Agenda 04/12/2011 Item # 8C
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CP-2008-5, Petition requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and
Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire
Master Plan to include: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable
residential density; elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation
for the Immokalee Regional Airport sitc; and, redesignation of approximately 103 acres to
Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, staff requests
amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element
to show the redesignation of the 103 acres to the Immokalce Urban Area. (Adoption
Hearing).
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County Commissioners (BeC) review staffs findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) and the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) regarding the above referenced petition
and render a decision regarding the amendment petition; and ensure the proposed plan is in
harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) intends to implement the Immokalee
community's vision, as approved by the lmmokalee Area Master Plan and Visioning Committee
(IMPVC), by promoting economic development and efficient delivery of services through
greater density and intensity that encourage dense, clustered development along major
thoroughfares that transition to lower densities; incorporating smart growth principles; and by
providing greater developmcnt llcxibility through mixed-usc Subdistricts. The revised
Immokalee Future Land Use map provides integrity to the geographic region.
In general, the amendment to the lAMP e1cment of the GroMh Management Plan (GMP)
proposes eight new goals, each with respective objectives and policies; followed by the revised
Land Use Designation Description Section which includes and describes the proposed land use
designations that will guide patterns of development within the lmmokalee urban area and
further the proposed goals through standards set rOlih within such land used designations, and
the types of allowed land uses that could be requested.
---
Additionally, per request of the Bec at transmittal hearing of this amendment petition, the Plan
allows density and intensity blending for propeliies contiguous to Lake Trafford/Camp Kcais
Strand and whieh straddle the lmmokalee Urban area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay (RLSA). The Board's decision to re-include this language after the cepc had
recommended exclusion from the Plan during transmittal hearings, was in response to a request
from a public speaker representing a client that owns lands that could potentially benefit from
this provision. Therefore, the Bec requested the publ ic speaker to provide staff data and analysis
that would assess the impact of such provision on the RLSA program with the intention that,
Page 1 of6
Packet Page -651-
4/12/2011 Item S.C.
during adoption hearings, the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) and the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) would provide the BCC a reeommendation of the merits of such
provisions based on the supplied data and analysis. (See attached data and analysis provided by
Wilson Miller Stantec Inc.)
Based on the submitted data and analysis to address the effect that the shifting of density and
intensity may have on the overall development in the RLSA. and which was submitted after the
EAC meeting, staff eoncludes that the potential increase in units at build-out that the density
blending provisions would yield a minimal effect (1.65 pcrcent increase) in the RLSA program.
Additionally, the intent of the density and intensity blending would further the goals of the
proposed lAMP by offsetting development away from the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand
System (L TCKSS) Overlay.
Lastly, during the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) hearings, the CCPC requested staff to
evaluate what native vegetation retention requirements would be appropriate for the L TCKSS
Overlay. The proposed lAMP references the wetland protection standards set forth in Policy
6.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. However,
such Policy does not specify the native \'egetation retention requirements, thrcsholds and
standards that would apply to the L TCKSS Overlay.
As a stali point, Staff eyaluated the native vegetation retention requirements intended for
properties located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Distriet (RFMUD). Major differences are
the development parameters for these lands (density; intensity; and allowed uses) which are
intentionally restricted compared to those that apply to properties within the L TCKSS Overlay.
Properties within the L TCKSS are allowed to develop at much higher dcnsity and intensity than
the Sending lands within the RFMUD.
Staff evaluated applying the more stringcnt (80 alld 90 percent) nati\'e vegetation retention
requirements of RFMUD Sending and Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Sending
Lands. as suggested by some of the ccpe membcrs, but determined that such high native
vegetation retention standards would preclude allowable uses in the Overlay (properties within
the L TCKSS Overlay are currently allowed to devclop at mlJch higher density and intensity thall
RFMUD Scnding and Natural Rcsource Protection Area NRPA Sending Lands). Taking this into
eonsideration, statr proposed using a mid-point range such as that for RFMUD Neutral Lands (A
minimum of 60 percent of the native vegetation prescnt. not to excecd 45 percent of the site).
The Environmental Advisory Council (EAe) suppOlied the recommendation by staft~ with the
understanding that given thc ecological value of these lands. the amount of preservation required
would be fmiher evaluated and may increase pending the results of this evaluation.
In light of the EAC and the CCPCs reeommendations to the BCC. staff. in coordination with
staff from the Consenancy of Southwest Florida. gathered additional data and analysis and has
further evaluated the appropriate native vegetation retention requirements thresholds and
standards that would apply to propeliies within the L TCKSS Overlay. Staff concludes that a
natiye vegetation retention of 60 percent (not to exceed 45 percent of the site) in combination
with the applicable wetland stalldards as outlined in the GMP and the LDC, are the appropriate
standards f()r properties within the LTCKSS.
Page:2 of6
Packet Page -652-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
Changes to the CCME are necessary in order to ensure that the native vegetation standards be
applied in combination with the applicable wetland requirements. However, these changes are
not being proposed at this time since the CCPC recommended the changes be evaluated at a
subsequent GMP amendment cycle.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) OBJECTIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS (ORC) REPORT:
The Objections Recommendations and Comment (ORC) Report is ineluded as part of this amendment
packet, as well as a response letter prepared by the petitioner's consultant (RW A) with the assistance and
input of County staff.
If an Objection set forth in the ORC Report is not adequately addressed when adopted, then the DCA may
find the amendment to be "Not in Compliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to indicate such noncompliance. The County may respond to the ORC Report in one of four ways at
Adoption:
l. not modifY the amendment, but provide additional explanation of what the amendment is
about, its purpose, what it will achieve [appropriate if we believe DCA simply does not
understand/has misunderstood the amendment] and/or provide additional data and analysis to
support the amendment; or
2. modifj' the amendment, so as to address the ORC issue; or,
3. modifj' the amendment, and provide additional explanation and/or provide additional data and
analysis: or,
4. not adopt the amendment.
Most notably within the ORC Report are objections due to DCA's contention that the proposed lAMP
does not establish meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards defining the intensity of non-
residential use for the differcnt future land use categories. The land use categories within the current
lAMP do not include specific limitations for the development of allowed intensity for the Immokalee
Urban Area. Nevertheless, in order 10 satisfy DCA's objcctions in rcgard 10 limitation of intensity within
the GMP, County staff compiled and evaluated land use category data in the Immokalee urban area in
order to determine the amount of existing square footage of commerciaL industrial, governmental, and
institutional development utilizing Collier Coul1lY's Propcrty Appraiser data, Collier County's
Geographic Information System (GIS) data, data from updated Commercial and Industrial inventory. The
agent for the petitioner then utilized the compiled data to compare the development potential of the
proposed lAMP with the County's population projection 10 prepare thc resulting development intcnsity in
five year increments, out to 2025.
Based on an analysis of existing conditions and growth projections through the 2025 planning horizon,
the rcvised lAMP proposes a maximum square fOOlage of 8.45 million square feet for non-residential
development for the entire Im1110kalee Urban Area, an increase of 3 million square feet above the existing
5 million square feet of non-residential development. Accordingly. the lAMP has been revised to include
maximum square footage for non-residential development through the added Policy 6.1.10; make
revisions to the land use description section; and add the data and analysis.
Revisions to the lAMP because ofthe ORC Report include:
. The establishment of a maximum of 70 percent of non-residential development within the
Commercial-Mixed Use subdistrict;
Page 3 of6
Packet Page -653-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
. Inclusion of the specific uses allowed within the Immokalee Regional Airport subdistrict;
clarification that the proposed Ccntral Business District is meant to be a zoning district as
opposed to a land use designation;
. A revised transportation analysis to address short term and long term transportation concerns and
needs;
. Revisions to specify that best management practiees are to conform to those established by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in order to address Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and nutrient loading;
and
. Additional data and analysis to address concerns in regard to projected demand for and
availability of potable water and sanitary sewer facilities and water supply.
. Revised language that requires on-site or off-site preservation to exceed the minimum applicable
amounts set forth in the CCME Policy 6.1.1 by at least ten percent, in order to qualify for
incentives. In addition, greater levels of inccntives may be provided for greater amounts of
preservation through criteria that is to be specificd in the Land Dcvelopment Code (LDC).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of this Gro\\ih Management Plan (GMP) amendment petition would have a fiscal
impaet on Collier County. The commitments included in the proposed plan, which translates into
operational impacts, liseal impacts, as well as a set timeframe to fulfill such programmatic and
fiscal commitments, will require funding and allocation of staff that may not be readily available.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Plan may not have an immediate impact on the demand
for public facilities, but will impact future demand for puhlie facilities. In addition, the proposed
Plan may shift prioritization of some County-wide effOlis to the Immokalee Urban Area.
Nevertheless, Goal I would allow the County, on an annual basis, to prioritize capital projects,
programs, studies, and any other commitments within the proposed plan that are necessary to
further the proposed Goals, Objectives and Policics in the lAMP. Objective l.1 requires the CRA
to develop a list of priorities of commitments, as well as identifying potential altemative funding
sources to fulfill such commitments. In addition, Policy l.l.l allows for the extension by the
BCC of the timeframes allocated to fulfill thc commitments within the proposed lAMP, subject
to eonsideration of available funding and/or operational constraints.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC heard this petition at their January 5, 20l 1 meeting and unanimously recommended (5-
0) to forward the subject amendment, CP-2008-5. Immokalee Area Master Plan, to the BCC with
a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
subject to the following conditions:
l. Policy 5. 1 .2: Lake Trafford Development - inclusion oflanguage at the end of the policy
"The Lake Trafford Drainage Basin sball be the gcographie area intended for
implementation of these BMP" (or similar language). !Stajf note: This condition has
been addressed in the rel'ised doclIment.!
2. To affirm the BCC decision for inclusion of language that would allow density and
intensity blending for properties contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand and
which straddle the lmmokalec Urb,m /\.rea and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay (RLSA). Staff notes that the EAC recommendation to include language that
Page 4 of6
Packet Page -654-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
would allow density and intensity blending for properties contiguous to Lake Trafford or
Camp Keais Strand and which straddle the Immokalee Urban area and the RLSA, was
based on the assumption that the agent for the property owner that would be affected by
this language, would provide the requisite data and analysis. Only minimal data and
analysis was received from that property owner's agent and was provided to the EAC; it
was considered inadequate by the EAC (and staff). [Staff 1I0te: This cOllditioll was 1I0t
supported by the CCPe. However, as discussed hereill, staff recommellds illclusioll of
this cOllditioll based all additiollal data alld allalysis provided to staff alld the CCPC
after the EAC hearillg.]
3. To support Staff recommendation on the amount of native preservation required for
properties within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System (as discussed herein),
with the understanding that given the ecological and/or environmental value of the lands
affected, the amount of native prescrvation required will be further evaluated and may be
increased pending the results of said evaluation. IStaff 1I0te: This cOllditioll was 1I0t
supported by the CCPC alld is Ilot part of the filial recommelldatioll to the BCe.]
In addition, the EAC recommended minor text changes to Data and Analysis section of the
lAMP document (see CCPC staff report for the specific changes.) IStaff 1I0te: This cOllditioll
has beell addressed ill the revised documellt.]
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition on February 17,201 l, and
unanimously rccommended (9-0) to forward Petition CP-2008-5 to the Board of Collier County
Commissioners (BCC) with a rccommendation to adopt and transmit to DCA, subject to
following:
l. That the proposed native preservation standards for lands located within the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System be removed from the lAMP and be included as part
of the 20l I GMP amendment cycle to determine the appropriate native vegetation
standards as detem1ined by additional data and analysis.
~ That the proposed Density and Intensity Blending provisions of the Density Rating
System be removed from lAMP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
During the initial review of the lAMP amendments, the ecpc raised the issue of amending
provisions relating to the native vegetation retention requirements for the Lake Trafford Camp
Keais Strand System in the Consen'ation and Coastal Management Element ("'CCME") of the
Grov,th Management Plan. At a subsequent public hearing, the ccpe recommended that the
CCME provisions be addressed in the next Growth Management amendment cycle rather than
with the lAMP amendments 10 allow full public input. The amendments to the lmmokalee Area
Master Plan are ready for Board consideration and approval. The adoption hearing for GMP
amendments requires a four-fifths vote of the Board for approval.--HFAC
Page 5 of6
Packet Page -655-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
ST AFF RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff recommends that the BCC adopts and transmits petition CP-2008-5 to the Department of
Community Affairs, subject to the following:
I. To allow the density and intensity blending provisions for properties contiguous to Lake
Trafford or Camp Keais Strand Overlay, and which straddle the lmmokalee Urban Area
and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA); and
2. To provide direction to the County Manager or designee to initiate a GMP amendment to
include native vegetation standards that would apply to properties within the L TCKSS
Overlay, as recommended by the CCPe.
As noted above, the BCC has also the option to adopt and transmit petition CP-2008-5 to DCA,
as recommended by the CCPC.
PREPARED BY:
Carolina Valera, Principal Planner
Comprehensive Planning Section, GroMh Management Division
Attachments:
I . Ordinance
2. Exhibit A Text
3. CCPC Staff Report
4. Density Blending supporting Data & Analysis
Page 6 01'6
Packet Page -656-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 8.C.
Item Summary: CP-2008-5, Petition requesting amendments to the immokalee Area
Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the
entire Master Plan to include: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and
allowable residential density; elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new
designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, redesignation of approximately 103
acres to Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, staff requests
amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to
show the redesignation of the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area. (Adoption Hearing).
Meeting Date: 4/12/2011
Prepared By
Name: Va]eraCarolina
Title: Planner, Principal,Comprehensive Planning
3/16/2011 5 :30:02 PM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 3/]7/20] 14:16:01 PM
Name: WeeksDavid
Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning
Date: 3/22/20] 16:]8:38 PM
Name: Puig.1udy
Titlc: Operations Analyst, CDES
Date: 3/23/2011 ] 0:04:28 AM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div, Transportati
Date: 3/23/201] ] 0:48:23 AM
Packet Page -657-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 3/23/20 II 1 :00:43 PM
Name: LorenzWilliam
Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive
Date: 3/24/2011 12:46: 16 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/30/2011 3:42:29 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 4/1/20118:50:10 AM
Name: Isackson Mark
Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 4/4/2011 9:34:46 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 4/4/2011 9:55:21 AM
Packet Page -658-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
ORDINANCE NO. 11-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY PROVIDING
FOR: AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA
MASTER PLAN AND INCLUDING THE IMMOKALEE
AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. sea., Florida Statutes, the
Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act,
was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier
County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective
comprehensive plans and outlines certain proeedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans
pursuant to Sections l63.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has prepared plan amendments to the Immokalee Area
Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map; and
WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the GroMh Management Plan amendments to
the Department of Commwlity Affairs for preliminary review on June 29, 2010 after public
hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the amendments to the
Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map
to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its fmdings in wTiting to Collier COWlty within
the time provided by law; and
WHEREAS, further amendments resulted in necessary changes to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, and the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element and;
lAMP Adoption Amendments
Rev. 2/02/1 I words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted;
row of asterisks (***) denotes break in text
1 of3
Packet Page -659-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
WHEREAS, Collier County has 60 days from receipt of the Objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report from the Department of Community Affairs to adopt,
adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the
manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the adoption of the Immokalee
Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map to the Gro"th
Management Plan on June 23, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and
analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County
Staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments,
and other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the
public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on February 17, 2011 and the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on.. ; and
WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been
met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts these amendments to the Immokalee
Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element and the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and
Map Series, in accordance with Section 1 63.3 1 84, Florida Statutes. The text and maps of the
amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION TWO:
SEVERABILITY.
If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, sueh portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE.
The etfective date of these amendments shall be the date a final order is issued by the
Department of Comrmmity Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendments in
compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No
development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on these amendments may be
issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued
by the Administration Commission, these amendments may nevertheless be made effective by
adoption of a Resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which Resolution shall be sent
[AMP Adoption Amendments
Rev. 2/02/11 words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted;
row of asterisks (>1<"-') denotes break in text
2 of]
Packet Page -660-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2555 Shumard Oaks Blvd.,
3rd Floor, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of CoJlier
County, Florida this _day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
, Deputy Clerk
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
,)[(P"-\,\
, \?
"
Heidi Ashton-Cieko
Assistant County Attorney
Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation
Attachment: Exhibit A -
CP\II-CMP-00790\J6
lAMP Adoption Amendments
Rev. 2/02111 words underlined are added: words struck-through are deleted;
row of asterisks ('**) denotes break in text
3of3
Packet Page -661-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
Exhibit A
CP-2008-5
Conservation and Coastal Management Element:
GOAL 6:
THE COUNTY SHALL IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE ITS
NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WilDLIFE HABITAT.
****************************************************************************************************
OBJECTIVE 6.2:
The County shall protect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands pursuant
to the appropriate policies under Goal 6. The following policies provide criteria to make this
objective measurable. The County's wetland protection policies and strategies shall be
coordinated with the Watershed Management Plans as required by Objective 2.1 of this
Element.
****************************************************************************************************
Policy 6.2.5:
Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and that portion of the Lake Trafford/Camp
Keais Strand System Which is contained within the Immokalee Urban Designated Area,
Collier County shall direct land uses away from higher functioning wetlands by limiting direct
impacts within wetlands based upon the vegetation requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element,
the wetland functionality assessment described in paragraph (2) below, and the final permitting
requirements of the South Florida Water Management District. A direct impact is hereby defined
as the dredging or filling of a wetland or adversely changing the hydroperiod of a wetland. This
policy shall be implemented as follows:
(1) The County shall apply the vegetation retention requirements of Policy 61.2 of this
element for the Rural FrinDe Mixed Use District. and Policv 6.12.b. of this element for
the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Svstem, in order to preserve an appropriate
amount of native vegetation on site. Wetlands shall be preserved as part of this
vegetation requirement according to the following criteria:
a. The acreage requirements of Policy 6.1.2 of this element shall be met be preserving
wetlands with the highest wetland functionality scores. Wetland functionality
assessment scores shall be those described in paragraph (2) of this policy.
Wetlands having a WRAP score of at least 065 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation
Assessment Method score of 0.7 shall be preserved on site. This policy is not
intended in all cases to require preservation of wetlands exceeding the acreage
required by Policy 61.2 of this element. Within one year, the County shall develop
specific criteria to be used to determine when wetlands having a WRAP score
greater than 065 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method score of
greater than 0.7 shall be required to be retained exceeding the acreage required by
Policy 6.12 of this element.
****************************************************************************************************
[page 29]
Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted; row of asterisks (...) denotes break in text.
Packet Page -662-
4/12/2011 Item S.C.
CP-2008~5 ImmoKalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
Agenda Ilem #9E
eo7ff;;,-y c.o"Unr::y
L .......-...
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION - PLANNING AND REGULATION,
COMPREHENSIVE F'LANNING SECTION
HEARING DATE: February 3, 2011
FROM:
RE:
PETITION CP-2008-5, IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING)
Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner
AGENT/APPLICANT:
Agent:
Robert Mulhere
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
Applicant/Owner:
Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
Collier County Government
310 Alachua Street
Illlmokalee, FL 34142
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The Immokalee urban area is a region of about 30 square miles containing :t 17,116 acres of
land, and is located in northeast Collier County, approximately 27 miles from the intersection of
Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Naples to the intersection of
South First Street and Main Street in Immokalee. The Immokalee urban area comprises the
Immokalee planning community.
REQUESTED ACTION:
The subject area of this amendment request is designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) of the Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) element of the Growth Management Plan
(GMP). This petition seeks to revise and replace in its entirety the existing adopted Immolcalee
Area Master Plan Element of the GMP, including the existing Implementation Strategy, which
encompass the Goals, Objectives, and F'olicies; the Land Use Designation Description Section,
which generally indicate the types of land uses for which zoning may be requested; and the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Additionally, approximate 103 acres designated
Agricultural/Rural and within the Rural lands Stewardship Area Overlay are proposed to be
added to the lAMP and those lands re-designated as Urban. This petition also proposes
changes to Policy 6.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) to add
language to address the vegetation retention requirements that would apply to lands within the
Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System; and revisions to the Future Land Use Map Series of
the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to reflect the additional 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban
area.
Packet Page -663-
4/12/2011 Item S.C.
CP~200B-5 Imrnokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
SURROUNDING LAND USE. ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Subiect Area:
More than half of the land use type within the Immokalee Urban area is presently agricultural.
The remainder is a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Immokalee is
accessed from the south and east by its major roadway, Immokalee Road (CR 846). State Road
29 provides access into the Community from the northern counties of Lee and Hendry and to
the southeast areas of Collier County.
,-..:....."5'.--.: ~-",...E.- '0"
=.-- :~. :O';:~-::
IMMOKALEE FUTURE LAND US!: MAP
m.__~~_._..~__.._..__..._j_. ..... "_'''_~____'''_
"
,
y--,.ti
-~'-~l%l .1IIL '-....____
: ~ "1;"11 1I'Il?-..,
\__.,~l'- "~_,, _ -'....".HR
' ,,' Ii, . ~.., i .~"
_.... '11~' ~':.
'!
~!.
F'RGPOSE) FllJM MAP
IIV-'J
'0
11<1< ,.".
_ '_' "'_<.,_:HIL"',
'., \,......... I
j t.,.'", ..:::-"~
,.' ; 1<,. '. -"- "','-,-" .~.".,/;' f' . ~
. _::,=~,~j"-~'<>;' : .,~S",
'-~I_'.;~
,1.-
'^
t
i
,':
,.'
.:.~,...._--~._--'"
\~,
',-.'-.
..,
c_ <_',
1',-
.,
if '~~'..; ...
.,'
_"~' 11
'.
. ~'..A" .\'.' U'.~ _."._,","'
It',
c:: .
c'''.':,~'
c
r
C
C
C'~'"
L.
c::
11)
~""
'-~""--"'- I
'''-rr,.~.,..,.,_.t'''''''''''H..'''~f'H;~
.., .t., 4.l: ,,_,,_._~, o.
Draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
Su.rroundinq Lands:
North: Lands designated Agricultural/Fiuial Mixed Use District, Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overiay (RLSA) on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The vast majority of
these lands are zoned Rural Ag!icultural District (A).
South: Lands designated Agricultural/Fiul'al Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide
FLUM. Most of these lands are undeveloped and are zoned Rural Agricultural District
(A).
East: Lands designated Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide
FLUM. Lands to the east are within the Area of Critical State Concern on the
countywide FLUM and wllich alS within the Okaloacoochee Habitat Stewardship Area
(HSA) and the Ol<aloacoochee Slough Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA). These lands
are undeveloped and most are ?Oned Rural Agricultural District (A).
2
Packet Page -664-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-200B-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
West: Lands designated Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, RLSA on the countywide
FLUM; as well as Lake Trafford and lands within the Camp Keais Strand FSA. Most of
these lands are undeveloped.
R I. .
R e9 E
R! 31D E
IMMOKAuee F'UTURE LAND use MAP
~~"';""";l'.
h. .....,.--,., '."
... '~_"L'" ,r,'
I- :::~:::: ::;
@' ._..;~::,- ........:
~ ','
-.J. . .
, ~ .'
I:,
F -:-: -)
\",_::.,,:,~'.-<;;>.
. .
r
..........1
. .. . '1
'. . . .
", ..
.
.
.
,.
'~/
" .
",'
,
I.. .
. .
,
,
0'==-
0__."_
D"'-'~-
0---
0------
D--~
II,
,
c=~.=_-u-..
;;::::;,,--
.'
="'-
E)....",
D:..~='-
QII.l'I1l':'Ill:--
g~~.:~:~'
o
",......~,... ~"-""-="",
"""""",. _~'" ~~ D"...."D"... "'''''''' ~,""'"
"""."" ,,"',..................
Existing Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
CONSIDERATIONS:
The proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) intends to implement the Immokalee
community's vision, as approved by the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Visioning Committee
(IMPVC), by promoting economic development and efficient delivery of services through greater
density and intensity that encourage dense, clustered development along major thoroughfares
that transition to lower densities; incorporating smart growth principles; and by providing greater
development flexibility through mixed-use Subdistricts. The revised Immokalee Future Land Use
map provides integrity to the geographic region.
In general, the amendment to the lAMP element of the GMP proposes eight new goals, each
with respective objectives and policies; followed by the revised Land Use Designation
Description Section which includes and describes the proposed land use designations that will
guide patterns of development within tile Immokalee urban area and further the proposed goals
through standards set forth within such land used designations, and the types of allowed land
uses that could be requested.
The following are some of the major changes proposed in this petition:
3
Packet Page -665-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-2008-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
oRe-configuration of the wetland boundary that connects to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais
Strand System Overlay. This revision was requested by staff.
oRe-designation of the lands within the boundary of the Immokalee Regional Airport from
Industrial (lD) to Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict (APO).
o Addition of :t:103 acres of land that are proposed to be removed from the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA) and be included within the boundary of the
Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict (APO).
o Addition of the "Loop Road," which is proposed to allow access from the Immokalee
Regional Airport and Florida Tracleport areas, to SR82 and SR29.
o Revisions to the land use designations in the lAMP FLUM include:
o An increase in the base density allowed within the mixed use designated areas.
However, no change in base density (DU/A - dwelling units per acre) is proposed
within the Low, Medium and High Residential and Residential Tourist designated
areas.
o An increase of about 10 percent in the number of potential dwelling units that
could be developed through base density.
o Changes in the maximum density allowed within the Low Residential (reduction)
and mixed use designated areas (increase).
o An 18 percent reduction in the maximum number of potential dwelling units that
would be allowed in the I!,MP.
o An increase of :t:201 acres of Recreational Tourist (RT) designated lands.
o An increase on the cap of allowed density that can be requested within the
Immokalee Urban Area, via density bonus, from a maximum of 16 DU/A to a cap
of 20 DU/A.
o A five percent reduction of residential designated lands. This change of over
:t:636 acres of residential designated lands are proposed to be re-designated to
allow commercial and industrial development, as well as uses that are allowed
under the RT designation.
o An increase of :t:80 acres of commercial designated lands.
o An increase of :t:462 acres of industrial designated lands. This increase includes
the re-designation from Industrial (ID) to Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict
(A PO) of 1484.3 acres of land that are part of the Immokalee Regional Airport
boundary.
o New "Existing Zoning Consistent with lAMP FLUM by Policy 6.1.9" map.
TRANSMITTAL HEARINGS:
Environmental Advisorv Council IEAC) Recommendation:
The EAC heard this petition at their January 6, 2010 meeting and unanimously recommended
(3-0) to forward the subject amendment, CP-2008-5, Immokalee Area Master Plan, to the BCC
with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
subject to the following conditions:
4
Packet Page -666-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-2008-5 lmmokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
1 . Standardize the Lake Trafford Camp Keais Strand System (L TCKSS) Overlay
terminology throughout the document. [Staff note: This condition has been addressed
in the revised document.]
2. Allow any lands within the L TCKSS to qualify for density and intensity blending. [Staff
note: This condition was incorporated into the document per the BCC conditions
of approval to transmit to DCA. Please refer to BCC condition number 3
discussions, under the BCC recommendation on page 7.]
3. Prohibit density increases within the LTCKSS Overlay. [Staff note: This condition has
been addressed in the revised document through the exemption of any bonuses to
lands within the L T/CKSSO. Additionally, the density and intensity blending
provisions that apply to lands within the L T/CKSSO are intended to encourage
shifting development from Urban designated lands to lands within the RLSA.]
4. Allow wetlands within the L TCKSS that are restored to high quality wetlands to qualify for
density intensity blending. [Staff note: As noted above, this condition has been
addressed in the revised document.]
5. Prohibit retroactive L TCKSS development applications. [Staff note: This condition has
been addressed in the revised document.]
6. Remove the Greenfield Designation. [Staff note: Greenfield designation has been
removed from the document.]
7. Policv 4.1.1 - Postpone the TDR adoption process for a period of 2 years to determine its
feasibility and if a Growth Management Plan amendment is required. [Staff note: This
condition has been addressed in the revised document. Please note that Policy
4.1.1 has been re-numbered to Policy 5.1.1 in the revised lAMP.]
8. Clarify Policies on how lands will be designated for "Conservation." [Staff note: This
condition has been addressed in the revised document. Please note that a
Conservation designation is not being proposed at this time. However, the revised
document includes requirements to evaluate the need of such for the inclusion of a
Conservation designation through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process.]
9. Separate the Mitigation Bank Policy into Public and Private designations. [Staff note:
This condition has been addressed in the revised document.]
10. Pollcv 6.1.7 to read - "Within two (2) years of adoption of the Policy, Collier County shall
amend the Land Development Code to provide for a deviation process from the current
native vegetation retention standards set forth in the CCME Policy 6.1.1 for
developments within the Immokalee Urban Area. This deviation process shall be
consistent with provisions set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1(10). '1 [Staff note: This
condition has been addressed in the revised document.]
11. Goal 4 - expand language to include listed species for upland and scrub jay habitat
within the Immokalee Urban Area [Staff note: This condition was included by the
agent for the petitioner, but later revised by the CCPC. However, the revised
language is intended to be general and therefore to include listed species,
including scrub jay habitat. Please note that Goal 4 has been re-numbered to Goal
5 in the revised lAMP.]
5
Packet Page -667-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-200B-S Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
12. Provide a data analysis on how trle Immokalee Sewer and Water District intends to meet
the demands of future development. [Staff note: This condition has been addressed
in the revised data and analysis.]
13. Policv 4.1.2 line 1 - from "Recognizing the importance of Lake Trafford to potential
ecotourism..." To "Recognizing the importance of Lake Trafford and the surrounding
wetlands and natural habitat to the ecosystem, economy and ecotourism... " [Staff note:
This condition has been addmssed in the revised document. Please note that:
Policy 4.1.2 has been re-numbered to Policy 5.1.2 in the revised lAMP.]
14. Pollcv 4.1.2 - line 4-5 from - "Within 2 years of the adoption of the Policy, the County in
conjunction with the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency will amend the..." to
"Within 2 years of the adoption of this Policy, the County in conjunction with the
Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency and any applicable State or Federal
Agencies will amend the ... " [Staff note: This condition has been addressed in the
revised document. Please note that Policy 4.1.2 has been re-numbered to Policy
5.1.2 in the revised lAMP.]
15. Policv 4.1.3 line 1 - from "Collier County will continue to cooperate with agencies on
remediation efforts at Lake Trafford..." to "Collier County will continue to cooperate with
agencies on remediation, restoration and continuing long term management efforts at
Lake Trafford..." [Staff note: This condition has been addressed in the revised
document. Please note that Policy 4.1.3 has been re-numbered to Policy 5.1.3 in
the revised lAMP.]
Collier County Planninq Commission (CCPC) Recommendation:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition on February 16, February
18, March 3, and May 20, 2010, and unanimously recommended (6-0) to forward the subject
petition to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to DCA, subject to numerous changes
throughout the document which the petitioner has made (except where not endorsed by the
BCC), and subject to map revisions to identify the proposed 00103 acres expansion of the
Immokalee Regional Airport. In addition, the CCPC recommended the addition of language to
Policy 6.1.7 to allow Mobile Home use for a specific existing mobile home park located within
the Industrial subdistrict.
The CCPC requested the removal of lallguage that would allow density and intensity blending
for properties which are contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand which straddle the
Immokalee Urban area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA). The CCPC
expressed concern that the proposed lAMP did not include data and analysis that assessed the
impact that the shifting of density and intensity could have on the RLSA program.
Additionally, a new Goal (Goal 1) was included that would allow the County to prioritize capital
projects, programs, studies, and any other commitments within the proposed plan that are
necessary to further the Goals, objectives, and Policies in the lAMP; identifies potential
alternative funding sources; and allows for the extension of timeframes allocated to fulfill
commitments.
6
Packet Page -668-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP~2008-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
Board of County Commissioners (BCe) Action:
The BCC heard this petition at their June 23, 2010 meeting and unanimously approved (5-0) the
subject amendment for transmittal to DCA, subject to the following conditions:
1. Deletion of the CCPC's recommended language to Policy 6.1.7. to allow Mobile Home
use for a specific existing mobile home park within the Industrial subdistrict.
2. Inclusion (at Adoption) of companion amendments to the Future Land Use Element and
Map to reflect the removal of the ;0103 acres proposed to be added to the Immokalee
Regional Airport.
3. Re-inclusion of language that would allow density and intensity blending for properties
contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand and which straddle the Immokalee
Urban area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA). This decision was in
response 10 a request from a public speaker representing a client that owns lands that
could potentially benefit from this provision. In addition, the BCC requested the public
speaker to provide staff data and analysis that would assess the impact of such
provision on the RLSA program with the intention that, during adoption hearings, the
EAC and CCPC be able to provide the BCC a recommendation of the merits of such
provisions based on the supplied data and analysis. (See attached data and analysis
provided by Wilson Miller Stantec Inc.) Staff maintains that the submitted data and
analysis does not address the effect that the shifting of density and intensity may have
on the acreage caps in the RLSA.
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) CCPC COMMENTS:
The wetland boundary that connects to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System Overlay
(LT/CKSSO) was adopted as part of the 2007 GMP amendments based on the 2004 EAR. As
part of this change, policies were added to the CCME to increase the native vegetation retention
requirements. Subsequent analysis by staff yields a different, more accurate boundary of this
wetland, At staff request, the petitioner agreed to include the revised boundary as part of this
amendment petition.
As part of the EAR hearings, the CCPC commented that the proposed standards contained
under the "Wetlands Connected to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System Overlay" of the
Land Use Designation portion of the plan, references the wetland protection standards set forth
in Policy 6.2.5 of the CCME. However, such CCME Policy does not specify the native
vegetation retention requirements thresholds and standards that would apply to the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System. The CCPC requested staff to evaluate what native
vegetation retention requirements would be appropriate for said system. One CCPC member
stated that perhaps the 90 percent requirement of the RLSA lands would be appropriate.
Staff evaluated the request for applying a 90 percent native vegetation retention requirement
and which is intended for properties located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)
- Sending lands. Major differences are the deveiopment parameters for these lands (density;
intensity; and allowed uses) which are intentionally restricted compared to those that apply to
properties within the LTCKSS Overlay. Properties within the LTCKSS are allowed to develop at
much higher density and intensity than tile Sending lands within the RFMUD. Such a high native
vegetation retention requirement is incompatible with the development parameters for properties
within the L TCKSS.
7
Packet Page -669-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-2008-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
The CCME requires properties within the Urban area to retain a minimum of 25 percent of
native vegetation. Lands within the L TCKSS are within the Immokalee Urban Area. However,
because of the high natural value of these lands, staff is of the opinion that the Urban native
vegetation retention requirements would not further the intent of protecting these lands.
Staff concludes that a mid-point range of native vegetation retention, such as the requirements
for Neutral lands, is the most appropriate for properties within the L TCKSS. Therefore, native
vegetation retention of 60 percent (not to exceed 45 percent of the site) is being proposed as
the appropriate requirement for properties within the L TCKSS.
Amendments to Policy 6.2.5 of the CCME are necessary in order to implement these
requirements (see attached Exhibit A text.)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) OBJECTION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMENTS IORC) REPORT:
The Objections Recommendations and Comment (ORC) Report is included as part of this
amendment packet, as well as a response letter prepared by the petitioner's consultant (RWA)
with the assistance and input of County staff.
If an Objection set forth in the ORC Repol1 is not adequately addressed when adopted, then the
DCA may find the amendment to be "Not in Compliance" with Florida Statutes, and issue a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to indicate such noncompliance. The County may respond to the ORC
Report in one of four ways at Adoption:
1. not modify the amendment, but provide additional explanation of what the amendment is
about, its purpose, what it will achieve [appropriate if we believe DCA simply does not
understand/has misunderstood the amendment] and/or provide additional data and analysis
to support the amendment; or
2. modify the amendment, so as to address the ORC issue; or,
3. modify the amendment, and provide additional explanation and/or provide additional data
and analysis; or,
4. not adopt the amendment.
Most notably within the ORC Report are objections due to DCA's contention that the proposed
lAMP does not establish meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards defining the
intensity of non-residential use for the different future land use categories. The land use
categories within the current lAMP do not include specific limitations for the development of
allowed intensity for the Immokalee Urban Area. Historically, the specifics on the amount and
the manner of non-residential development has been coordinated through established
limitations specified in the County's Land Development Code (LDC), and which vary depending
upon the type of zoning district where development is to occur, as well as the zoning and the
types of land use of surrounding propel1ies. In addition, the County's Capital Improvement
Element of the GMP coordinates the demand on public facilities (sanitary sewer, solid waste,
drainage, potable water, traffic circulation, schools, and parks and recreation) based on
projected population growth.
In order to satisfy DCA's objections in regard to limitation of intensity within the GMP, County
staff compiled and evaluated land use category data in the Immokalee urban area in order to
8
Packet Page -670-
4/12/2011 Item S.C.
CP-2008-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
determine the amount of existing square footage of commercial, industrial, governmental, and
institutional development utilizing Collier County's Property Appraiser data. Collier County's
Geographic Information System (GIS) data, data from updated Commercial and Industrial
inventory. The petitioner then utilized the compiled data to compare the development potential
of the proposed lAMP with the County's population projection to prepare the resulting
development intensity in five year increments, out to 2025.
Based on an analysis of existing conditions and growth projections through the 2025 planning
horizon, the revised lAMP proposes a maximum square footage of 8.45 million square feet for
non-residential development for the entire Immokalee Urban Area, an increase of 3 million
square feet above the existing 5 million square feet of non-residential development.
Accordingly, the lAMP has been revised to include maximum square footage for non-residential
development through the added Policy 6.1.10; make revisions to the land use description
section; and add the data and analysis.
The ORC Report also contends that the proposed Policy 6.1.9 would allow zoning in Immokalee
to be inconsistent with the GMP for those existing properties that have a zoning designation that
permits a higher density or intensity than the maximums allowed within the proposed Plan. The
proposed Policy 6.1.9 is derived from FLUE Policy 5.1, is largely verbatim, and is a replacement
for FLUE Policy 5.1 to apply to the Immokalee area. Proposed Policy 6.1.9 has been included in
the Immokalee Area Master Plan to provide greater clarity.
The Collier County GMP was adopted in January 1989. Policy 5.1 originally simply required all
rezonings to be consistent with the GMP; there was no allowance in that policy for properties
that were zoned inconsistent with the FLUM designation on those properties. Original Policy 5.9
recognized developed properties that were zoned inconsistent with the FLUM designation on
those properties but did not provide for rezoning; essentially, it was a vesting policy - those
properties could develop in accordance with their existing zoning. Viewed in tandem, these
policies provided that properties zoned inconsistent with their FLUM designation could develop
per their existing zoning but if were rezoned, could only rezone to a zoning district consistent
with their FLUM designation - a down-zoning. For inconsistently zoned properties with a
commercial zoning, one incentive was provided for rezoning to a residential zoning district, the
Conversion of Commercial Zoning density bonus. Subsequent amendments to Policy 5.1 were
adopted to allow these consistent by policy properties to rezone to the same or lower density or
intensity.
The above clarification in regard to proposed Policy 6.1.9 has been coordinated with DCA staff.
In addition, a review of the existing zoning districts in the lmmokalee urban area was conducted
to determine the impact that the changes of the proposed subdistrict designations would have
on the existing properties. The review concludes that a total of 26 parcels would become
inconsistent with the proposed lAMP FLUM, or 74.9 acres. However, the Immokalee urban area
encompasses an approximate of 17,1'16 acres of land. Therefore, less than one half of a
percent (<1/2 %) of the Immokalee urban area would become inconsistent with the proposed
Plan FLUM designations.
The Garden Lake Apartments PUD, adopted by Ordinance 89-09, and which is a build-out
development per Ordinance 10-88 that comprises 7.40 acres of the 79.9 acres. This
development allows 9 units per acre, while the proposed LR subdistrict allows a maximum of 8
units per acre. In addition, two commercially zoned (C-3) properties would become inconsistent
with the proposed LR subdistrict. The namaining parcels are zoned Village Residential (VR), a
zoning district that allows up to 14 dwelling units per acre; Residential Multl-Family-6 (RMF-6);
and a portion (11.12 acres) of the Collier Village PUD, adopted by Ordinance 87-06, that allows
9
Packet Page -671-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-2008-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
up to 5.37 dwelling units per acre. All of these remaining properties are within the L T/CKSSO for
which density is proposed to be restricted to a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre with no
allowance for density bonuses.
Other revisions to the lAMP because of the ORC Report include: the establishment of a
maximum of 70 percent of non-residential development within the Commercial-Mixed Use
subdistrict; inclusion of the specific uses allowed within the Immokalee Regional Airport
subdistrict; clarification that the proposed Central Business District is meant to be a zoning
district as opposed to a land use designation; a revised transportation analysis to address short
term and long term transportation concerns and needs.
The ORC Report notes the need to establish meaningful and predictable guidelines and
standards defining the amounts of preservation that would be required to receive the density
bonuses and incentives as outlined in Policy 5.1.1 when a development exceeds the minimum
amount of preservation already set forth in Policy 6.1.1. of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME). The revised language proposes that on-site or off-site
preservation exceed the minimum applicable amounts set forth in the CCME Policy 6.1.1 by at
least ten percent, in order to qualify for incentives. In addition, greater levels of incentives may
be provided for greater amounts of preservation through criteria that is to be specified in the
Land Development Code (LDC).
In addition, the aRC Report comments on the need for meaningful and predictable guidelines
and standards defining the best management practices regarding water quality as a result of
development adjacent to Lake Trafford and its surrounding wetlands or natural habitat. The
revised lAMP specifies that best management practices are to conform to those established by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in order to address Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and nutrient
loading.
Lastly, the ORC Report is concerned with the projected demand for and availability of potable
water and sanitary sewer facilities and water supply, based on clear assumptions regarding the
combination of residential and non-residential land uses at the adopted level of service
standards. The revised Plan includes additional data and analysis in the short term and long
term of supply and demand of water and sewer facilities. The analysis also includes demand
analysis from maximum potential build-out to account for maximum non-residential build-out
potential.
Revisions to the lAMP to address the OF1C Report include the following:
. Additional text to Policy 5.1.1
. Additional text to Policy 5.1.2
. A new Policy 6.1.10
. Additional text to the Urban - Mixed Use District
. Additional text to the Urban - Industrial District
. Additional text to the Commercial - Mixed Use Subdistrict
. Additional text to the Industrial - Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict
. Additional data and analysis:
o Future Land Use and Nonresidential Potential Analysis
o Zoning and FLUM inconsistencies
o Five and Ten - Year Water and Sewer Availability
o Demand Analysis from Maximum Potential Build-Out
10
Packet Page -672-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-2008-5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
A-t.foIO
fj' ._ "-\i"-,,
~. ........ ,,-,j:~'lC,>~,. C".1t)E""'L W'.E, ""C"En
,II ~..' Iii'. ................. ..,
.., , c ;;r.i&crJ~i><D ''''~.. wrn ""rn'
'_.-...J IPIP, In:~:...I.- I' i..!.:JL=: 'MMr' ~ ~ N-;~' ~ ~,""~M""-o~!
,_ na,:-_if!-, 11'1 '90~-!'." ':- ~:" /,,'-~
PlJe'J:'IL If ~ ~'l- _J - ,~,,\X;i~', '-"." ,;
d _ _ ~h ii f . ~J['X~"t~~I>i~~Zt(
o ~ ~ , ~ II 1< " ," AC-,*;~~"
I' r ,I , _ <fl"
'~-:I ~LL :;!~~~~ R5F-3 '--r~:;!~
-rill I .~$H' ~1lF,,1 .- . . . . I "::';l
,.::\e\.~. I.~ [ ~:L~~l~~ '.V~:fl
":.:.,'", '1::.I~~fI':";i'
~..~--:',,~~~~.~. .-.-.~..,~;.i\,.." "
l_-~u~ 'l~E: ... ... ~,i1~~~/
F1h'lF-6: :J.:::I._~-," ~~:-:,' '::l,,' ~ ,,,.'
k~::;i~'}' 11,I~li;.Ji,~~ ..-
L ~~8,'ar';,"._-
i'::,i:i;:;iil;!I:!!:.j RMI'-o' i
'i . ._L"l_,_'
rtR rJ:VA
iLJ
J
.' IU!
''''d.,.., I
L;~~~',:~"::; ,/p :
'/1'1
,
'.-'
,
'I
-";'i': 'X:;:"~",;
_':"~/,.i. ; .~.:,A",
. I
"}".;;~-:':'~':':_~:--,~~72,~ F~""" ....
~ "
,
C-II{.
I';
I-~l
"'-\1-10,
Excerpt from the proposed "Existing Zoning Consistent with lAMP FLUM by Policy 6.1.9" map
ADOPTION HEARINGS:
Environmental Advisorv Council (EAC) Recommendation:
The EAC heard this petition at their January 5, 2011 meeting and unanimously recommended
(5-0) to forward the subject amendment, CP-2008-5, Immokalee Area Master Plan, to the BCC
with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
subject to the following conditions:
1. Policy 5.1.2: Lake Trafford Development - inclusion of language at the end of the
policy "The Lake Trafford Drainage Basin shall be the geographic area intended for
implementation of these BMP" (or similar language).
2. To affirm the BCC decision for inclusion of language that would allow density and
intensity blending for properties contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand and
which straddle the Immokalee Urban Area and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay (RLSA).
11
Packet Page -673-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP.200B.5 Immokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
3. To support the Staff recommendation of a 60 percent neutral lands native preservation
requirement for the CCME (as discussed herein), with the understanding that given the
ecological and/or environmental value of the lands affected, the amount of preservation
required will be further evaluated and may be increased pending the results of said
evaluation.
In addition, the EAC recommended the following text changes to Data and Analysis section of
the lAMP document:
Section 4.7, Listed Species (page 41) - paragraph 2/3:
. Paragraph 2, line 3 - from "...the majority along the western boundary." to "...the
majority along the estern boundary."
. Paragraph 3, line 1 - from "Other listed species that have been observed within the
Immokalee Urban Area are the bald eagle..." to "Other listed species that have been
observed within the Immokalee Urban Area including but not limited to, are the baid
eagle..."
Staff also notes that the EAC recommendation to include language that would allow density and
intensity blending for properties contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand and which
straddle the Immokalee Urban area and the RLSA, was based on the assumption that the agent
for the property owner that would be affected by this language, would provide the requisite data
and analysis. Only minimal data and analysis was received from that property owner's agent
and was provided to the EAC; it was considered inadequate by the EAC (and staff).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2008-5 to
the Board of Collier County Commissioners with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to
DCA, subject to the inclusion of the requisite data and analysis that support language that would
allow density and intensity blending for properties contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais
Strand and which straddle the Immokalee Urban area and the RLSA.
12
Packet Page -674-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
CP-2008-5 Irnmokalee Area Master Plan GMP Amendment
PREPARED BY:
'/1.. DATE: ..2. '" '11
CAROL! A VALERA, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
.compre ensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
APPROVED BY:
~-..... /I'!
.) <.. 1/ L,J iL--- ') -/-//
~~"'f ~ DATE:
DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GMP MANAGER
Comprehensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
APPROVED BY:
- ~~~==--_. DATE: 2- 7- Ii
MIKE BOSI, AICP, COMPREHENSIVE I"LANNING MANAGER
Comprehensive Planning Section
Land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division, Planning & Regulation
APPROVED BY: ' /
~)~/'.-",", \.~, """.1.. /,
'i -'Ii, '>". ,I
)i r't..(.~..:;_:'.LCL."~r,--,..~)-..Y;':.4,....~..". I
c\rviLuAM LORENZ, PE, DIF,lECTOR
Land Development Services Department
Growth Management Division, Planning.&. Regulation
DATE: ::'L~c t' "'~,:-il
APPROVED BY:
,
-"j !
~.
J ,/
. ,f' ,(~_._,..,...,~'~-;<_"" "">__,,.... _",.--__
'-1\JICKC~S~LANGt.lIDA:DEPLiTY ADMINISTRATOR
Growth Management Division, Planning .& Regulation
DATE:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMIISSION:
DATE:
MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
13
Packet Page -675-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
Data and Analysis
Supporting Density and Intensity Blending Language Change
Per lAMP proposed Amendments, July 7,2010 version
Language has been proposed by the committee to change the Density and Intensity Blending portion of
the Immokalee Area Master Plan. In order to determine the extent of the applicability effects of the
changes to properties in and around the Immokalee Urban Area, a GIS analysis was performed to
determine what properties would be eligible to transfer units from the urban area to adjacent Rural
Lands Stewardship Overlay (RLSA) areas
GIS Methodology
Wilson Miller Stantec, Inc was tasked to locate any ownership that fell into the criteria of having at least
200 aues of land within the Immokalee Future Land Use (FLU) designated as either low residential
subdistrict (LRSD) or recreational subdistrict (RS). The land also had to be partially within the Lake
Trafford or Camp Keais Strand flowways and had to straddle the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA)
and the Immokalee Urban boundary.
We used the Collier County Property Appraiser September 2010 Parcel dataset and the Proposed
Immokalee Future Land Use data set to isolate parcels that fell into these criteria,
The parcel data set Vias queried to isolate parcels that are 200 acres or greater, The Immokalee FLU
was querIed to isolate only areas designated as either LRSD or RS. The queried parcels and the
querIed FLU were Intersected to further Isolate lands that fit the above criteria, A graphic indicating the
resulting Image IS attached.
The resulting lands exhibit was then visually observed to Identify parcels that both partially within the
flowways and straddled the RLSA and Immokalee Urban boundary.
This analysIs produced Williams Farms as the only ownership that fit the criteria. We then performed a
cross check with the 2002 Colliel' County Property Appraiser Parcel dataset to determine If there had
been a change III ownership Within the Williams Farms lands and there had not been Therefore, the
Williams Farms property, and only the Williams Farms property, would qualify for the benefits from the
July 7, 2010 language modifications to the lAMP relative to Density and Intensity Blending
Unit Transfer Potential
The Williams Farms property contains approximately 732 acres of native lands within the Lake Trafford
flowway that could potentially qualify for unit transfers under the proposed language amendments. Of
the 732 acres, those lands exhibiting higher functional value (score of 1 2 or greater) would ultimately
qualify. Therefore, using the maximum potential acreage of 732 acres, the maximum units that could
potentially be transferred from the Lake Trafford flowway area Within the Immokalee Urban area to
adjacent RLSA lands (within tile current Williams farms ownership boundary) would be
732 acres x the allowed gross density and/or intensity of 4 units/acre = 2928 units
Packet Page -676-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
Analysis
The 732 acres of land that would become eligible for receiving the units already exist as Stewardship
Receiving Area (SRA) under the existing RLS program, therefore, the size and extent of SRA lands will
not be changed. The potential 2989 development units that could be transferred from the Lake
Trafford flowway would represent additional units into the RLS. The evaluate the relative significance
of these additional units a baseline acreage or unit count is needed.
The existing RLS program does not contain a specific unit or development acreage cap and it is
therefore difficult to predict the total number of acres or units for the program. There has been
considerable discussion in the RLS oversight committee regarding caps on development footprint within
the RLS. This same committee presented a report to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners on April 21, 2009, at which time the concept of a development footprint cap was
discussed. A copy of the meeting agenda and excerpted minutes from the meeting are attached.
Based on the committee's work and the last expressed position of the County Commissioners, a
baseline number of 45,000 acres as a development footprint cap is reasonable to use for the following
evaluation.
Baseline RLS development = 45,000 acres
Typical max unit density in RLS development = 4 units/acre
Baseline unit max in RLS = 180,000
Density/Intensity Blending units into RLS = 2928
Percent increase in units in RLS =( 2928/180000) x 100 = 1.63%
This potential increase of only 1.63% in units within the RLS at build-out would be offset by the
protection of a significant portion of the Lake Trafford flowway. Therefore, the proposed changes to the
density/ intensity blending language is advantageous to the goals of both the RLS program and the
Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Packet Page -677-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
0
~
::J
~ "
. "
. ~
. e
0
u: 0
"5
~ ~ in
:0 " '"
~ " :0
rn 0
i= ~ ::J ~
~ 0 en
:::> . ~ '"
~ ""
.,~'.:.
4/12/2011 Item S.C.
~
SPECIAL MEETING
BCC AGENDA
April 21, 2009
9:00 a.m.
FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP PROGR<\M
DATED JANUARY, 2009
PREPARED BY THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA
REVIEW COMMITTEE
Donna Fiala, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGlSTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGE"\DA lTEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WlTH EXPLAN"ATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETI"\G AND WlLL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page!
April2!,2008
Packet Page -679-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDE;\TCE IJPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MI~UTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAI~ ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARH1ENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIA!\lI TRAIL, :-IAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENI;\TG DEVICES FOR THE HEARING 1M PAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COV;\TTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
I. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
Motion supporting Agenda - Approved 5/0
2. Presentation of the Five Year Review of PhascIl Rural Lands Stewardship
Program Report, Dated January, 2009; Prepared by the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area Review Committee
Report presented
Added
A. Suppol'ting Submission of High Priority Projects for
Consideration of Funding in the Upcoming United States Surface
Transportation Bill to be known as "Moving Ahead for Progress
in the 21 sf Century" to the House of Representatives
Resolution 2009-100 Adopted - 5/0
3. Adjoull1.
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 2
April 21, 2008
Packet Page -680-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21, 2009
be -- they would really be suffering a great loss if we couldn't move
that forward. Okay.
All righty. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let me first clarify the
concern about what the compromise was. The compromise was on the
only issue that was before us, which was the committee report. The
committee report had 45,000 acres and 404,000 credits. The
recommend- --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three-hundred-fifteen thousand credits?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was the old plan. That was
the existing plan. Nobody who understands what's going on here
could possibly say we should freeze it at 3 I 5,000 credits because
you're getting another 40,000 acres of preserved land by granting
some more credits. You're preserving ago land, which is exactly what
DCA said we had to do. They said that's one of the weaknesses of the
plan, that we didn't have any incentives,- enough incentives to preserve
ago land. There was also a recommendation that we have restoration
credits and creation of panther corridors.
Now, if you want to reduce the number of credits, then as one of
the speakers said, Mr. Hutchcraft, I believe, said, all right, if you want
to reduce the credits, which one of those preservation areas do you
want to eliminate?
Because that's what happens. You grant more credits, you get
more preserved area. You want to reduce credits, you're going to get
less reserved (sic) area.
So we have all along been talking about ago credits, restoration
credits, and panther corridor credits, and that's why the number of
credits went up because we got something valuable in return without
having to pay for it.
So this debate about credits is irrelevant as long as you're getting
something valuable in return.
So is -- are these things valuable? I don't -- I haven't heard
~
Page 171
Packet Page -681-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21, 2009
anybody yet to say we don't want to have -- to encourage the retention
of agricultural lands, we don't want to have restoration credits, and we
don't want to have a panther corridor. Nobody has said that today.
Okay? So that must mean that you want it.
Now, if you want it, you've got to pay for it. How you going to
pay for it? You're going to give credits. It costs you absolutely
nothing.
~
So what's the problem? You're not granting any more acreage
for construction. What I am afraid is happening here is that there are
people who just want to stop the plan. I think that's what's happening
here, and I'm very concerned about it.
But -- now, let's -- let me say this. Mr. McElwaine has infonned
me that he does have some concern about the calculation of the ago
credits, and maybe the two units might be a little bit too high and there
ought to be some evaluation of that to justify what is appropriate, and
I don't have any problem with that. I think our process we're
proceeding through will tend to verify these kinds of things.
So I don't consider that a change in the settlement agreement
- ~
issue but vou know if we start sa)'ina whoops we meant 3 I 5000
, or" b" ,
credits, no\"/ that's a significant change, and I'm not going there.
So the compromise is this: The landowners wanted a cap on
acreage at 45,000. The Conservancy and others wanted a cap on
credits. The only credits we were talking about were the credits that
were associated with 45,000. That's 404,000 credits. And in turn for
that increase in credits, we got ago retention incentives, we got
restoration credits, and \\ie get panther corridor credits. All those are
good. I I' somebody has an argument about how much you're getting,
well, we can work that out in the details, okay. But in any event, that's
where we are.
Now, let me get to this issue of infrastructure. How many
people here live east of 951? Okay. All the rest of you, the chances
ofyau having any infrastructure costs associated with this are
PClge ] 72
Packet Page -682-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21,2009
absolutely nil.
Secondly, all of these roads that will be built over the next 50
years, we're going to decide that we can't afford it because of our
budget this year? So we're not going to plan for the future for 50
years because we don't have a budget that covers it for next year?
You know, it doesn't make sense.
So let's -- I don't think that even getting into that kind of a
discussion is worthwhile at this point in time. The bottom-line issue
is, people in the audience were saying, how much is it going to cost us
for the infrastructure for these new villages? And it's going to cost
you nothing because they have to build their own.
Now, if they want a road to that new village and we don't have
the money to build it, guess what? Nobody comes. All right.
Nobody comes. And so, what we'll find out is whether or not
developers are willing to make a contribution to those -- the building
of those roads.
But the point is, we can't build it if we don't have the money, and
the builders are going to take this into consideration when the time
comes, and they're going to say, the county doesn't have a budget, the
state has pulled the rug out from under them, we can't get the roads to
and from our village, so do we really want to build it now? The
answer's probably going to be no. And so, you know, \ve get upset
about things that we can't possibly anticipate.
One final issue and ('II stop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I love him to death, don't get me wrong.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's why you plan long term.
Some people have said, hey, wait a minute. You know, there are too
many houses here now. Let's not plan long term. Let's not develop a
long-term plan. Let's wait till we sell up all these excess homes.
Wow.
Page 1 73
Packet Page -683-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21, 2009
Suppose we did our long-term planning like that all the time?
What a mess would we be in today?
We're planning for something 20 years out, 30 years out, 40
years out, doing exactly what you said you wanted us to do, and then
we've got people telling us, you know, don't plan long term because
we don't have any money this year. I'm sorry, but it doesn't make
sense.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now you have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do. Let's vote for it, second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMA~ FIALA: And the second was by Commissioner
Coletta.
I know Joe wants to advise us on that, but Joe, I still have
Commissioner Henning and Coletta. No? Okay.
CO:V1MISSIONER HENNING: Not on this issue.
I'dR. SCHMITT: Could I add one statement?
CH.AIRMAN FIALA: Certainlv.
.
MR. SCHMITT: Because there has been so much emphasis
played on the cap, and the committee members know when the
Planning Commission discussed the cap of 315,000, primarily -- and
I'm going to simplify this. The reason they placed it, because they
thought they would never get to that within six or seven years and
we'd be through another EAR process and we'd be re-evaluating those
credits eight, nine years from now.
So it wasn't sacrosanct that 315,000 \vas going to be the cap. I
think even the quote from Mr. Strain at the time was, we'll revisit that.
I believe the committee wanted certainty.
And so it's not -- I don't think we're -- this is a -- we're at an
impasse here. I think that there will be some resolution. And as the
two groups discuss this further, they'll come to some consensus on
this. And hopefully when you get this during the transmittal hearing,
Paue ] 74
b
Packet Page -684-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21, 2009
that will not be an issue. Maybe something else will be, but not that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clearing that up for us.
Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, my
issue had to do with Immokalee and where they were going to be into
it. You handled it quite well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's fine. I'm glad you
did. And I just need to get agreement from my constituents from
Immokalee. That means okay? Okay, got it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I'm all set, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Now, Joe, would you like to give us final instructions?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. All we need under staff
recommendations, as Tom pointed out, all we need is a vote fomlally
to accept the report in its entirety, and that would include both the plan
-- well, the committee's report, the Planning Commission comments,
and the EAC comments, and then staff will move forward
accordingly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's deal with the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And our comments?
MR. SCHMITT: And your comments, thank you, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's deal with the motion first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henningjust
suggested, let's first deal with the motion that was on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
~
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And would you like to restate that
motion? I dare you to restate the motion. I challenge you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just trying to contain myself so
I don't start talking again.
Page 175
. Packet Page -685-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21, 2009
The motion is that we accept the committee's report and that we
move -- that I move to move it forward through the GMP process
incorporating the compromised changes associated with caps on
acreage and a cap on the credits. Did I leave anything out?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What's that banging noise up here?
CorvlMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry? 404,000 for the cap,
recognizing that you have to develop justifying backup data to submit
it to the process and that we make it very clear in the process, in the
notice document, that this does not bestow any vested rights on any
landowner, okay, and that there will be no excess credits created; is
that right?
And now you agree with me about the vested rights issue? You
agree that this plan does not create vested rights for credits?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think we can put in our Compo Plan that
exact statement.
COM\1ISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that -- and that is also your second,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think we varied from our
original motion.
CHAIR\1AN FIALA: No, no. I just wanted to make sure
everybody understands what we're doing.
And Joe, does that meet vour needs?
MR. SCH.ivllTT: Bullet number one, yes, ma'am.
CH/\IR\1AN FIALA: Okay, vcry good. So now we have the
motion as restated on the noor and the second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COI\JIMISSIONER COLETTA: Ave.
.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER lIALAS: Ave.
.
Page 176
Packet Page -686-
4/12/2011 Item B.C.
April 21,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm opposed because I am
very emphatic about the credits of 315,000 until such time as we
empty the granary.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you for telling me why
you are opposed. Would you like to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Everything else I agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- state yours as well?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I already did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER I-JENNING: I know it was a long time ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. I have a short memory,
. too. It's written down someplace.
Okay. So now you're going to take this back --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. Based on that, we've accepted
the report. So the second piece, is it the board's desire for staff to
come back to you? We'll have to schedule a special cycle for these--
this to be treated as a -- during a special GMP cycle, and we'll come
back to you in a formal executive summary with dates proposed for
tha t.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And let me just clarify. Special GMP
cycle does not mean that it goes before anything else? It still goes to
the bottom of the barrel? It's just a special -- like an individual cycle?
MR. SClIMITT: 1']1 make this simple. We're going to try and
do the '07 transmittal, followed by the lmmokalee transmittal,
followed by these GMP amendments transmittal, and then we start the
train again with adoption. So it will be sequential.
I'm going to try and fit that in. We're going to look at the dates,
look at availability, look at your calendar, and all the other things will
be placed on your shoulders. So -- and I could -- LDC hearings, you
still have the sign LDC. You have lots of other things. We just need
to look at all that. And we'll come back to you with a date.
Page 177
_"_'___.m__ Packet Page -687-.