Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/08/2002 SMay 8, 2002 Collier County Planning Commission County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3rd Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 MINUTES May 8, 2002 5:05 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER by Kenneth Abemathy ROLL CALL by Kenneth Abemathy ATTENDANCE: County Planning Commission: Frank Fry, Paul Midney, Lindy Adelstein, Kenneth L. Abernathy, Lora Jean Young, Dwight Richardson, David J. Wolfley, and Mark Strain. Russell A. Budd absent. Staff: Susan Murray, Barbara Burgeson, Patrick White, Marjorie Student, Marleen Foord, Tom Widdes, Stan Chrzanowski, Ray Smith, Paul Mattausch, and Joe Schmitt. Next meeting May 16, 2002 Discussion regarding the meeting for the Rural Lands is set for Friday, May 24 @ 8:30 AM. EAC is on May 22 ~ 5:00 PM. Susan Murray, Interim Director of the Planning Services Department this is the second and final hearing in front of the Planning Commission. You will be voting on a recommendation to the BCC whether to approve, disapprove, or approve what conditions. We usually work from your summary sheet. We can work from the sheet and then if you have something to add we can do that. There is also an additional amendment proposed on tonight that is not on your sununary sheet. Kenneth Abernathy: We will note the items someone wants to vote against and then we will have an all encompassing motion to vote for them at the end. Marjorie Student had no problem with that. This was a short discussion about the PUD Sunsetting provision. There needs to be 2 weeks between the readings. Advertising requirements need to be met. The second meeting can be before 5:05 PM. There was more discussion about the voting and Kenneth Abemathy clarified that we won't vote unless someone wants to vote no. Susan Murray started with Page 1 Prohibited Uses and Structures, Section 2.1.15, to clarify terminology just to be consistent Commercial Professional and General Office District. Susan struck out district in handwritten Page 2 in 2.2.12. Section 2.2.12.1 - 2.2.15 ½.1 there were grammatical changes. There was a question about 2-story height limit. Staff would like to take a more comprehensive overview of this. Mark Strain: Will 90 days stand up on this? Susan Murray: They decided 6 months would be more reasonable. Section 2.2.15.2.2, Page 28 Industrial Automotive Sales, there were no comments or recommendations by this board. Page 1 May 8, 2002 Section 2.2.20.2.1, Page 30, PUD document, there were no comments or recommendations by this board. Section 2.2.21.5.1, Page 31, Landscaping in Goodlette Frank Rd., Corridor Management Overlay, there were no comments or recommendations by this board. Section 2.2.24.8, Page 32, Special Treatment Permits, there was some discussion on this. Mark Strain discussed the tower being a non-essential service; I don't know that we should be giving them the benefit of this particular clause of the LDC. Stephen Lindberger, Planning Services Department, I remember that you had a concern the authorization criteria in whether you should allow the five acres. Mark Strain felt that if they went in as essential services they should ha~e more flexibility than a private tower. My concern is that does it have to apply to all the towers or can we specify just governmental towers? Marjorie Student, County Attorney, responded that the idea is to look at the structure. She had a concern treating something differently because it might be operated by the government versus private enterprise. Section 2.2.6 and 2.2.7, Page 34, Residential multiple-family setbacks, there were no comments or recommendations by this board. Section 2.2.28, Page 36, Immokalee Murals, there were no comments or recommendations by this board. Paul Midney commented that the murals have to be submitted and approved by the mural review committee. Is that something new? Marlene Ford, Planning Services Department, commented that there would be a committee created by the BCC. Paul Midney wanted to know who would make up the committee. Marlene Ford said that it would be residents and businesses within the Immokalee area. They would be appointed by the BCC. Section 2.2.28.5.3, Page 38, Farm Market Overlay, this board recommended conditional use as opposed to the overlay. Lindy Adelstein made the motion to accept as an overlay and Lora Jean Young seconded it. There was a unanimous vote to accept. Section 2.2.30.1 and 2.2.31.1, Page 39, Final Order Moratorium, Marjorie Student, County Attorney, gave a handout with an amendment. Mr. Abernathy has some questions about rural lands and eastern front. Ms. Student provided individual maps. She pointed out specific points on the map. She felt this map would help. Section 2.3.5, Automobile parking in conjunction with residential structures, no comments. Susan Murray had some comments from code enforcement department. She had a few questions about what they clarified, so what you see tonight might be a little different than what goes to the BCC. Joe Schmitt said that there was a question about maximum and minimum. The language was meant to say for lots 50 feet and less you could still have a 20 -foot driveway. There is different language for two-family dwelling units. Joe Schmitt mentioned that the language needs to be changed so that it can be enforced. Mark Strain said that the 90-day language was on page 43. Susan said that it ~vas actually adopted with the original and was accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. Page 44 Section 2.4.4.11.8 No comments. Page 56 Section 2.6.9.1 and 2.6.9.2 Municipal Wells and Parks. Susan gave them a handout. The handout was reorganized to read easier than the packet. The highlights are in red. The direction the last time was to simplify the language and address only what was pertinent. Stan Chrzanowski with Development Services Department said that the last time the concern was that the populace of Collier County won't have sufficient opportunity to present any objections to the state agencies that will be reviewing these projects so you asked staff come back with a method to make sure that it did happen. You had questions about noise and landscaping. Kenneth Abernathy said that it was not precisely his objection, but that the public will not be able to address that state agency or the federal agency, all of which are bureaucrats and administrators, and they won't be able to address anybody who is elected in Collier County or their representatives. That's what a conditional use is all about. Tom Widdes, Public Utilities Administrative, we are asking for exemption from all Conditional Use process for all essential service wells. We discussed in the last meeting that this goes through an extensive review to the Southwest Florida Water District. It is Page 2 May 8, 2002 approximately and 18 month process, there are three reviews that information is mailed to potential interested parties which would be the folks in the community. We have also added language to the document that notes that county staff will be responsible for communicating to the neighbors in the area with signage and in letterform to make sure that they are included in the process. The sampling and testing that is to be done Southwest Florida Water District to protect the human interest is extensive. We have gone back and researched our records to see if we have had any outstanding complaints concerning the wells that we have put in the ground and we have found none. The landscaping issue was addressed two weeks ago. We have pictures that will give you a visual of how the wells look. The issue of noise we are in compliance with the noise ordinance and we are not exempt from the noise ordinance. We have to be in compliance and we have readings on decibel ratings of all these wells. We have done as much as we possibly can to insulate the county citizens from the process of installing additional wells. We still adamantly feel that going through the process of Conditional Use is something that has been done through the Southwest Florida Water District. In order to get a building permit to put these wells in place, we have to go through a site development review process. We have to prove that these wells are in compliance with all county ordinances, so again we would implore you to understand that what we are asking is in fact a exemption from going back through this process again. I'd be more than willing to share these pictures with you and we could also speak to the decibel levels on those issues and conditions. Dwight Richardson asked if the landscaping criteria included in the Land Development Code for these specific items or are they just covered generally because of the type of coverage that it is? Do we a section just for wells? Susan answered no, they would be governed by the landscaping section based on the matrix that calls out the zoning districts types of landscape buffers to be implied between zoning districts. Dwight Richardson: It would be your intent to meet the minimum requirement that those codes call for, but not anything greater than that? Tom Widdes: Not necessarily greater than that. Dwight Richardson: Not necessarily or not? Tom Widdes: If we met and we had an issue and we had to do more we would. Dwight Richardson: I think that is the point. Tom Widdes: I believe also that this would come before the county commissioners are this would be implemented. We have to get approval for the spending of these wells. Lindy Adelstein pointed out a typographical error on the first paragraph, fourth line from the bottom it says which is hers or hers should be his or hers. Tom Widdes said they would correct that. Kenneth Abemathy: Why is the county staff so intent on excusing itself from the Conditional Use process? It's just another hoop to jump through. Tom Widdes agreed and said it's another time consuming process which is costing the county great fares from the staff time, your time, and there is also a cost from inspections, consultants to be on staff. I would say to you it is a cost that is not necessary. Given the opportunity for the community to object at through the process at three different times and then the fact that whatever we do to these wells would have to be approved by the commission to make those expenditures. There are actually four different times during the process and we have stepped forward and said that we will give notification to the folks. Dwight Richardson asked if they were notified where do they go? They've got to go to an agency outside of the county? Tom Widdes: They have a couple of alternatives 1) letter form 2) a site outside of the county and 3) in the commission chambers. Kenneth Abernathy: At a budget hearing? Tom Widdes: Literally when we go to the board with an Executive Summary to actually ask to have the wells approved for expenditure. Joe Schmitt: The original intent when we started this was the Conditional Use process for deep wells was for all intent and purposes an exercise in futility meaning we were going through an exercise that really did nothing because the conditional use was originally to validate whether there was an impact on other wells in the area, but these wells were at such depth that it was deemed never to impact other areas or adjoining wells. We have now focused not to the wells, but the above ground structures and that was where we got the focus at the last meeting when we began to talk about the noise and the pump houses and those kinds of issues. We are now dealing with the structures and not the wells, but this originally started with the intent of trying to eliminate what was a process that was simply a waste of taxpayer's money to validate whether or not the wells would have an impact on adjoining wells when in fact they never do because of the depths. Kenneth Abemathy: But then you included wells that jolly well might have an impact on neighbors. Tom Widdes: Yes, we did. Joe Schmitt: We get into an issue where this is a public health and safety issue for potable water and now were back to not in my backyard, so it puts before you whether or not the wells should be where its deemed from an engineering standpoint the best place to draw water and now were putting the decision in the political process of I don't want this well in my backyard. Once the well is dug and the pumps are put in place and facilities in place it's an obscure structure that will be landscaped and buffered. Kenneth Abemathy: Joe, were not putting this into the public domain for the first time it's been there for ten years and it hasn't been adhered to. Tom Widdes: I Page 3 May 8, 2002 would go one step further, it wasn't ten years ago when in fact most of our wells were in the ground and if you would bear with me and let me know what these well sites look like, I would like to try to convince you folks that these are not unsightly, noisy areas to begin with. I think if you would at least see that it may have some impact on the way you see these. In terms of even putting these in my backyard so to speak, I would step back and look at where these are sitting. The pictures I have chosen are not the best wells, but the typical situation of these wells. The first one you see is a well with a head that is slightly above ground encased in cement. The pump is below ground from a noise level. As you look at the surrounding area, you are not in someone's backyard. Tom Widdes showed various pictures of wells with similar situations. The next one in question was one where the well was in front ora home. David Wolfley: May I ask, what came first the chicken or the egg? Paul Matash, Director of Water, I can't answer that either. Dwight Richardson: In terms of acquiring the property, is this an eminent domain kind of thing? Tom Widdes: It is an easement situation. Paul Matash: This well has not been a problem with this homeowner. This is one of the first wells in the well field. Tom Widdes: We can't do this today without going to site development. Let me show you one that you might argue is in one of the neighborhood areas. Kenneth Abernathy: Paul, how long have you been in the water business with the county? Paul Matash: Four years. Kenneth Abernathy: I understand that at some point some years ago the Collier County's Attorneys office rendered an opinion that the county was subjected to the provisions of conditional use for wells. Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager, Stan came to me in February and said we have a problem; we don't have any wells that I know of that have conditional use. He made me a~vare of the conditional use statutes in the Land Development Code. I didn't know we had to go there. We went back and asked utilities at the time, did they know about the statute. We went back and did the research. Since 1992, no well has had a conditional use permit. We cannot find a conditional use permit on any well that we have. We are in the process of putting additional wells in and that's where Stan ran across the process in February. I brought the team together and we talked about the permitting process, let's talk about the conditional use process, and let's take a look at what's been done in the past, what the land development code asked for as far as public comment is concerned and see if we haven't already gone there through the permit process. We've gone through public comment period, we've gone before the board of county commissioners, not once, but at least twice to three times. I asked Tom Widdes to go back before this meeting and find out if we have any logs or complaints from any wells that exist out there. We have no registered complaints on wells that we have that our out there in that process. I asked the staffto develop an amendment to the Land Development Code. I asked the staff, "Are the state agencies more rigorous that we are?" In every case the state agencies require more public forum. I also asked the staff, Have we ever turned down a neighborhood requirement if they ask us to go out and landscape a well, landscape a plant, reduce noise level? Right now were spending almost $1million at the North Water Plant to reduce that noise levels because we have had a couple of complaints from neighbors across the street back in the woods. We've done some noise readings on that process and we found out that the crickets make more noise than the plant does. When you get close to the plant the readings are on the boundaries of the noise ordinance and we chose to go in and do the best thing for the neighborhood. We have a good neighbor policy on everything we do with utilities in Collier County. Marjorie Student: I would like to put something on record. The conditional use process is governed by criteria in the land code, it's not that if people come out and they don't like it, that it's not going to be granted because the board is governed by the criteria in the land code. I don't believe that I've heard anything here tonight to suggest the well would even trip one of those criteria to serve as a grounds for denial because the things down in the ground. Mr. Mudd just explained that the noise levels down where it is quieter than crickets and it doesn't trip our noise ordinance so I don't think I've heard anything that would even suggest that any of those criteria would be tripped and then it becomes putting it through a process just to go through a process. Tom Widdes: I would like to tie this all together. I've been here through this whole thing. Jim Mudd mentioned Calusa Bay. When Calusa Bay happened I was told by Tom Cook to make sure that we didn't have that problem with any other well in Collier County. So Kevin Duggan and I went out to check all the wells and look at them. Joe Schmitt: The issue on this as Mr. Mudd pointed out is the exercise we go through in most regulatory agencies and most notably, Southwest Florida Water Management District, but the conditional use was deemed to be an unnecessary process. Kenneth Abernathy: When you put in a well do you establish a well field protection zone around it? Is that the way it works? Ray Smith: There are four well field protection zones, a one year, two year, five year, and a twenty year. It extends out a quarter of a mile or a half-mile. Dwight Richardson: And those years refer to storm events? Ray Smith: Hydrology, geology. Kenneth Abernathy: So if you go in and put a well in somewhere and you get an easement from property owner A to do it and you send him notice and Page 4 May 8, 2002 you people within 300 feet notice then there's still a guy whose a quarter of a mile away whose unfettered use of his property is impacted by this protection zone, isn't it? Ray Smith: There is a variance process regarding the land use. If a property owner is outside the 300 feet from that wellhead and they fall in the protection zone, there is a process where they can go to the board and request variance from that property use restriction. Dwight Richardson: But the fact that it is a variance means that it could be turned down. Ray Smith: Yes. Kenneth Abemathy: And that's an expense to the property owner. Ray Smith: I believe there are processes in which the landowner has property rights. Paul Midney: Aren't these well fields on land that's purchased by the water authority? I know in Immokalee, it's all land that is owned by the Immokalee and Water Sewer District. Tom Widdes: These wells can in fact be on easements of privately owned property. If we own the property that's where we go first, but we usually follow the straight line from where the existing levels are. Paul Midney: I would think that you would prefer to have land that you own so that you would be able to drill and service and do repairs so that you wouldn't have to worry about the neighbors. Tom Widdes: Absolutely, the only thing we like to do is keep them in a line and a maintenance area. Paul Midney commented that the electric pumps are quiet as per his experience. Tom Widdes said that they are 60 feet below ground. Frank Fry: How do these agencies review The aesthetics concerning landscaping, buildings, the noise, the approach, if maintenance trucks have to get in there, whose looking at that and how is that process? Tom Widdes: As far as the South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection they do not look at the aesthetics to answer your question. That is the internal county responsibility done either through and if you include noise that is part of the noise ordinance which the county code enforcement is responsible for. Landscaping is part of the site development process as we go for a building permit to put these wells in place. Dwight Richardson: If your getting easements on property your not going to be putting landscaping on someone else's property, you're just getting an easement for the structure. Is that correct? Tom Widdes: You are getting easement for the structure, but I would think that if a property owner does not want landscaping? I would be hard pressed to think that a homeowner would not want landscaping. Dwight Richardson: If there is no one impacted residentially around then you won't go through the bother of asking for any landscaping. Tom Widdes: We will do whatever the site development plan review process requires us to do. Dwight Richardson: I thought I asked that question earlier and I thought I heard them say they followed the Land Development Code as it relates to structures. Joe Widdes: We are willing to landscape if we are asked. An example is landscaping of a well house in front of the Vanderbilt Country Club. Dwight Richardson: Does the site development plan process require landscaping to occur? Susan Murray: Yes, it does. Some of the wells you see may have been before some of the requirements of the code. You may also see wells that are buffered with native vegetation and where there is native vegetation that serves as a substantial buffer the code will allow you to substitute some of the native plant vegetation. Joe Widdes: We respond to the peoples request for aesthetic problems. We are willing to embellish the landscaping. Frank Fry: When you talk about these structures, it seems to be that people need these but not in their backyard. I don't see what a big problem this is, you say that you have to go through this whole process for these other agencies, what is the problem and big time saving process by going through the process as stated? Tom Widdes: From your prior experience, we have the same difficulties, if you can't get the easement, I can't put the well there, so that means the homeowner has to agree that that is an acceptable situation. There is also compensation. In terms of trying to go through the process, we don't want to go through a conditional use process if there's any chance that South Florida Water Management District is going to turn us down. If we brought it before Conditional Use we would be asked what did South Florida Water Management District say? That will be productivity and that is cost. Lora Jean Young: What do you suppose the cost of that might be. Tom Widdes: To go through a Conditional Use process that can run anywhere from $2,000 up to $10,000 to $15,000 of outside consultants in addition to county staff time. Mark Strain: Are there any public speakers on this issue? Susan Murray: No, public speakers. Mark Strain: I've done a lot of research on this the past couple of weeks; all of my concerns were resolved by staff at various levels. The wells are needed. They are essential services. They are better neighbors than some of the neighbors that play their music too loud. The amendments before us are providing adequate notice. They are voluntarily doing it on a permit level and they have testified that there have been no complaints and with that I am ready to make a motion. Dwight Richardson: On an easy part of this Stan unrelated to the water, you've got the neighborhood parks as permitted uses. Susan Murray: Parks and Recreation could declare it a park. (In reference to the lots in Naples Park). This amendment will allow neighborhood parks as permitted uses in residential uses. Kenneth Abernathy: The county has never tried to live within the Conditional Use process on these wells. They want to be exempt from something they've Page 5 May 8, 2002 never tried. Mark Strain: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we could do any better than South Florida Water Management District does. We could ask questions, but we would not be able to analyze as well as they do. Mark Strain made a motion we approve the LDC Amendments as submitted here tonight. David Wolfley seconded the motion. All in favor: 6. All opposed: 2. Susan asked that we move on to the Coastal Construction Setback Line item Section 3.13.8, Page 54 because of having speakers. The last comments were that you asked staff to address the relevance of the second part of the amendment in variance section of the code as well as possibility with language in the PUD maybe being contradictory to the language proposed. In response to your questions, staff went back and looked at the Lely and Pelican Bay PUD's and also various provisions of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. It appears that both Lely and Pelican Bay PUD's could allow what the proposed LDC amendment is proposing to allow. They don't specifically prohibit it. I'm specifically talking about the second half of this amendment. That has to do with the encroachment beyond the CCSL line. The first part of the amendment deals with dune walkovers. I'm not discussing that at this time. With reference to the second half of this amendment, staff did find various sections that may be conflicting with the language proposed to you at the last meeting. There are some consistency problems with policies in the Growth Management Plan. Specifically in the conservation and coastal management development. We are somewhat uncomfortable with bringing the second half of the amendment to you. We would be recommending at this time the first half of the amendment with the dune walkovers and recommending that we not bring forth the second half as was the recommendation of the EAC and the SAC as well. Kenneth Abernathy asked if up to 3.13.8.3 is OK? Patrick White: Yes, everything from 3.13.8.3 and down is excluded. Dwight Richardson: Does that mean this is dead? Patrick White: We are concluding that this is inconsistent, so dead might be the operative. Dwight Richardson: So we would have to have a Growth Management change in order to facilitate that? Patrick White: The way this is written, I'm not sure how. Public Speaker Shannon Cromwell with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I was going to speak for the Conservancy that we were going to oppose the language, but if it is going to be stricken I don't need to speak. Public Speaker Ted Rojan, a resident of Naples. I'm delighted to hear the decision. I would like to be on record as saying that the Florida beaches are a resource and a real treasure not only for the Florida residents but also for tourist and they should be protected for the public. The also provide areas for wildlife and Florida fauna. These areas should not be taken for the benefit of a few people. Another issue that concerned me, a key administrator took action on his own to approve a lawn seaward by the Strand beyond the Ritz Carlton. For the record, it might be good if the commission go on record as saying that that action was inappropriate and incorrect and nothing beyond the coastal construction setback line should go ahead without the approval of the EAC, DSAC, and the approval of the staff of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division. That is my sole recommendation for tonight. Dwight Richardson: Is there a variance procedure that would allow someone to violate the CCSL? Susan: In this case there is when you are talking about substituting non-native plants for native plants, etc. No. The variance process pertains to dimensional regulations. Dwight Richardson: How this is related to property lines or is this related at all? Susan: I'm calling Barbara Beguson up to speak to that. Barbara Buguson, Planning Services: The CCSL line was set back in 1974 by the state and Collier County. That line does not change, but when someone comes in for a variance to go beyond that line even that does not change that line. They are asking to build beyond that line but the line remains the same. Susan: I think your question was can private property lines go beyond the CCSL line. Barbara: Yes they can. Dwight Richardson: So the BCC has permitted buildings beyond the CCSL? They can build right down to the water. Barbara: The way the code is written it allows similar adjacent structures to set that line. In cases where you may have an older structure next to the requested extension, we look at where the mean line is of the more recent constructed homes or condominiums. Kenneth Abernathy: We don't have enough information to pursue the issue that this gentleman has brought to our attention tonight. Frank Fry: a speaker at the last meeting said he was having trouble because of maintenance, not being able to get around to the back of the building in case they had maintenance. Susan: What would be the pleasure of the commission, Mr. Chairman? Kenneth Abernathy: It is fme with the removal of the second section. Susan: We left off with Page 45 Alligator Alley Communication Towers. The last meeting you had not comments. Page 6 May 8, 2002 Susan: Page 46, Section 2.7.2.3.4 of the Collier County Planning Commission. There is a handout on this. At your last meeting you indicated that you preferred to have two meetings. Susan went back and restructured an alternative amendment, which would still require on advertised on public hearing unless directed otherwise. Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney, the intention for regular cycle LDC that the board would go ahead and say yes to. It would only be where there one be a special cycle. These are the minimum requirements. David Wolfley, Lindy Adelstein, and Mark Strain questioned the language in the new packet as opposed to the old. Patrick White said that they are looking for flexibility and something that is fair to all. Marjorie Student said the state statute sets procedures of notice requirements. Motion by Kenneth Abernathy that the change is to two advertised hearings unless the BCC directs that there be just one. All seconded the motion. Section 2.8.3.4.1 and 2.8.3.4.2, Page 48, Pedestrian Access Standards. No Comments. Section 3.2.8.3.4, Page 49, Landscape Buffer Areas. No Comments. Section 3.2.8.4.8, Page 51, Fire Hydrants. No Comments. Section 3.3.7.1.10(4), Page 53, Right of Way Permits. No comments. Voting on all amendment except municipal wells and parks. Majority founded with LDC amendment, 2.7.3.4 dealing with hearings Motion by Mark Strain to approve the LDC amendments to Erada.two meeting language change discussed earlier, and CCSL permit issue, but not the last four items, and Farm Market Overlay only to conditional use for petroleum. Lora Jean Young seconded the motion. Unanimous approval. Handout Section 2.7.3.4 LDC is the first to see this. This is about PUD Sunsetting. Three option to be provided to the board 1) PUD be able to extend the PUD approval for a maximum of two years, 2) Rezone unused portions of PUD 3) No option for extension Marjorie Student commented that there is a use it or lose it provision. Meeting Adjourned - Time 6:30 p.m. Page 7