Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/20/2002 RJune 20,2002 Collier County Planning Commission Health and Community Services Building H, Room 216 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES June 20, 2002 ATTENDANCE Members: Chairman Kenneth Abernathy Russell A. Budd Mark Strain David Wolfley Frank Fry Lora Jean Young Lindy Adelstein Staff: Marjorie Student - Assistant County Attorney, Stan Litsinger - Comprehensive Planning Manager, Ray Bellows - Planning Services, Fred Reischl - Planning Services, Steve Lenberger - Planning Services, Greg Garcia - Transportation Department, Tom Palmer - Assistant County Attorney, Norman Feeder - Transportation Administrator, Joe Schmitt - Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator, Don Scott Others: Ken Cuyler, Pamela Stewart, Mark Von Spitzock, Robert Duane, Janet Lee Atkinson, Diane Wykart, Gary Davis, Ed Carlson, Tad Bartareau, Brad Cornell, William Labriski, Bill Cox, Jerry Neal, Michael Fernandez, Vincent Cautero, Bruce Anderson, Mitch Hutchcraft, Todd Olson, Tim Durham, Bob Mulhere, Reed Jarvi, David Wilkison, Dr. Samuel Durso, Mary Ann Durso, Dominique Reese, David Ellis, Rob Palmer, Jeff Perry, Steve Leung, Ross Mclntosh, David Hart, David Graham, Ron Weaver CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002, IN BU1LDI~G 'H' - HEALTH & PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING - TRAINING ROOM 216, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNT~ COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON W+IICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA - LDC AMENDMENTS - MAY 8, 2002 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 16, 2002 and MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES - DWIGHT RICHARDSON 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MAY 28, 2002 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A VA-2001-AR-1747 Pamela Stewart, Esquire, representing Mark Von Spitzock, requesting a 5-foot variance from the required rear yard setback of 10 feet to 5 feet for accessory structures for property located at 1249 Pompei Lane, further described as Lot 12, Block H, Sorrento Gardens Unit 3, Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) VA-2002-AR-2035, Kenneth D. Goodman, Esquire, of Goodman & Breen, requesting a 25-foot variance from the required 75-foot front yard setback to 50 feet for 20 Lots in the Shady Hollow Trust Subdivision, which is located in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, further described as Lots 1-20, Shady Hollow Trust, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) 10. 11. 12. 13. C. PUDZ-2001-AR-1464, Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Robert C. Malt, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Estuary Bay, for 236 multi-family units and 79 affordable housing units for a maximum of 315 multi-family units, for property located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (S.R. 95 I), 2 miles south of the intersection of US 41 and Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951), in Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier CoUnty, Florida, consisting of 78.7:t: acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) D. PUDZ-2001-AR=1553, Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, representing Relleurn, Inc. and Granite Development 11, L.C., requesting a rezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Balmoral PUD for a maximum of 296 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of future Livingston Road and north of Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 59.2± acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Ho RZ-2001-AR-1143, James G. O'Gara, President, Marquett~ Development Corporation, , representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd., requesting a rezone from "RSF-3" to '~,SF-5" for single-family housing for property located on the corner of 20~ Place S.W. and 51't Street S.W., Golden Gate City, Block 168, in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) RZ-2001-AR-1934, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Wilkison & Associates, Inc., representing Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida - Community Development Corporation, requesting a rezone from C-4 and C-5 to RMF-6 for affordable housing and from RMF-6 to C-4, located northeast of the intersection of East Eustis Avenue and South First Street in Immokalee in Section 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.255:t: acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) CU-2001-AR-1912, R.. Bruce Anderson, of Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson, P.A2, and Margaret Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., representing Bonita Bay Group, Inc., requesting Conditional Use "17" of the "A" zoning district for golf courses for property located on the south side of h~imokalee Road, approximately four miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 950, in Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) DOA-2002-AR-2208, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc., representing Parklands Development, LP, requesting an amendment to the Parklands DRI for the purpose of extending the commencement date for one year (from March 11, 2002 to March 11, 2003) for property located on the east side of the furore Logan Boulevard extension and approximately 2 miles north of Immokalee Road, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) Petition St-99-3 Coastal Engineering Representing Keystone Homes Requesting A Special Treatment Permit To Allow Construction Of Residential Single Family Lots, Streets And Associated Infrastructure On A Portion Of The Property With A Special Treatment (St) Overlay (St Parcel 23a) Located Within The Proposed Little Palm Island Subdivision In Section 2.3, Toxsmship 4jg. Soutl~ Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinators: Barb Burgeson & Fred KZ-2002-AR-2487, Vincent A. Cautero, AICP, of Wilkison & Associates, representing The Gilbros Company, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "RSF-5" for an affordable housing subdivision located on the west side of Greenway Road, approximately 1 mile north of U.S. 41 and approximately 3 ½ miles east °f Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 26.4± acres. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) (Continued from 6/10/02 meeting) OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ADJOURN 2 II. III. IV. Ve VI. VII. VIII. June 20,2002 Chairmen Kenneth Abernathy called meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dispensed due to lack of flag. ROLL CALL Mr. Abernathy called the roll of the Planning Commission. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA - LDC AMENDMENTS - MAY 8, 2002 Mr. Abernathy stated that the Concurrency Growth Management amendments would be placed on item 12 of the agenda. Mr. Litsinger stated that there was some urgency since this was a transmittal hearing. They needed to transmit these and get them in the review process before the board goes on summer break. If they can, he suggested they try to hear this and make a recommendation today because the board cannot submit to the DCA without having the Planning Commission's recommendation. The commission decided that they would be able to finish this issue by the end of the week, if not by today. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MAY 16, 2002 AND APRIL 18, 2002 Lora Jean Young moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Dwight Richardson and Paul Midney were absent from today's meeting. BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MAY 28, 2002 There were no reports to give at this time. Ray Bellows noted that there were four petitions on the agenda that were going to be continued. Item 8B, VA-2002-AR-2035 was requested by staff to be continued to July 18th} item 8C, PUDZ-2001-AR-1464 was pulled by the county attorney and Joe Schmitt due to improper advertising for affordable housing; item 8E, was continued due to improper advertising and was continued to July 18th; and item 81, was requested to be continued by staff to July 18th. Ken Cuyler, attorney for item 8C, asked if they would hold off their motion until they can talk to the county attorney. CHAIRAMAN'S REPORT There was no Chairman's Report at this time. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae VA-2001-AR-1747 Mr. Abernathy disclosed that he spoke to Ms. Stewart, but they did not address any of the issues. Mr. Abemathy swore in 3 persons for this hearing. Fred Reischl stated that the applicant was requesting a variance from the required rear yard setback of 10 feet to 5 feet for a pool enclosure in RSF-4. He was ameliorated by 2 Be Ce June 20, 2002 the fact that the house was originally constructed further back than the required 25- foot front yard setback. Staff recommended that they grant the variance. Mr. Strain asked why they were asking for the 5 feet. Mr. Reischl explained that the 10-foot line falls on the edge of the pool, so there would be no access to that side of the pool for maintenance or safety precautions. Pamela Stewart - Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Von Spitzock Ms. Stewart stated that the Von Spitzock's put in the pool and spa as a recommendation from their doctor for physical therapy. Aquatic Architects were under the impression after speaking with county staff that the screen could be setback 5 feet, but when they submitted the plans to the county, the screen enclosure was rejected. The Von Spitzock's had sought a variance immediately, but they were under time constraints to have the pool built. The property owner wrote a certified letter to everyone within 150 feet from the home. They received approval from all the homeowner's and renters within 150 feet except for two, one who was in a nursing home and one said that she never signs petitions. Ms. Stewart stated that they needed the enclosure to ensure safety of the children and teens in the neighborhood. Mr. Adelstein questioned how far the screen would be from the edge of the property line, and Ms. Stewart answered it was exactly 5 feet. Mr. Strain questioned if they had properly advertised, Mr. Reischl stated they had changed the location on the sign and staff was comfortable with the advertising. Mark Von Spitzock - Property owner Mr. Von Spitzock stated that the pool has been very helpful in assisting the ailments of he and his wife. He added his main concern was the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Mr. Abernathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Wolfley stated that he had been concerned with the five adjacent property owners, but since they were all informed and seemed to have no problems, he was not concerned. Mr. Strain agreed. Mr. Strain moved to approve VA-2001-AR- 1747, the variance request for the 5-foot setback, Mr. Adelstein seconded. Passed unanimously. VA-2002-AR-2035 This item was continued to July 18, 2002. PUDZ-2001-AR-1464 Ray Bellows noted that they have discussed this issue with the county attorney, and if the applicant drops the affordable housing component as part of the petition, then it could be heard today. Ken Cuyler stated that they would eliminate all matters related to affordable housing and they would not bring it back at a later date. 3 June 20,2002 Russell Budd moved to continue item B (VA-2002-AR-2035), item E (RZ- 2001-AR-1143), and item I (PETITION ST-99-3) to July 18th, Mr. Wolfley seconded. Passed unanimously. Mrs. Young disclosed that she spoke with Nicole from the Conservancy. Mr. Wolfley disclosed that he had a telephone call with Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Duane. Mr. Fry stated that Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Duane had called him, but he had declined to speak to them, as well as Mr. Adelstein. Mr. Strain stated that he would abstain from voting and discussion on this item because it was directly across the street from a project he was a part of. There was some discussion as to whether he could participate. Marjorie Student advised that he not speak on this issue based on the recommendation of an expert in the county attorney's office. Mr. Strain was in agreement with his abstention. Mr. Abemathy swore in 11 persons for this hearing. Mr. Bellows explained that the applicant was requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural to PUD for 236 multi-family units. The property is surrounded by a preserve. The intent was to allow taller buildings rather than spreading out shorter buildings that would cause a greater impact to the environment. The maximum density in this area would be 3 units per acre, which is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommended approval consistent with 3 units per acre. Staff conducted compatibility analysis and the project is near other projects that allow 100-foot towers. Staff was in approval of the two 100-foot towers since it would minimize environmental impacts. Mr. Bellows added that they have received letters of opposition from residents and the Conservancy expressing concern over the heights of the buildings and the environmental impacts. The EAC recommended unanimously to deny this petition because of the impacts it would have on the environment. Staff was recommending that this petition be forwarded to BCC with a recommendation for approval subject to the environmental stipulations placed on the project by staff. Mr. Fry noted that there were some requests that the developer would not agree to and he asked what those were. Mr. Bellows explained that applicant has not agreed to complete prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first structure: 1) provide a sidewalk from the project to Collier Blvd., 2) pave Shell Island Road the width of the property, 3) improve alignment of Shell Island Road and Collier Blvd., and 4) construct a right turn lane on Collier Blvd. and Shell Island Road. Mr. Adelstein questioned how there was an opportunity to approve this project when the EAC had denied it. Mr. Bellows felt that the added stipulations gave assurance that it would be environmentally sound. Mrs. Young questioned why they were going over the EAC recommendation to not change a very environmentally sensitive area to residential use. Mr. Abernathy stated that in determining the appropriateness of the 1 O-story buildings, the staff had looked at PUDs on the surrounds. He questioned if someone had made a mistake in the past by allowing a PUD, why should that be the predicate for further mistakes. Mr. June 20,2002 Abemathy questioned what was permitted in this zoning district. Mr. Bellows stated that it was zoned agricultural so they were only permitted single-family residential, but they wanted to rezone to RMF 6, which was consistent with the GMP. Mr. Abernathy questioned what were the footprints of the buildings and he believed it would at least be 7,500 square feet. Mrs. Young questioned why they were allowing 100-foot tall buildings when there were no comparable heights in that area. Mr. Bellows explained that there was no maximum height requirement by the county. Mr. Fry questioned if the county was anticipating further growth in this area. Mr. Bellows did not believe so. Steve Lenberger - Planning Services He stated that they were recommending the two 1 O-story towers so to minimize the environmental impacts as much as they could. He added that the impacts were only to about 5 acres out of 79 acres. Mrs. Young asked what were there reasons for not disapproving this petition. Mr. Lenberger stated that they could not minimize the impacts any further. Mrs. Young stated that they were increasing the use of residential in a wetland area, why were they allowing this growth. Mr. Fry asked why couldn't they just say no and he wasn't sure if these towers were appropriate in this area. Mrs. Young added that it was located directly next to Briggs Sanctuary. Ms. Student stated that the Comp. Plan had this designated in the urban area, not conservation. So, the zoning and development orders need to be consistent with the Comp. Plan. She added that this parcel was not subject to the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Mr. Wolfley asked what was the water flow in the wetlands of this property. Mr. Lenberger believed that the flow was tidal but it was being restricted by the railroad bed. Mr. Bellows stated that they have the right to ask for a rezone and if they deny it immediately, than it would be a taking. He stated they were obligated to make recommendations based on the Comp. Plan. He added that many projects have impacts on the wetlands and staff tries to mitigate these. In this case, they would be improving the tidal flow by removing the railroad bed. Mr. Fry felt the developer also wanted to build tall buildings because the land was so low and it would be more expensive to build low buildings in this area. Ken Cuyler - Attorney representing Robert Malt Mr. Cuyler stated that the property owner had the right to have a beneficial use of his property and staff found this petition to be consistent with the Comp. Plan. Mr. Cuyler said they were proposing these heights because they wanted to protect the environment the best they could and he added that they are preserving 95% of the land. Mr. Malt has owned this property for 30 years and he has the constitutional right to develop it consistent with county regulations. He stated that the EAC denied the petition prior to obtaining the water permit SFWMD, which they now have. Mr. Cuyler stated that Mr. Malt has made every effort to give the property to the state, but the state could not come up with enough money to purchase at fair June 20,2002 market value. He felt that people not liking the project was not a legal criteria for denial. He added there was no tidal flow on the property, only sheet flow. Robert Duane - Attorney representing Robert Malt Mr. Duane described the project. He restated that the majority of the land was to be placed in conservation easement. He added that they were meeting the water quality standards for Florida and they were going to provide 50% more treatment than normal. Mr. Abernathy questioned the size of the footprint of this building. Mr. Duane answered that the building footprint was 1.8 acres, with the entire project taking up 4.6 acres. He added that the plan was environmentally driven and there was no unacceptable net loss of wetlands. The plan was also in accordance with policies 6.2.1.3 and 6.2.10 of Coastal Zone Management element. He noted there was no offsite mitigation required for this project since they would be removing the railroad bed and adding culverts to Shell Island Rd. He stated they would also have water quality monitoring stations in place. The analyses of the transportation impacts were deemed not to be significant. Mr. Duane stated that there would only be a 0.7 % cumulative impact on all the estuarine wetlands present in the basin. Mr. Duane addressed the requests that they disagreed with in the staff report. They believed relocating Shell Island Rd. would not improve traffic circulation and would have further environmental impacts. They are planning to pave Shell Island Rd. 200 feet up to the entrance, but they would pave the balance if it were what Rookery Bay would like. He stated there currently was a right turn lane to their property and they would need to impact the mangroves in order to provide a right turn land onto Shell Island Rd. and they didn't feel it was necessary. Lastly, the construction of a sidewalk would be a sidewalk to nowhere. Greg Garcia - Transportation Department Mr. Garcia stated that they are required by the LDC to provide a sidewalk or to use the money to mitigate for sidewalks in other areas. He stated they were also looking for a right turn lane to be provided on existing Shell Island Rd. He felt the developer could address this. Also, they were looking to determine if a right turn lane on Collier Blvd. was necessary so that traffic has the opportunity to access in a safe manner. (There was a 15-minute break.) Public Speakers Janet Lee Atkinson - Ms. Atkinson is a resident of Isles of Capri. She didn't want to deprive anyone of their property rights, but she felt if they made all the zoning decisions on the precedent that it could be worse, this was not a good rationale. She mentioned the amount of animals she has seen killed on 951 since the traffic has increased, which would only get worse with this development. Ms. Atkinson's main concern was finding solace in nature. 6 June 20, 2002 Diane Wykart - She has been an unpaid volunteer at Briggs Nature Center for 13 years. She mentioned the number of listed species and other wildlife that she has seen in this area. She also felt it was inappropriate to accept the survey submitted by the applicant since it was conducted on one particular day back in 1997 during a drought. Ms. Wykart requested that the CCPC not rezone this project and to encourage preservation rather than destruction of a place most valuable for its wildness. Gary Davis - Environmental Policy Director of the Conservancy Mr. Davis submitted written comments to the commission. He stated he would focus on specific reasons key to the LDC and Comp. Plan. He noted that the EAC not only voted to deny this project 7-0, but one member stated it was "unquestionably the most damaging to the environment that I've ever seen". Mr. Davis felt that the compatibility analysis was somewhat suspect since property to the west and south is conservation and the property to the north is agricultural and conservation. He displayed a picture from the viewing platform at Briggs Nature Center looking towards the Malt property, and then he displayed a simulation of this scene once the towers had been built. He felt this showed the project was inconsistent with the land uses in the area. Mr. Davis discussed policies in the Comp. Plan where he felt this would be cause to deny the project. He stated that they do not discuss the treatment of chemicals in the permit. Also, the monitoring of the water the developer was planning to do was only during the duration of construction. He added that the Comp. Plan stated that no untreated point source discharge shall be permitted directly to the estuarine system or rivers or canals that flow into this system and they should meet the no impact standard. He stated that the LDC requires an environmental impact statement, and he felt they did not submit an objective EIS. Policy 12.2.8 of the Growth Management Plan discusses hurricane preparedness, but he felt the county paying for public facilities for people to live in the coastal high hazard area would violate this policy. In the CCME, policy 6.8.1 states that the county shall protect natural reservations from impact of surrounding development. Mr. Davis and the Conservancy supported state ownership of this property and they were willing to assist with this. He felt that by dropping the affordable housing units so easily this showed that they were concerned about selling it for a higher price. Finally, Mr. Davis requested the CCPC to deny this petition. Mr. Adelstein asked if he was aware of any asking prices for the property. Mr. Davis stated that he heard $400,000 was a figure, but there was a big difference in price for an appraisal based on agricultural property and one that was high density residential. He added that if it gets this rezone, then it would substantiate an increase in the value of the property, which may be beyond what the state was willing to pay. Mr. Wolfley questioned what was the purpose of Shell Island Rd. because it seemed to impact the water flow. Ed Carlson believed the pioneers had constructed the road. Mr. Wolfley questioned if they could put relief under the road. June 20, 2002 Tad Bartareau - Environmental Specialist, Rookery Bay Preserve Mr. Bartarean answered that they were in the process of putting a permeable surface on the road and they replace the road culverts when necessary. He added that the road was originally constructed to source shell material from a shell mound. Mr. Bartareau handed out a memorandum discussing comments that Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve had concerning the project, as well as specific Growth Management Plan policies that were inconsistent with the staff recommendations. He noted that Mike Shirley did not note any of the elevations on the submitted EIS. Also, he noted that they are planning to remove exotics, but he felt there needed to be language for perpetual maintenance in order to meet conditions of SFWMD. Mr. Bartareau listed many policies from the Growth Management Plan that were not met by this project. These included policies 2.4.1(p. 6), 6.8.1(p. 19), 12.1.2(p. 34), 2.2.2(p. 5), and 2.3.1(p. 5). He also noted Exhibit A (p.2, para. 4), Exhibit B (p. 1, para. 5), Exhibit B (p. 3, para. 14), and EAC (p. 6, sec. 6) from the Staff Report. He read the memorandum in its entirety. He concluded that Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve recommended disapproval of this project on the basis of the doubtful/incomplete applicant PUD information, CCGMP inconsistency, and doubtful Staff Report. Mr. Abernathy questioned if the head of Rookery Bay was in agreement with these recommendations, and Mr. Bartareau agreed. He asked if the reserve was national, as in US government. Mr. Bartareau answered that he was employed through the state, but a portion of their operating budget and research support comes from national sources. Mr. Bartareau added that there are only 27 estuarine reserves in the nation. Brad Cornel! - Mr. Abernathy swore in Mr. Cornell. Mr. Cornell agreed that this was an inappropriate area for an intense residential development. He stated that the state and county do not have adequate staff for proper water quality monitoring. He felt there was also an incompatibility problem with the necessary and prescribed burnings near this site. He urged the county to not recommend rezoning. William Labriski - Mr. Labriski was a volunteer at Briggs Nature Center and he felt if they allowed development west of 951, this would lead to more. Ed Carlson - Audubon Florida, National Audubon, Executive Director of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Mr. Carlson stated how important this land was and has been to the county for many years. He noted that the Malt property has been on their agenda for many years, but there has never been any movement in negotiations with the state. He questioned why the DEP has not been successful in negotiating this property when 8 June 20,2002 they have been very successful in other land acquisitions in the area. He was insulted that they would propose to build in this area. Mr. Abernathy asked why Mr. Carlson felt the EAC denied this project. He stated that the only upland in this property was manmade and was being used as a basis for development. He also noted the poorly done survey, lack of water permit at the time, and the incompatibility of this type of development with the character of that area. Mr. Abernathy questioned if he knew the elevation of this land. Mr. Bartareau answered that he believed it was around ½ - foot above mean-high sea level and stated that if the railway bed wasn't there, it could be tidally influenced. Mr. Wolfley questioned why they didn't add more culverts to adjust for this. Mr. Bartareau added that this was currently in the management plan. Mr. Adelstein asked if the state was really negotiating to buy this land. Mr. Carlson confirmed that the state had been in negotiation with Mr. Malt. Bill Cox- Vice President/Ecologist, KLECE, Inc. Mr. Cox stated, in regards to the claims of an inadequate survey, that there were 4 different consultants who conducted studies at 4 different times of the year and they have all shown similar results. He noted that they did not have tidal flow in that area. He felt the reason for the EAC denial was because they believed it was outstanding Florida waters, tidal flow, an aquatic preserve, which it is not; they did not have a SFWMD permit, which they now have; and they only had the one study, which they now have several. He added that they are only required to set aside 25% of the land, but they are setting aside 95%. Jerry Neal - Hole Montes, Inc. Mr. Neal rebutted some of the previous comments. He stated that they had in fact talked to Mike Shirley and he gave them an estimation of the water level, but they have since put in gauges and have proper records. They are going to add extra large culverts to maintain the sheet flow. He discussed techniques they were doing to increase water quality and he added there was going to be no parking on the roof to minimize runoff. He noted there were going to have xeriscaping around the grounds so they would be no need for pesticides and fertilizer. Mr. Neal stated they had a manifold system that had been approved by the state to disperse the point discharge. He added that all the site elevations had been shot by a survey crew. Robert Duane made some comments to the Conservancy's handout. He noted that the Conservancy suggested that this plan was not compatible in the urban coastal fringe, but he suggested that because the density was reduced in the urban coastal fringe, then the plan was in accordance. He noted that to the comments made regarding policy 12. 2. 8, the public facilities were all in place. He added that the DEP had been notified through their water permit application. Also, for policy 12.1.2, they are not asking for an amendment, but a zoning application. Ken Cuyler commented that according to Burt Harris, if the benefit is for the public's rights, then the property owner needed to be compensated. He noted that they were planning to put culverts under Shell Island Rd. He stated that this was June 20,2002 not high density residential, as was inferred earlier. Also, he felt it was not the property owner's fault if the state and county did not want to pay residential prices. He suggested the commission look at the law to make their recommendation and there was nothing there to deny this petition. Mr. Abernathy closed the public hearing. Russell Budd moved to forward this petition, PUDZ-2001-AR-1464, with a recommendation for denial, Mrs. Young seconded. Mr. Fry stated that he was for private property rights, but he did not feel this project was compatible with the surrounding area. He noted that he admired what the developer has done to make the plan environmentally driven, but he felt there would still be runoff which they could not prevent. He was also concerned at how easily the 79 affordable housing units were given up. Mr. Adelstein believed there was an obligation to properly pay, and if they weren't able to do this, than he should be able to develop his land as he desires. He found it offensive and thought it could create situations with lawsuits. Mr. Fry stated that it was not their function to get involved with negotiations, but he felt that as it stands by itself, this was not a good development. Mr. Wolfley stated that he agreed with Mr. Adelstein and he added that this was a rezone, not a PUD approval process. Mr. Abernathy stated that it was a rezone to PUD. Mr. Budd added that he agrees with property rights, but he did not feel they should enhance his abilities to use this property. He believed that it was incompatible with the other land uses. Mr. Abernathy stated that there were 17 elements to consider, but he felt one was the most influential in his decision. This was whether the change suggested was out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. The motion carried 4 for, 2 against and 1 abstention, with Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Adelstein voting against, and Mr. Strain abstaining from voting. (There was a 1 -hour lunch recess at 11:45 A.M.) PUDZ-2001-AR-1553 Mark Strain noted that the EAC had not heard this project since it had been increased from 39 acres to 59 acres, with double the density. Mr. Bellows felt that an EAC recommendation was important, but not a perquisite. Michael Fernandez stated that this was two separate issues which were reviewed concurrently by the EAC. He added that by aggregating the two projects, they were able to lessen the environmental impacts while keeping the same stipulations. Marjorie Student stated that she would need to consult the code. Upon doing so, Ms. Student felt this could put a flaw in the process to proceed without an EAC recommendation. Mr. Abernathy and the commission decided to move ahead to item F until this gets resolved. 10 June 20,2002 RZ-2001-AR-1143 Thisitemwascontinuedto July 18,2002. RZ-2001-AR-1934 Mr. Abernathy swore in 3 persons for this hearing. Mr. Reischl stated that this was a request for a straight rezone in Immokalee, a majority to RMF6 and ½ acre to commercial. He displayed the plans on the map. He stated that it was being fast-tracked and would be going to the BCC on the following Tuesday. He stated that this was consistent with the Growth Management Plan and there was no opposition to this at the meeting or with phone calls. Staff recommended approval for this petition. Mr. Adelstein asked how many homes were being planned. Mr. Reischl stated that there was no master plan needed for a straight rezone, but there would be a plot coming in later. Mr. Strain mentioned that it was fast-tracked for affordable housing, and he questioned where was the agreement or grant application. Vince Cautero - representing Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida Mr. Cautero answered that if a project was affordable housing that the application would be fast-tracked and placed on the next available agenda. They are the contract purchaser of the property from the Housing Authority, so staff was comfortable with the request for the fast-track application. Mr. Strain questioned the necessity of zoning it C4 for an office building when they could just provide the SIC code that pertains to the use they want to make it. Mr. Reischl answered that staff was comfortable with this because the majority of the parcel is currently C4 and C5. Mr. Cautero added that the number of units was not part of the application, but he did not estimate it would be more than 30 lots. Mr. Abernathy said that his past concern was over single-family homes located next to a dormitory for single migrant workers. Mr. Cautero assured that they would work with as much buffering as they could. He did not believe Empowerment Alliance had future plans to get into the commercial business. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Strain moved to approve petition RZ-2001-AR-1934, Mr. Budd seconded. Passed unanimously. CU-2001-AR-1912 Mr. Strain disclosed that he had said something to Bruce Anderson in the hallway. Mr. Wolfley stated that his company does business with Bonita Bay Group. Mr. Abernathy swore in 7 persons for this hearing. Ray Bellows explained that this petition was requesting conditional use for two 18-holed golf courses. The proposed ingress and egress would be from Immokalee Road with a 60-foot easement. The project was vested from the restrictions of the 11 June 20,2002 final order. The project was shown to not have a significant impact on any county roads. They conducted a compatibility analysis and there were existing golf courses in the area. The concern the public addressed was storm water management, but he assured there would not be a detriment to the drainage in the area. Mr. Abernathy asked if these were just golf courses rather than communities, and Mr. Bellows agreed. Bruce Anderson - Attorney representing Bonita Bay Group, Inc. Mr. Anderson stated that there were several lawsuits filed along the approval process. Those have all been taken care of, including one where the federal court ruled in their favor on every issue. They have rezoned this back from a PUD to Ag which permits 1 residential unit per 5 acres with golf accessory use. He added the EAC unanimously recommended approval. He corrected Environmental Stipulation #4 on p.7 of the EAC Staff report to say "applicable guidelines". Mr. Adelstein questioned whom this was marketed to. Mitch Hutchcraft - Bonita Bay Group, Inc. Mr. Hutchcraft stated that they have not identified the ultimate market, but he added that it would be possible to sell membership or to sell to a third party. Public Speakers Todd Olsen - Mr. Olsen lives in the "hole-in-the-donut". He restated that a large number of people were concerned with the water flow. He said that he has never received any of the information that he had requested. He found in a SFWMD document that there would be 3 million gallons per hour of water flowing under Immokalee Road. He also noted they were not renotified of the meeting date and that the sign did not state the room change for the meeting. Mr. Strain asked if water currently flowed under Immokalee Road. Mr. Olsen stated that it only does in extreme wet years and they have received flooding when this occurs. He added it would be creating a regional flow way. Mr. Hutchcraft stated that the intent was for a wildlife underpass, not to create a regional flow way. Mr. Strain asked if this would allow wildlife but prohibit water. Mr. Hutchcrafi stated that the majority of the water is to be diverted by the Immokalee Road canal. Mr. Strain asked if they would be willing to raise the elevation so to prohibit water. Tim Durham - Wilson Miller, Inc. Mr. Durham was sworn in. Mr. Durham restated that the primary purpose was for wildlife, but they originally thought there may be some benefit to move water through to rehydrate the wetlands south of Immokalee Road. Mr. Strain stated that they could stipulate to say this be above the weir elevation to the extent the SFWMD regulates it differently. Mr. Durham said that was his understanding. Mr. Bellows stated that during the permitting process, they took adequate measurements to make sure that no flooding occurs on the property. Mr. Abernathy closed the public hearing. 12 June 20,2002 Russell Budd motioned to forward petition CU-2001-AR-1912 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval with the additional stipulation that the wildlife passage at Immokalee Road be installed at an elevation to minimize water flow and subject to SFWMD, Mr. Wolfley seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Bellows noted the additional language requested by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Abernathy amended the motion to include the language. DOA-2002-AR-2208 Mr. Abernathy swore in 4 persons for this hearing. Mr. Bellows stated that this petition was requesting an amendment to allow a 1-year extension for the commencement date of the project to give them time to complete plans to provide access to the project. Mr. Adelstein suggested they add that there be no further extensions. Je Bob Mulhere - RWA, Inc. Mr. Mulhere stated that they could make the recommendation, but this would not prevent the petitioner from asking again. He explained the reasons for the several extensions since they were waiting for some other projects to begin. He noted that some of the problems were that they had to coordinate with both Lee and Collier Counties. He said that they have applied for the 1-year extension because they were committed to finish within a year. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Budd motioned to recommend approval of petition DOA-2002-AR-2208 to the board, Mr. Wolfley seconded. Mr. Adelstein restated that he wanted to add a stipulation that there be no more extensions. Mr. Budd stated that by issuing a 1-year extension, then they have achieved this since the petitioner would need to come back before the commission. Passed unanimously. PETITION ST-99-3 This item was continued to July 18, 2002. RZ-2002-AR-2487 Mr. Strain disclosed that he had spoken with 2 neighbors from the area, Dan and Gary, on the phone. Mr. Abemathy swore in 8 persons for this hearing. Mr. Reischl recapped that this was a request for a rezone from agricultural to RMF5 for an affordable housing subdivision with a density cap at 3. He noted this was a straight rezone and they were not approving a site plan. He stated that this would include utilities hookups for potential customers. Tom Palmer - Assistant County Attorney Mr. Palmer stated that the ordinance makes no distinction between force main and other types of sewer collectors. He stated in the event they are required to hook up for sewer service, they are required to pay those fees, as well as the water fees. 13 June 20, 2002 Vinee Cautero Mr. Cautero distributed a memorandum dated June 19, 2002 to address questions by the CCPC. The first issue regarded connection to sewer and water. They have estimated the cost to hook up to sewer and water would be about $6,000 per unit and the developer was willing to pay for the connections for the people who would be impacted, which was approximately 24 homes. Mr. Cautero stated that the owner intends to sell or donate this land. They have recommended language to be added: a) 79 single family homes, b) maximum house size of 1,100 square feet, c) buyers of homes must be low, very low, or very, very low income to be in accordance with the LDC, and d) the developer may apply for an affordable housing density bonus at a later date. He added that this land being in the urban area was consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Reed Jarvi, P.E. - Vanesse Daylor Mr. Jarvi conducted a traffic impact analysis and concluded that there would be no significant adverse affects to county roads. Mr. Strain questioned how they could make the road safer since they were doubling the impact to the road. Mr. Jarvi stated that was more likely to be done at the zoning level, but he stated that if there were drainage problems, then by addressing those they would address the erosion problems. He was not sure if that would need to be handled by this project or by the county. Mr. Abernathy stated that they had testimony that this road floods. Mr. Jarvi believed it was a county road, and he added if there was a flooding problem, this would destroy the road. Mr. Strain stated that if there was a problem, then he did not want to contribute to make it worse without finding a solution. David Wilkison - Project Engineer He stated that they would meet the discharge requirements set forth by county ordinance. He believed it was a county maintained ditch. He added that this was more properly addressed at preliminary subdivision plat stage. Mr. Strain expressed concern over approving when they had questions about the capacity. Mr. Reischl noted that this was a straight rezone without a master plan and he added the district would not issue a permit if it didn't meet SFWMD requirements. There was a brief discussion regarding the culverts and canal for US41. Dr. Samuel Durso - Habitat for Humanity Dr. Durso assured that if there was a necessity to address the drainage then they would do so. He added that if the county approved this zoning for 3 units per acre and limit it to 1,100 square feet and require the developer to pay the hookup fees, then Habitat would intervene and become the developer of this property. Norman Feeder - Transportation Administrator Mr. Feeder was sworn in for the hearing. He stated that Greenway Road was part of a system of unapproved roadways that was on the Collier system. He noted there would be a project to put 40 additional culverts along US41. Mr. Feeder assured that if it was a county roadway, they would work to correct any problems, including clearing the silt from the ditches. 14 June 20, 2002 Public Speakers Dan Howard - Manager of Sagenta Seeds on Greenway Road Mr. Howard had a petition from residents in the area. He felt the meeting was not properly advertised. He stated the major concern was the traffic issue and the impact this project would have. Along with this, they were concerned about the lack of sidewalks in the area. He stated that the residents there wanted the rural setting to remain in place. Mr. Wolfley noted that the homes in Naples manor have increased in value 23% since Habitat has built there. Mr. Howard stated that the consensus of the community was that they did not want a development there. Ms. Student stated that the meeting did not require advertising for this meeting since it was continued from June 10, 2002. Mary Ann Durso - Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity Mrs. Durso stated that there was no place for the people that work in these service jobs to live. She noted that Mr. Howard does not live near the project and he would not be affected. Mr. Abernathy closed the public hearing. Dr. Durso assured that they would not develop this for at least 2 years, and by that time the drainage problem could be solved. He also restated that they were willing to pay the $6,000 fee. Mr. Strain asked about paying for sewer and water tie-ins. Dr. Durso said with restrictions for the 24 homeowners and a $6,000 cap. Mr. Strain questioned about the traffic and sidewalks issue. Mr. Fry did not feel it was fair to make demands on this other than what they require in normal situations. Mr. Adelstein agreed that it was not their responsibility. Dr. Durso stated that they are not willing to provide a sidewalk along Greenway Road. Mr. Fry stated that road safety was a problem of the county not the developer, except what they are required to do under existing ordinances. Mr. Schmitt stressed that this was a zoning request and the commission needed to focus on the rezoning issue. Ms. Student added that if they change the conditions in the rezone petition, then they would have to come back before the commission and the board. Mr. Budd moved to forward petition RZ-2002-AR-2487 with a recommendation for approval with stipulations that the 24 existing homes within 200 feet would have impacted water and sewer connection fees paid by developer up to a $6,000 maximum, there would be a 2-year delay for development, and the restrictions a, b, c, and d listed on p.2 of the June 19, 2002 memorandum. Mr. Wolfley and Mrs. Young seconded. Mr. Strain felt it was not abnormal to ask for some form of road safety. Mr. Cautero assured that they would work with the transportation department to solve these problems. Mr. Schmitt added that would also try to work with members of the community. 15 June 20, 2002 De The motion carried 7-0. Passed unanimously. (There was a 15-minute break at 3:35 P.M.) PUDZ-2001-AR-1553 (continued from earlier in the meeting) Marjorie Student stated that they were ready to proceed without having gone to the EAC with the new EIS. Steve Lenberger stated that there was a section of the code involving a waiver of the EAC hearing requirement, Section 5.13.6. He believed this situation would qualify for the waiver and he added that there was actually a larger portion of wetlands preserved in this new plan. Mr. Abernathy swore in 1 person (as well as 4 persons previously sworn in). Mr. Bellows described that they were requesting that 296 units be rezoned from Ag to residential. Staff recommended the project with the stipulation that it be limited to 4 units per acre and dwelling units be limited to 236. Transportation asked to approve contingent on the language in the staff report that the secondary access point be from the proposed Green Blvd. extension a minimum of 500 feet east of Livingston Rd and a minimum of 660 feet west of the parcels eastern property line. Mr. Feeder stated another issue was that even with the second access, how do they get an increase bonus with a gated community. He noted they would have to build an access to connect as a local road without county involvement, not an arterial or collector. He stated there was a requirement to develop a master plan. Mr. Adelstein noted that this would not change the density. Mr. Feeder responded that if they got access to two or more collector/arterial roads, then that allows you to try to encourage interconnection to get a bonus in density. However, he was not sure how this would apply to a gated community, and also, Whipporwill was not being developed to a collector/arterial. There was some questions raised about crossing the flow way. Mr. Fernandez stated that Whipporwill would not be extended to their project, but if they no longer needed the 40-foot right-of-way, then they would not need the 5th unit of density. Mr. Bellows noted to focus on if the right-of-way was not required to Whipporwill, then it would not be necessary for them to apply for the density bonus. Mr. Feeder stated he hasn't fully looked at this issue, but his understanding was that the right-of-way was not needed. Michael Fernandez - Planning Development representing applicant Mr. Fernandez restated that if the right-of-way was not required, then there would drop the request for the additional unit. He stated that there were limited wetlands, with 2 acres in the preserve and only .8 acres outside. They are keeping 25% vegetation requirement. Mr. Fernandez answered some questions regarding the site plan layout. Mr. Strain asked about the 10-foot wall. Mr. Fernandez stated that this would be used for a noise barrier with landscaping along the outside. Mr. Strain asked about the curb and garage setbacks. Mr. Fernandez stated that this was only if there was 16 IX. Xe XI. XII. June 20, 2002 a multi-family application. Mr. Strain questioned the 8-10 foot elevation starting point. Mr. Fernandez explained that this was potentially true and they raised the elevation for flood precautions and to possibly put cars underneath. Mr. Strain suggested that the language "recreational structures" be removed since it could be invasive. Mr. Fernandez said that was fine. Dominique Reese - Attorney representing applicant Ms. Reese stated that they would want it to be part of the motion concerning the 40-foot fight-of-way, and if it was not required, then it would be released. Ms. Student stated that they didn't have the authority to vote on or stipulate settlement agreements for imminent domain. Ms. Reese stated that they would take it up with the board. Mr. Abemathy closed the public hearing. Mr. Strain motioned to recommend approval for PUDZ-2001-AR-1553 as recommended by staff the 236 units with the correction to the PUD striking recreational structures from the preserve area and amending the PUD the proposed substitute for item #9, subsection 5.7, p. 27-29, Mr. Budd seconded. Passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business at this time. NEW BUSINESS There was no New Business at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS There were no public comments at this time. DISCUSSION OF THE ADDENDA - Moratorium Concurrency Stan Litsinger noted this was a continuation of the hearing from June 6, 2002 on concurrency management. The commission gave direction to staff to go forward to change the steps that they approach the way they manage public facilities and the concurrency management system to implement a real-time, or checkbook concurrency system, specifically for transportation. He stated this was the enabling legislation for more details to be developed over the summer, with final adoption in the fall. Mr. Strain was concerned that since there was time crunch for this issue, this would be their final shot for review of this issue. Mr. Litsinger assured that if they transmitted toady, they would be able to review. Mr. Litsinger discussed the basic changes to the CIE. On page 2, they eliminated government buildings and dependent fire districts, as well as all CAT-C. On page 3, they changed the threshold level of impact at rezone level from 5% BEBRUF to 1%. Mr. Strain questioned how this would impact growth rate. Mr. Feeder noted that they would not allow greater growth at LOS-D, and then they would use the BEBRUF middle range of growth projection. On page 4, policy 1.1.3, for traffic impact, the 17 June 20, 2002 threshold being 1% of the minimum level of service peak hour of impacted roadways was the proposed new standard. Mr. Strain noted there was some added language and questioned why they did not do at the PUD approval level. Mr. Feeder stated that he would like to do that, but they were too far beyond that. Ms Student answered that every PUD has a provision that was subject to the adequate level of facilities ordinance, or concurrency, which means they know when they get their PUD that they are subject to that. Mr. Feeder added that they were trying to build in assurances on things that they can deliver. On pages 5-7, policy 1.1.6 was the guts of the entire public facilities standards that was consistent with the transportation element. Mr. Strain questioned why they had "peak season" in the language. Mr. Feeder noted that they took out the two peak months from the analysis so that they would have a system that worked well for 1 O-months of the year. Mr. Abemathy changed the word "discounted" to "omitted". Mr. Litsinger added that they needed to define LOS of "peak hour". On page 7, Mr. Strain felt it would take longer to permit the landfill than they projected they had, so maybe they should address that now. Mr. Litsinger noted there had been a decision to take a look at alternatives outside of the county, next year. On page 11, Mr. Strain questioned policy 1.2.1. Mr. Litsinger answered that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the available revenues source was the general funds revenues and this was how they would balance to be consistent. Mr. Strain noted that in policy 1.2.9, the maximum ratio was at 13% and asked if they should consider changing this. Mr. Litsinger responded that that statement was based on debt ratios and they had to adopt a ceiling, which they are nowhere near now. On page 13, Mr. Litsinger said that policy 1.3.3 was not required by the GMP so staff recommended this be deleted. There was some discussion whether it would be detrimental to leave this in, but Mr. Abernathy felt this was a decision for the BCC. On page 14, they were more precise in defining local development in regards to capital facilities program in policy 1.4.3. On page 15, the parks and recs element was no longer required for policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 and policy 1.5.3 was given a more real- time approach. Mr. Feeder noted that the BCC wanted real-time concurrency management. Mr. Strain questioned if Mr. Feeder had reviewed Mr. Ellis' recommendations. Mr. Feeder had but felt that the 3-2-1 suggestion was not a real commitment to the real-time approach. Mr. Abernathy agreed. On page 17, they added an objective for the concurrency management regulatory system for traffic in policy 5.4. There was some discussion about the issue of 1% significant impact, but Mr. Feeder stated that this was only at the time of adequate public facilities certification and rather than waiting until they were out of capacity, they needed to start slowing down. Mr. Feeder agreed to strike the word "significant". Mr. Wolfley questioned about the real-time concept. Mr. Schmitt stated that it would not be going through at the PUD approval and it would be no longer politicized into the execution phase. Mr. Feeder added that they still have to define the process so they can have a planning tool. He noted that it would no longer be an annual balancing, rather like an annual audit. Mr. Wolfley asked if they already had approvals, would the real-time effect this and would it slow because the road can't be 18 June 20, 2002 built. Mr. Feeder stated that if there were not adequate public facilities, then the project would be stopped, but once they have received approval, they could not stop. On page 26, Mr. Strain noted that there were not to start construction for repairs on Davis Blvd. for right-of-ways until 2005. Mr. Feeder stated that they were going to the advance design phase and this was for interim relief. Ms. Student clarified that the moratorium was not concurrency, but was a planning and health and safety moratorium and would be in place until it was amended. On page 47, Mr. Litsinger stated this was to identify projects to demonstrate at the policy level that it was economically feasible. On page 49, this was required by the 9J5 rule. Mr. Strain questioned what was left to plan for with all the restrictions. Mr. Litsinger responded that they were required to take into consideration anything that would impact public facilities. Mr. Litsinger mentioned that they needed to modify policies 2.2 and 2.3 of the Future Land Use Element for consistency. On page 79, Mr. Feeder restated the rewording of the transportation element. On page 80, there was some revised wording and they have expanded the definition of constrained to be any facility that is over 100% or already constrained relative to its maximum lane standard. Mr. Wolfley stated that they currently maintained the traffic counts once per year, but Mr. Feeder stated they do counts more often and the audits were once per year. He noted that there would be four sections that would be potentially de minimus if applied today. (Mr. Adelstein left a 6:10 P.M.) On page 78, Mr. Strain noted how they got the traffic counts and asked if that was what they currently did. Mr. Feeder agreed, but he said that it needed to be refined because it had some deficiencies. Mr. Strain asked if someone was working on going through records to determine the capacities that have been pledged. Mr. Feeder commented that they were currently bankrupt, so they would set up the checkbook and start from there. He added that Mr. Schmitt was going through the old PUDs, but it would take some time. Mr. Strain questioned how they knew the market could not handle all the projects. Mr. Feeder stated that he knew that they would not have adequate public facilities. On page 82, it stated that US41 was LOS-E from 951 to Old 41. Mr. Strain asked if this was correct, and Mr. Feeder said that it was. Mr. Strain questioned about the deletion of Vanderbilt Road from constrained status. Mr. Feeder stated that was because this would be up to the BCC. On page 86, Mr. Strain noted that it was added a grade separated overpass at Airport Pulling Rd. and Golden Gate Parkway, and he questioned if it needed to be in the GMP. Mr. Feeder felt this was necessary to show the importance and backing of this project. Mr. Abernathy noted that this was a statement of fact and did not bind them to the project. Public Speakers David Ellis - CBIA Mr. Ellis distributed handouts to the commission with comments on the concurrency. Mr. Ellis felt they needed to figure out a better way to doing the concurrency and there needed to be certainty within the system. He felt the Comp. Plan wasn't meant for 19 June 20, 2002 these levels of specificity. He suggested a phasing in of the new system and described how this system would work. He made suggestions so not to significantly disrupt the economic base of Collier County. Mr. Ellis wanted to make sure they would take into account parallel roads. He felt that there needed to be a system that encouraged the construction of roads. Mr. Budd was concerned about the short period of time and questioned if they were in a position where they had to do something tonight. Mr. Schmitt stated that they didn't want to place them under pressure and they could adjust the schedule accordingly. Mr. Wolfley stated that some of the info provided by CBIA was very valid. Mr. Feeder stated they would have to agree to disagree on the phasing issue. Mr. Abernathy noted that the BCC did not want to phase in. Mr. Schmitt stated that they recognize the support from the public. Rob Palmer - PRPA Group representing CBIA Mr. Palmer was concerned about the lack of product delivery. Mr. Palmer described the project timetable that he distributed. He felt the current plan had too much detail. He believed a phased in system would be a more logical approach. Jeff Perry - Wilson Miller Mr. Perry stated the new system was a dramatic departure from the current system. There were three major differences; it was real-time, there was zero tolerance, and there was a rationing component. Mr. Perry didn't feel the rationing component was necessary with the real-time. He also believed that phasing in was more appropriate. Mr. Strain asked if someone had taken into consideration to determine if they would have shutdowns and moratoriums. Mr. Perry stated that they would only account for any certificate of adequacy that was outstanding that was not issued a building permit. Mr. Perry added that the concurrency would be first come first serve and he was also concerned about the funding. Steve Leung - David Plummer & Associates Mr. Leung supported the suggestions by the previous speakers. He felt that fimding would be a problem. He suggested that they consider it on a quarter basis, rather than link to link. Ross McIntosh - Representing Sentax Homes Mr. Mclntosh was not opposed to phasing out of the current system, but he felt there should be a one-year transition period. He discussed the 8 tools on page 16 of the CIE that they could use and he suggested they consider this language. David Hart - WCI Mr. Hart said many of the complaints were that the county was moving too quickly on this issue. He believed this should be phased in to avoid economic impacts. He felt that this may move the development further from the urban core, which was what the county did not want to happen. He discussed 5 of the tools from the CIE on page 16. He stated these would give flexibility to the development industry and the county. 20 June 20,2002 David Graham Mr. Graham felt that staff didn't have enough time. He was also concerned about pushing the growth outward. He urged the commission and staff to consider the changes proposed by CBIA. Mr. Strain stated that there was a fear factor that the impact would shut everything down. He asked if they would consider not putting this into play until further analysis had been done. Mr. Graham thought this was a great idea. Mr. Abernathy questioned if there was more merit to phasing in order to achieve a soft landing, but he felt with all the added suggestions, they may be watering down the strength of the proposal. Mr. Graham urged the commission to take more time to look at this. Reed Jarvi - Vanesse Daylor Mr. Jarvi felt they were moving too fast since all the data was not yet available. He also believed the proposal was too specific. He was concerned that the significant factor of 1% and he stated that the precision of their engineering analysis was not within 1%. He had concern over the "rock concert lineup" on day one. He suggested that they look at some of the alternatives. Ron Weaver Mr. Weaver stated that the law required due process to warn the public. He suggested that they take the time to propose this fight and to find where they have legal vulnerabilities. Mr. Feeder stated that actual traffic counts were being accounted for. He agreed that a link system would work better. In regards to the 1% standard, he felt that 3% might be a better option. He added that would continue to work on this proposal and they would take some of these suggestions into consideration. Mr. Abernathy questioned if they could have a soft landing without the suggested tools. Mr. Feeder wasn't sure if they could have a soft landing. Mr. Schmitt stated that this was a difficult decision, but they needed to just do the best they could as far as a recommendation. Mr. Feeder noted they would like to have had more time and they were also concerned about the "rock concert lineup". Mr. Fry stated that at some point if they keep developing, they would have to say no. Mr. Feeder stated that was what they were trying to do and he noted that people have the right to develop, but they it was necessarily their right to develop when they want. He asked why roads were treated differently than other utilities. Mr. Strain felt they were missing data needed to make a recommendation. Mr. Schmitt noted that they could make a decision and attach a proviso. There was some discussion about how and when this data would be available. Mr. Litsinger noted that what was proposed by CBIA was very similar to what they already had in place, which was what had failed. Mr. Strain stated that he sympathized with the phasing in process, would like to neutralize to the 3% of significant impact, and stress "give us the data". Mr. Fry asked if it was possible to recommend to the board the basic components of this proposal with the caveat that they haven't had time to study this and they had sympathy for some of the suggestions made. 21 XIII. June 20,2002 Mr. Feeder pointed out that #3 of policy 1.5.3 contained much of the language as proposed by CBIA. Mr. Strain agreed. Mr. Strain suggested changing language to "improvements are within 1 year of completion before the impacts for the developer". Mr. Feeder stated that this could be an option. Mr. Strain motioned to forward this with a recommendation for approval to the BCC with the following conditions: the language of peak season, significant being removed, threshold changed from 1% to 3%, discounted, the process be phased over 2 years, method of phasing be decided by staff, and improvements are within 1 year of completion in policy 1.5.3. Mr. Wolfley seconded. Mrs. Young agreed with the plan but felt the motion should be stricter. The motion carried 5 for and 1 against, with Mrs. Young voting against the motion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:30 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION KENNETH ABERNATHY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., BY AMBER M. FREDERIKSEN, RPR. 22 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMrI'rEE AST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME AILING ADDRESS ~ COUN~ ,ATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY O~I COMMi I I ~-E ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ~""COUNTY n OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION IS: n ELECTIVE ~ APPOIN'FIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B Yhis 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 3n 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 ~, 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 kno;vingly 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, lather-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 form with 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 ATTEMPT 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) _ PAGE I 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. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~'~"~ t'~C.- ~, .~ .~ , hereby disclose that on ~ ' ~ (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 ~.__,~ Inured to the special gain or loss of ~ ~ I L,~,J~ (~,~J ,Y,x(3.s ~"o,,'~ ~ V~u~"~. 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: , by which Date Filed Signatur~ 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