Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/04/2002 W (LDC Amendments re: Public Participation; Future LDC Amendments; Landscaping/Buffering & Architectural/Site Design Standards)October 4, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, October 4, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the, Collier County Land Development Code Workshop in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Commissioner James Coletta Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner James Carter ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Susan Murray, Barbara Cacchione, Don Schneider, Nancy Siemion, Marjorie Student, Jim Mudd, Irene Szmorlkinski COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LDC COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE WORKSHOP AGENDA 9:00 A.M. OCTOBER 4, 2002 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99,22 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 SUBMITFED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL 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 OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED 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 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA Aw The first of Three Fall Workshops to include discussion of Public Participation Regulations; Presentation by Community Character/Smart Growth Committee regarding prioritization of schedule for Future Land Development Code Amendments; Overview of Current Landscaping and Buffering Regulations; Overview of the Architectural and Site Design Standards and Guidelines. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 October 4, 2002 Meeting was called to order by Commissioner Coletta, Chairman, at 9:10 AM. Pledge of Allegiance was recited. This is the fourth Land Development Code workshop - and the first of three for fall. Joe Schmitt stated they will cover four areas: Architectural and Site Design, Landscape Standards, Public Participation Process and Community Character/Smart Growth. Barbara Cacchione - Consultant on behalf of Staff for Community Character/Smart Growth. They have prepared a schedule of Amendments divided into two groups - the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Amendments. They would like a separate cycle of Comp Plan Amendments and Land Development Code Amendments just for the Community Character process. She and the staff agreed this can work. She will work directly with staff, prepare the items, comment, then staff will review it and come back to the Committee stating the cycle in March. She asked the Board if they thought the separate cycle would work. Commissioner Henning would like to add the Rural Fringe, and Rural Village Character Plan into the Land Development Code Amendment. He hopes the Board would support a separate amendment for the Community Development Code. Commissioner Fiala would like to include the Inclusionary Zoning. Barbara felt it would be appropriate. Commissioner Coletta brought up the idea of reinstating a separate Planning Commission for Immokalee. Joe Schmitt cautioned everyone on what to include as it may kill it. Mr. Mudd suggested that any item the Board would like include should be brought through the particular committee the Commissioner has been appointed to. The Board all agreed to have Barbara include both the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments together in one cycle. Don Schneider - Current Planning - Overview of the Public Participation Ordinance 0160 effective October 24, 2001. The purpose is to improve Public Awareness. A handout outlining his presentation was given to everyone. He covered the Required Actions for Land Use Petitions. He explained from the handout and addressed the Rezoning, PUD Amendment or conditional use. He covered Land Use Petitions covering Variance approval or parking exemption approval. Statistics of Public Information meetings conducted to date were given. Numbers of attendees were given for the various public meetings which were from 0 to 24 plus. The average is approx. 10-20 persons. Location of the meetings was also covered. Some of the problems they found were: the Applicant being confused, high cost of newspaper advertisement, duplication of noticing, and difficulty in making arrangements for the October 4, 2002 meeting facility. The Planning Services Dept. felt the redundant noticing is an added expense. Discussion followed on advertising with the newspapers, billboards, and the notification to the public being in a language everyone can understand. Sometimes it is a waste of time and print if no one can understand it. Commissioner Coletta suggested a dedicated telephone line with a recording that can be given to the Public for directions to a meeting or any other pertinent information that is needed. Someone not involved in the Dept. should read the ads first so the public can understand the clarification and body and meaning of the information given. Commissioner Coyle agreed. Staff noted that some of these changes have been made in the past. The size of the ad can possibly be reduced from 1/4th to 1/8th. Joe Schmitt brought up the subject of signs. They need to be professionally made with specific criteria that need to be followed and also a time period for removal from a property. Commissioner Fiala feels that much of the public doesn't understand the system and how it is going to impact them. She's not sure how to resolve the problem, but feels it needs to be addressed. She discussed variances and Public Hearings. When talking about the scheduled Public Hearing in front of the Planning Commission dates should be posted on large signs. Then they need to be changed for the Board Hearing. This is not clear in the Code. Commissioner Henning said public awareness and participation approved last year has been very effective and still need more clarification. Many do not realize what the Zoning classifications are. The most cost effective way to do this is to notify the people that are impacted by the zoning request changes. Notification of information suggested and used is Channel 11, Website, signs, and newspaper ads. A problem of enforcement in signs being taken down was discussed. Commissioner Carter agreed with the different ways of notification and felt the staff should take care of putting the public information in force. Joe Schmitt clarified specifics for advertising and the size of the ads. An example was distributed to the Board and felt it was very adequate. The cost of an ad for one time is $900.00. Commissioner Henning hoped they could find other avenues of notification. Not everyone reads the Naples Daily News. A Variance does not have to have a public meeting so hence no large newspaper ad. A letter is mailed noticing the property owners that there is an application for the Variance and detail. Then when the Public Hearing is scheduled the legal notice goes out and placed in the newspaper by the County. SPEAKERS: Rich Evonivich - He feels this is an excellent process and does require greater public participation. He welcomes the opportunity to speak to as many members of the public as he can. His concern is having the neighborhood meeting before the formal petition is filed. Too many times there can be changes through staff comments and then necessary October 4, 2002 to go back to the public concerning the changes. He would like to see the public meeting happen a month before going to the Planning Commission, then to the Board for final decision. The notice should still go out so they are aware there is an application filed. Commissioner Fiala felt it was important to have the public meeting in advance because many changes can take place because of the meeting. Mr. Evonivich would still like to see the staff's comments and review first and then go to the neighborhood. He doesn't like any disagreements when going to the Planning Commission. Susan Murray stated they have discussed this in the past. One concern she has is having it a month before the Planning Commission because of legal notices going out 15 days before the meeting - if it is a month people only have 2 weeks additional time to understand, contemplate, object or get attorneys involved. She can see Mr. Evonivich's point because things can change under staff review - maybe after the first round of comments have been received by staff, and if no other review has taken place until they had the public information meeting, then amendments could be scheduled at that time. a Commissioner Coletta likes the system the way it is because it does work. Commissioner Carter feels the petition should go to staff first. He then knows that the PUD or project is going to take place in his district. If it is going to be controversial it gives the Commissioner and staff and developer an opportunity to discuss it. It is then brought to the public meeting with answers to questions ready to deal with the issues. It becomes a time line - 60 or 90 days ahead. Some great successes have come out of dealing with an issue this particular way. Then the Planning Commission addresses it along with the opportunity for the petitioner to make changes. Need to keep emotions down. Commissioner Coyle agreed with Commission Carter and elaborated on the subject and would support this process. Joe Schmitt felt this was doable also and used the Wiggins Pass situation as an example. Nancy Patton - Florida Wildlife Federation - She agrees with Mr. Evonivich and feels there is a disconnect between the public meetings and what actually gets before the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. She also feels that the notices in the newspapers are very important and doesn't have any information that says they are not. Before that is changed, data needs to be done to see if it is working or not. She didn't think TV scrolling would be effective. Sandy Barker - She agrees with Rich and Nancy. She also sees a lot of disconnect. When the public comes to a hearing and finds many things have been changed, they get very angry. She thinks revising this area would keep the public more up-to-date on an issue. The public participation program is one of the best things the County Commissioners have done. Dwight Nadeau - Planning Manager for RWA - He also agrees with Mr. Evonivich and Nancy Patton and commends Commissioner Carter for making his recommendation. 4 October 4, 2002 A good consultant always involves a neighborhood and their input. A problem staff has is providing a list of property owners and associations to the applicant. He would suggest how to clarify what the notice list is and where it comes from. Prior to the Planning commission hearing they are required to post the 4x8 signs. (Required to post 4 signs per mile per road frontage) It could be narrowed down to one sign per road mile of frontage and the cost would go down. Commissioner Henning stated any reasonable land planner or applicant would know who they need to contact and the language of requirements. He finds the sign requirement is the most effective, except for being so close to the road; perhaps more onto the property may be more effective. Dwight commented that the ordinance reads the Community Planning Coordinator must provide the names to the applicant. He does know where to go for the names. One of his signs on Davis Blvd must stay up because of a continuance. Break was taken at 10:20 AM Meeting reconvened at 10:35 AM Meeting continued with the presentations. Nancy Siemion - Landscape Architect with Current Services Planning - She presented the Landscape Code per handout. She talked about "What Minimum Code Is" - and told the Commissioners they will see many extremes. The handout and visual slide presentation showed the different buffers. The Type "D" Buffer is anywhere from 10-25 feet wide. The widths are based on the width of the adjacent right-of way but typically around Collier County they will see 10 feet. In commercial, activity centers or intense developments it is 20 feet. The Width is between the back of the sidewalk and the edge of the pavement of the parking area. That is the buffer width - 10-15-20-or 25 feet wide. A typical "A" Buffer is seen along an internal property line. The requirement is 10 feet. A "B" Buffer is something required between two land uses that are not compatible; such as a commercial project and a single family residence adjacent to it. Sometimes a fence is accepted. She proceeded with the presentation of"What Does Minimum Landscaping Code Do?" She showed examples according to the handout. She discussed "Challenges to the Minimum Landscape Code", "What a Minimum Landscape Code Can and Can not do", Nancy summarized her presentation with a quote from Buck Abbey, authority on U.S. Landscape Codes - "A healthy environment is an indicator of a healthy community". She stated Buck always said you know when you cross over into a County that has a good code. You know when you are in Collier County and can be very proud of it. He has used Collier County as an example in some of his articles. Commissioner Henning asked what code says if it becomes vacant. If it is vacant for 90 days or more, they need to bring it up to minimum code requirements. October 4, 2002 He felt many people are looking for opportunities to cut down costs and optimize their property. That reflects back to the consumer if there is more landscaping. He feels that the 90 days is not being adhered to for the standards on the vacant properties perhaps because of work load. Commissioner Coyle wondered if there was anyway they could require compliance retroactively, or is it too complex and too expensive. He used the sign ordinance as an example. Mr. Schmitt stated the sign ordinance requires compliance only if the proprietor of the business is going to change what is displayed on the sign or changes ownership, then it has to apply with the new code. Marjorie Student- Assistant County Attorney stated there is an amortization period where they have a certain amount of time to comply based on the life of the sign because they would be depreciating it on their taxes. In dealing with plant life it may be a different aspect. If non-conforming and vacant for a certain amount of time they have to conform. Commissioner Coyle asked about specifying tree heights in relation to the building height. The City of Naples has done that. When trees are planted close to property lines, what happens when it starts growing into the neighbor's yard? He has received many calls on this issue. Marjorie stated with out doing some research on this she cannot answer the question. She will check on this issue and let Commissioner Coyle know the answer. Commissioner Carter stated that the whole community benefits from the landscaping esthetics, but on the other hand, who is going to pay for it? He asked what staffs recommendation is to the Board of County Commissioners. Nancy felt the 1991 Code is outdated and doesn't address some of the issues before them and the Code needs to be redefined. Joe Schmitt mentioned there is a lot of movement in the public for staff to accept and lower the standards. Immokalee is talking about the cost to meet minimum requirements. Collier County has a wide reputation based on the standards from 10-11 years ago and definitely need redefining, but hope they don't go in the opposite direction, especially when some of the communities are asking them to do so. It was agreed not to compromise the standards. Commissioner Fiala brought up Town Center and wondered if they will have to comply since it has been empty for some time. When updating the Code some of these gaps will be closed. Asked when staffwill have these recommendations Susan said they hired Michael Sawyer to help with changes and will have something possibly next year in the fall to bring back to the Commission. Commissioner Coletta stated the landscaping in the medians and MSTU's are what the local residents agreed to and don't want to lessen the standards. It is a local thing and 6 October 4, 2002 scope of what they want to see in their local neighborhoods. The Golden Gate Estates would like to have these standards upheld and carried forward in future plans. Jim Mudd has received many complaints this year with questions as to "when do they get the landscaping buffer". He would like to see these buffers planted right away, so if it's a buffer between a residence and a commercial property; it has a chance to mature as the project goes forward instead of after the fact. Irene Szmorlkinski - Current Planning (Architectural) Irene will talk about the Architectural Standards in general and how they apply to the whole County. An "Architectural Standards" handbook was handed out and referred to along with the slide presentation. About seven years ago the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to come up with Architectural Standards which would prevent certain types of development. The Ordinance Applies to all Commercial zoning Districts. Non-residential components of PUD districts, Industrial & Non-Residential Buildings on Major Roads, and new projects as well as Additions. It is part of the Land Development Code. She mentioned if persons convince the staff that they are meeting the objection of the Ordinance then they can be approved without meeting 100% of the Standards. She covered the recent revisions of the review process, pre-application meetings, and the exception and appeal process. Susan pointed out to the Board that the thorough Architectural review is handled through the Site Development Plan process not through the PUD rezoning or any type of rezoning. The applicants sometimes show nice pictures for viewing and don't necessarily meet many of the standards. Staff needs to be more diligent when an applicant is requesting variances to standards that they are called out very specifically within a PUD and that staff is providing their recommendation to their request. Many times they are not aware a picture is being shown to the Board, and then before anyone knows it they become part of the record and approved. The staff then has no ability to make a recommendation because they haven't had time to analyze it. Commissioner Fiala stated the staff is knowledgeable and knows the pitfalls in these cases and would encourage them to keep them informed and show them those pitfalls. Irene continued with Section 2.8 - Specific Requirements relating to Building Designs and Site related Standards. Lighting, fences and wall requirements were discussed. She presented slides of different character to particular buildings as per handout. One if the significant changes are: the bright colors being limited to no more than 20% of the facades. She continued with the slides. They are reviewing all revisions, deleting many standards and working with many architects from the community and will finish their work by the end of this year. Some of the problems the staffhas with the standards are that they are not appropriate. They are either unnecessary or can be improved substantially. They will be coming back with specific standards for specific building types. 7 October 4, 2002 SPEAKERS: Mike Carr - White Lake Corp. Park Broker - He handed out a brochure from White Lake Corp. Park. It is an Industrial Park. There arc 45 lots to be built as of yet and is important to the builder and himself that it gets built with high quality world class standards. A photo of a building was given the Commissioners. He has 5 buildings impacted by the standards today. He would like to build 2 more buildings similar in style to thc one he handed out but when going for permits they could not get them. They did not meet the Old Florida architect. He was told that it would cost in excess of $100,000 to meet the new style of architect and he thinks this is a mistake and they just want to build a good industrial park. Marjorie stated that this is a subject of an appeal that will be coming to the Board and she didn't think it would be proper for the Board to engage in any dialogue regarding this subject. Joe Schmitt mentioned that the appeal deals with the landscaping issue and they have not talked about the activity center. Their advice to the developer is that the standards certainly do allow for deviations. Different varieties of roof styles were discussed. Commissioner Coyle hoped the flat roofs were not being allowed. Joe McHarris - McHarris Planning & Design - Six years ago he was one of the authors of the document. He noted staff has done a wonderful job making the standards some of the best in the world. Six years ago when the documents were developed during the first year they excluded industrial properties from the document. They were not in the public realm and function in a different manner in which industrial parks do. They were focusing on Community Character image. After the first year they had more information and adjusted accordingly. There are many industrial properties that face on public streets. This was a problem. They then tried to write language for a particular situation. In the case of the White Lakes Industrial Park is things are written and then don't exactly apply to that particular situation. White Park is off the highway This could be a situation that needs to be looked at again. The intention was never to make an Industrial Park look like a Commercial Park because of the different functions. To keep consistency and increase the look of the community and developing the different styles, it was to let the style create itself and have a variety of styles that would add to the mix of the community. He discussed various styles of roofs. Dwight Nadeau - Planning Mgr. RWA - He is representing White Lake Corp. Park and in listening to previous speakers finds some disparity in the Zoning Overlay of what the intent of what the Interchange Master Plan was when adopted in 2000. The EDC is having difficulty bringing businesses into the Activity Center #9 because of the inconsistency of the Code. The economic growth may not be in that particular area that is wanted. He would encourage the Board to direct staff to work with the owners within the interchange master plan area and look at the architectural standards for that area again. October 4, 2002 It was decided the remainder of the Workshop will be held on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 in the afternoon during the communication portion of the Board of County Commissions Meeting, if time allows. There being no other business before them, no speakers, and no closing comments the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL J~S N. COLETTA, Ci~AIRMAN % .C~~mut~e'approved by the Bo~d on / as present~a' ~'-or as co~ected