quarry to go to CR951 via Golden Gate Blvd. He asked if they were going to put in a haul road that would relieve the traffic from Golden Gate Blvd. Mr. Anderson stated that it is in the Comprehensive Plan, but he is not sure if it will be permitted. Mr. Fry questioned how the property tax situation would change on a piece of property where the people have sold their rights. Mr. Litsinger stated that it is speculative and he assumed the property appraiser would make an adjustment for that factor. Mr. Fry stated that the county could potentially lose property tax income. Milly Haylock - Ms. Haylock stated she lives in section 25 and was there representing friends and family from sections 30, 31, 34, 24, and 25. She stated it 17 was unfair to punish them for having land that is underdeveloped. Ms. Haylock requested that sections 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, and 34 be removed. Mr. Abernathy asked how she was being punished since she has a house on 5 acres. She stated that if all the other lots without houses have no value, then her house would be devalued. Mr. Strain asked if she saw an advantage for a home to be surrounded by a preserve. She stated not if there was no value. Mr. Strain stated that she might be in a better situation than she realizes. Mr. Litsinger restated that nowhere will there be acquisition of the land by the county and all parcels up to 40 acres will be allowed to build one dwelling unit. Mr. Abernathy stated that he was concerned that private people were trying to send misinformation so they can buy this land cheaply. Mr. Schmitt agreed. Nancy Payton - Florida Wildlife Federation Ms. Payton had several concerns; 1) that lift stations were permitted use in Sending, NRPA and Conservation areas, and suggested they not be allowed in Conservation lands and be conditional use in Sending lands, 2) that the density blending in South Belle Meade has been defined as Sending lands instead of NRPA Sending lands, 3) for the CCME wetland policy 6.2.8, she requested the same policies and consideration be given to wildlife, 4) she suggested that oil and mineral extraction remain conditional use and felt the angle drilling was a middle ground, and 5) that section 24 should remain a Sending area and she felt the data supported this. Ms. Payton also displayed an aerial map of the Belle Meade area and pointed out that the Receiving lands and Sending lands have distinctly different coverage. Mr. Adelstein questioned whether the study was to determine the area is a woodpecker habitat or a potential woodpecker habitat. Mr. Lorenz answered that it was looking for potential habitat. Mr. Adelstein clarified that as long as it has potential, then it would remain as Sending lands. Mr. Lorenz stated yes, depending on the quality, location, concentration, etc. Ms. Payton discussed an issue over a fishpond in the area and read a letter from the USFWS, which expressed the need for the county to have an overall strategy in the plan to protect Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern that only the residents on section 24 have to prove their worthiness to be Receiving. Mr. Fry commented that the Audubon Society and Wildlife Federation were protecting the habitats and future habitats of animals, but what about the habitat of the residents whom they are taking away the rights. Tom Doty - Mr. Doty asked where he could get a copy of the information defining this as a wetland. He also had a problem with Mr. Anderson because he felt that the Receiving status would be of financial benefit to only 2 or 3 major property owners. Mr. Lorenz stated that much of the information is on the website or at the Planning Department. Mr. Abemathy closed the public heating at 3:20 P.M. Mr. Strain stated that he had many questions and suggested to the commission to finish deliberations tomorrow. Ms. Student stated that this was a special act so it would require 5 votes in favor for it 18 to pass. Marjorie clarified that if it failed, this would go to the board as a lack of recommendation for approval. Mr. Strain made a motion to continue to tomorrow, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Abernathy stated it would continue until 8:30 A.M. on June 7th. MORATORIUM ORDINANCE Mr. Strain stated that he must abstain from voting and interacting from this issue. Norman Feeder - Transportation Administrator Mr. Feeder gave an overview of an interim segment control moratorium for three segments in Collier County. There were six segments identified, three of which were decided to have the capacity to recapture by modifying the segments. The other three have been requested to be part of the moratorium, which are Vanderbilt Beach Rd. west of US41, US41 between Pine Ridge Rd. and Creech Rd., and Davis Blvd. from Radio Rd. to CR951. They are proposing that development that directly accesses any of the three segments or any development that is on an adjacent link be under this moratorium. There were some exemptions to this, for example single-family homes, items of public safety and health, development that has gone through the permitting process, etc. Mr. Abernathy noted they are on pages 8 & 9 of the ordinance. Mr. Adelstein pointed out under requested action, it should read "Davis Blvd, from Radio Rd. to CR951". Ms. Student had an issue with the Jan. 10, 1989 and her recommendation was to write "prior to the adoption date of the ordinance". Mr. Feeder stated that all single-family homes are exempt even if they are immediately adjacent or adjacent contiguous and he didn't feel a date was needed. Ms. Student noted that language needed to be added in subparagraph 5 of the exemptions that stated "for which no waiver and release has been executed pursuant to section 3.15.7 of this code". Russell Budd questioned if this issue was under a timeline. Mr. Feeder stated that they discovered the need to amend the Growth Management Plan before they could change the Land Development Code. Mr. Abemathy questioned if they were aware portions of this were in the city of Naples, and Mr. Feeder responded that they knew and those portions in the city were excluded. Mr. Abemathy questioned whether Mr. Yuvanovich's PUD would be grandfathered. Mr. Schmitt stated that it has already been approved which is covered in the exemptions. Marjorie Student had concern over some of the language of the exemptions in the ordinance. Mr. Abernathy questioned the accident data. Mr. Budd asked if this goes through, how could they get out of moratorium. Mr. Feeder stated they needed to make modifications to the Growth Management Plan and LDC and he assured this was interim. Ms. Student stated this was a planning-type moratorium, which would be in effect until they complete the comp plan amendments and implementing land development regulations. Mr. Litsinger stated that these would be adopted sometime in September or October. 19 David Wolfley asked if there had been discussions with the city on this issue, and Mr. Feeder assured that he had several meetings with members from the city. Mr. Wolfley questioned what criteria was used to do the traffic studies, and Mr. Feeder answered they used a middle-level analysis. Donald Scott - Transportation Planning Mr. Scott stated these were based on statewide standards and all the segments are currently considered LOSF. Mr. Wolfley stated that he did not feel US41 qualified as LOSF. Mr. Wolfley suggested that they consider reducing the speed limit to 40 mph on US41 rather than issuing a moratorium. Mr. Feeder stated that this would have no effect on the traffic. Mr. Abernathy asked what could be done to bring US41 out of a moratorium. Mr. Feeder stated they could establish better connections to alternate routes which would pull some traffic off of US41, and he mentioned Livingston Road as one of these alternatives. Mr. Midney asked if it was less expensive and disruptive to limit development than it is to expand across crowded roads. Mr. Feeder felt there needed to be a balance between the two. Public Speakers Ron Talone - David Plummer and Associates Mr. Talone mentioned that the proposed moratorium ordinance is designed to be a temporary measure until another solution can be implemented. Mr. Talone recommended that the county identify low to moderate cost interim improvements to provide short-term relief for those problem segments. Mr. Adelstein asked what he would propose. Mr. Talone proposed dual left turn lanes, an additional third lane, etc. Mr. Feeder said that there are improvements that can be made and he restated that this is a planning moratorium, not a concurrency moratorium and there will be a definite end. Ms. Student added that the reasons the segments have problems is due to an increase in accidents. Mr. Wolfley asked why they didn't have the developers do the improvements and he felt the private sector has shown to do a better, quicker.~ob. Mr. Feeder stated that he agreed that he wanted to move things along and if a situation comes along that's appropriate, they will try to capitalize on it. Rich Yuvanovich Mr. Yuvanovich had questions on the intent of the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Feeder said there were going to be some modifications to make the language more clear. There were some examples discussed to make the ordinance clearer. Mr. Abernathy asked whether the ordinance the commission had was going to be the same given to the board. Mr. Feeder said yes, but there still may be a few modifications. Mr. Yuvanovich suggested that they pick an ordinance and stop tinkering with it. Mr. Yuvanovich summarized exemptions #5 and #26. He felt they conflicted with each other and suggested the staff delete #5 and live with #26. Mr. Schmitt proposed a ten-minute break to sort out some of these issues. (There was ten-minute recess) 20 Mr. Schmitt stated that there are a couple different versions of the ordinance. Ms. Student discussed the language for exemption #5 and #26 and read the most recent changes of the ordinance into the record. Mr. Abemathy asked what changed in #5. Mr. Schmitt stated that they were basically just trying to draw the line in the sand to define what plans would be acceptable and vested. Mr. Litsinger read verbatim from e-mail that will become the official position relative to administration of Land Development Code 3.15. This pertained to the issuance of certificates of public facility adequacy, or COA. Mr. Schmitt added that this was a policy that was still evolving. Mr. Yuvanovich stated that he didn't understand what the moratorium does and doesn't do and asked what he should tell his client. Mr. Schmitt answered that if there is a work in progress within the building and it's under review and an application has been submitted and deemed sufficient, with an approved site development plan, that you can come in to get your insurance policy to pay an impact fee for that facility and you will be issued a COA. There was some discussion over impact fees and waivers and the process one must follow. Mr. Yuvanovich said there were a lot of inconsistencies with the ordinance and requested that this issue be continued until everyone has a final version. Tom Conrecode Mr. Conrecode stated that he had problems with the same issues. He felt that Davis Blvd. was the most qualified for the moratorium, but felt it was irresponsible to place it under moratorium without having identified interim and long-term fixes. He recommended that the road remain a constrained facility. He urged the commission to not declare Vanderbilt Beach Rd. under the moratorium. He requested there be additional analysis done on US41 and to not declare it under the moratorium. Mr. Wolfley asked if the stoplights had ever been retimed. Mr. Feeder answered that timing had been done and a computerized signal system will be coming in 6 months for some roads. Mr. Fry asked what were they anticipating to be built on Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Mr. Feeder stated that there are other issues involving attaching other roads and this is the segment they are hearing the most problems about. Mr. Adelstein stated that he understood the need for a moratorium, but he didn't want to vote on something that may change. Ms. Student said there was a problem with exemptions #5 and #26, and once that was straightened out, then what the commission votes on will be what is sent to BCC. Mr. Abernathy asked when this would become a building moratorium. Ms. Student stated that the planning moratorium was only in place to allow time to come up with new development standards. Ms. Student viewed this as a planning moratorium with public, health, safety welfare issues. Mr. Schmitt stated that all projects that have been approved or are already in process would continue. Mr. Abernathy asked when they could be given a clean ordinance, and Ms. Student responded tomorrow afternoon. There was discussion as to how to handle issues tomorrow. Mr. Budd suggested they pick up the Rural Fringe, handle the concurrency and finally the moratorium. Mr. Fry suggested that they finish hearing the public speakers. 21 Reed Jarvi - Vanasse Daylor Mr. Jarvi suggested that an arterial level analysis be done specifically on US41, which he felt was better than a moratorium. He distributed an exhibit for Vanderbilt Beach Rd. and discussed the traffic count findings. He suggested that the count is a localized count for the area of the shopping center. Mr. Jarvi stated the numbers they have found fall well below the Level of Service standard E. He felt there were portions of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. that should not be included. Don Pickworth Mr. Pickworth had a concern over exemption #6 on page 9 regarding DRIs. He read this exemption. He felt if the intent was to provide a DRI exemption, then he suggested this needed to say, "any development or project that is a development or project described in subsection 163.3167(8) of the Florida statutes. Ms. Student stated that the intent was that if the DRI had already taken care of their transportation impacts, they would be vested, but if it were in phases, then it would not be vested. David Ellis - Collier Building Industry Association Mr. Ellis felt that a moratorium was the most extreme planning practice. He stated it would have a lot of ramifications. Mr. Ellis asked why not let the concurrency system work as it was planned to work. He suggested that they take some more time to take a look at the checkbook issue. Rob Palmer - RPA Group, Inc. representing CBIA Mr. Palmer was concerned that this would introduce a 1% threshold term or precedent that will continue on, and perhaps enter on the checkbook concurrency system. He suggested that this moratorium and the checkbook accounting system ought to be done together. Bruce Anderson - Mr. Anderson wanted a clarification of#26. He asked if a person has applied for or received subdivision approval or a plat approval, but has signed a waiver and release, were they exempt or not. Ms. Student said she would clarify this with Ms. Lanan. He also felt this was moving through very hastily. Al Zichella - CBIA Mr. Zichella urged the commission to consider the checkbook issue until June 20th. He questioned why there was a need for a moratorium when these roads have always been constrained. Mr. Abernathy suggested that the schedule for tomorrow should be the Rural Fringe, the moratorium, and then the concurrency. Mr. Wolfley agreed that the checkbook issue was moving a little too quickly. Mr. Strain stated he would summarize his notes for tomorrow. Mr. Strain made a motion to continue until June 7th at 8:30 A.M., Mr. Abernathy seconded. Motion carried. This meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 22 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSI(~., AUTHORITY. OR CO~MI'FrEE t THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON ~,ST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME ~AILING ADDRESS :ITY COUNTY ~ATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: [3 CITY ~It~COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION IS: OTHER LOCAL AGENCY n ELECTIVE ¢_ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. · to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and ' WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this formwith the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A'I-rEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating, You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one} inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or I// inured to the special gain or loss of ~)o~ ~' ~(~. ~ ~" o ~'~'~ '~ is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST , hereby disclose that on , which Date Filed ~i~na/ure NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES {}112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 - PAGE 2